2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on September 23, 2022, 09:10:57 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC7cVrDXtA8
Trump stated that a president can declassify things just by thinking about it.
Starts at about the 13 minute mark.
-
Is he wrong?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Is he wrong?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
No.
:thumbsup:
-
exaggeration but...
-
Good thing they can’t charge him with inciting a riot or sexual assault based on what he was thinking. :rofl:
And Biden is lucky, he never has to worry about what he’s thinking as President. Ice Cream maybe. :shake:
-
^^^not a lawyer...nor a safe shooter
-
And Biden is lucky, he never has to worry about what he’s thinking as President. Ice Cream maybe. :shake:
Biden doesn’t have a f’ing brain to think about anything…..pure dolt…..
-
Biden doesn’t have a f’ing brain to think about anything…..pure dolt…..
:crazy:
:thumbsup: Caught the joke. :shaka:
-
Is he wrong?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I think so.
Since I have never had a top secret security clearance and have not handled classified materials I don't personally know the answer to this so I actually spoke to a number of people who have had such security clearances and according to them it is definitely wrong. They described a whole process for declassifying materials and nothing was remotely close to telepathically declassifying materials or declassification with the wave of a hand.
Plus if you think it through having something like this would be a clear avenue to abuse. A former president could do whatever they want with classified materials and if caught just claim afterwards it was declassified prior because they thought to themselves so.
-
Biden doesn’t have a f’ing brain to think about anything…..pure dolt…..
He is still 10x smarter than Kamala....
-
I think so.
Since I have never had a top secret security clearance and have not handled classified materials I don't personally know the answer to this so I actually spoke to a number of people who have had such security clearances and according to them it is definitely wrong. They described a whole process for declassifying materials and nothing was remotely close to telepathically declassifying materials or declassification with the wave of a hand.
Plus if you think it through having something like this would be a clear avenue to abuse. A former president could do whatever they want with classified materials and if caught just claim afterwards it was declassified prior because they thought to themselves so.
The people u spoke to have the same clearance as former presidents? Or u friends with Barry and asked him the SOP for retired presidents?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The people u spoke to have the same clearance as former presidents? Or u friends with Barry and asked him the SOP for retired presidents?
Depending on the classification level and programs involved, some documents are marked with a classification when produced, but can be downgraded AUTOMATICALLY with no complicated process involved.
The producer of the information decides if it's classified based on guides and documents that say so. Most documents I worked with say "Declassify by OADR", meaning the Originating Agency's Determination is Required." If the docs in question had that, then there needed to be a review for the info to be declassified.
However, if classified information needs to be given to someone without US clearance, such as a foreign military officer or political leader, the president can absolutely order that the information be provided and possibly downgraded. He can either authorize "disclosure", meaning the party can have access to the info -- like viewing a video of touring a facility; or, he can authorize dissemination of the information, in which case copies of documents, software, etc. can be given to the party.
Even Top Secret docs can be classified for reasons that are now OBE, and the former President still, as the OADR, has the authority to downgrade it.
If we are talking about missile launch codes and names of CIA agents in the field, the that's a bigger issue than declassifying something that were simply classified working papers.
The government has a habit of over-classifying most of what is classified, and failing to declassify when it's time to do so.
I'd like to see the specifics on what was deemed classified, and whether or not it was really a threat to national security by storing it in his home. If it was printed off a computer, by default it's labeled with a classification or special handling on each page until someone gets time to review it and possibly downgrade it. I had a ton of listings stamped with a security banner top/bottom-front/back of every page, The info they contained was actually unclassified, but the default markings were "SECRET" until two people in my office signed the front downgrading it.
We found it was more efficient time-wise and cost-wise to put them all in burn bags for classified destruction than having to go through literally tens of thousands of pages and mark out the headers.
-
Some reality.
Non-cleared civilians seem to have a grandiose view of classified material, how it got that way, what it was, and why it was classified.
I have handled classified stuff in the past that was so specialized only a very few would even know what it was.
-
The people u spoke to have the same clearance as former presidents? Or u friends with Barry and asked him the SOP for retired presidents?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Nope but these people I spoke to definitely had the insight necessary to help me digest this story. But maybe they are wrong, perhaps there is some law, policy, or procedure which allows the president to declassify things simply be thinking it. I'll gladly reconsider my position if someone can produce it.
Part of all of this is going to depend on what information it was. I have also heard that things are often marked classified when they don't really need to be so it could be that the documents he had are ones that shouldn't have been classified in the first place. We also need to wait for the official report because maybe some of the documents were declassified or in the process but the markings weren't updated, who knows, lots of nuance here.
But if the documents were still classified and he knowingly took them home (as opposed to some aid doing it without his knowledge) then I think he should be charged with the appropriate crime. It is my understanding that if I were a military member and accidentally brought home a classified document I would be facing significant jail time.
-
Nope but these people I spoke to definitely had the insight necessary to help me digest this story. But maybe they are wrong, perhaps there is some law, policy, or procedure which allows the president to declassify things simply be thinking it. I'll gladly reconsider my position if someone can produce it.
So you're choosing to not play whataboutism like how you normally do. Instead you're making a position.
I play whataboutism if logic dictates it. Here is why I haven't for this situation. The media has lied over and over about how they "got Trump" since 2015. This is just another nothing burger. Then if stuff was so classified, why take a pic and white out the words on classified documents? Is there zero technology that can undo this? Why are they even taking the risk?
Compare this to my whataboutism regarding Biden and the dead Jackie. Logic without doing an extensive google search would assume he didn't know since he comes into contact with thousands of people every week. But then Flapp posted the link of him acknowledging the death. So my initial logic was incorrect.
-
SNIP
But if the documents were still classified and he knowingly took them home (as opposed to some aid doing it without his knowledge) then I think he should be charged with the appropriate crime. It is my understanding that if I were a military member and accidentally brought home a classified document I would be facing significant jail time.
For removal/retention? You can be facing jail time. . . Disclosure/release is different.
As robtmc said, lots of "mystery" of classified documents. There are also many who consider anything "sensitive" as classified. They are very different. Plus, FOUO, CUI, OPSEC rules and "guidance" change all the time. But eh, Hillary can do, then. . . allegedly. . .
-
CUI HUI... :rofl: :rofl:
-
For removal/retention? You can be facing jail time. . . Disclosure/release is different.
As robtmc said, lots of "mystery" of classified documents. There are also many who consider anything "sensitive" as classified. They are very different. Plus, FOUO, CUI, OPSEC rules and "guidance" change all the time. But eh, Hillary can do, then. . . allegedly. . .
In addition to all of that is whether taken in full context, did the document or partial document actually contain classified info?
Most classified documents, especially those at higher classification levels, are supposed to be "portion marked." Each paragraph needs a classification, so the reader knows if this part is (S), that part is (TS/SCI) and the next part is (U). The DOCUMENT, however, gets marked at the highest level contained in it, so the mention of a one-word phrase that is (TS) can cause a 100 page document to be marked TS, even though 99.99999% of the material is not TS.
What I'm getting at is, when the FBI/Media/Biden WH report that Trump had "TS Documents", you have to ask yourself how much of that was actually TS which would pose a national security threat? A code word or GPS coordinate could be all it contained that's highly sensitive.
And as you pointed out, there's a broad line between violating an administrative rule (place to store, inappropriate markings, etc) and disclosure. Once a document is discovered unprotected, an assessment is done first to determine if the document was potentially compromised. If it may have been, then next they determine the level of damage that disclosure might cause. Third is to make a list of mitigating actions to ensure the information, if misused, can do little or no damage.
Without an actual compromise of the classified material, it's an administrative SNAFU. Not a crime -- just a reprimand. If it happens often, then maybe loss of one's clearance. But that falls way short of criminal charges no matter what you think the law says.
-
So you're choosing to not play whataboutism like how you normally do. Instead you're making a position.
I play whataboutism if logic dictates it. Here is why I haven't for this situation. The media has lied over and over about how they "got Trump" since 2015. This is just another nothing burger. Then if stuff was so classified, why take a pic and white out the words on classified documents? Is there zero technology that can undo this? Why are they even taking the risk?
Compare this to my whataboutism regarding Biden and the dead Jackie. Logic without doing an extensive google search would assume he didn't know since he comes into contact with thousands of people every week. But then Flapp posted the link of him acknowledging the death. So my initial logic was incorrect.
You still aren't using the term whataboutism correctly but that aside, yes I am making a position. I learned enough to justify taking a solid stance.
As to taking a picture and then whiting out words on the documents I don't know the specifics of how the words were whited out but I have done enough photo editing to know it is quite easy to do without being reversible.
As to why? I would guess that if they didn't release the photos then Trump and his supporters would claim lack of photos meant Trump was being framed. Given the polarizing and high profile nature of this investigation I agree with the decision to release a redacted photo over releasing nothing.
-
For removal/retention? You can be facing jail time. . . Disclosure/release is different.
As robtmc said, lots of "mystery" of classified documents. There are also many who consider anything "sensitive" as classified. They are very different. Plus, FOUO, CUI, OPSEC rules and "guidance" change all the time. But eh, Hillary can do, then. . . allegedly. . .
Hillary's situation was a little bit different if I understand correctly and while definitely unethical not technically illegal on her part, but thats another conversation.
I think that even if classified documents were in Trump's possession it might be difficult to prove a criminal case. Given that he probably didn't do all the packing and moving himself there is a large window of doubt as to whether he took them or someone else placed them in a box destined for his house. Classified documents are also supposed to have a sort of custody log if I understand correctly so that would need to be investigated too.
-
Hillary's situation was a little bit different if I understand correctly and while definitely unethical not technically illegal on her part, but thats another conversation.
I think that even if classified documents were in Trump's possession it might be difficult to prove a criminal case. Given that he probably didn't do all the packing and moving himself there is a large window of doubt as to whether he took them or someone else placed them in a box destined for his house. Classified documents are also supposed to have a sort of custody log if I understand correctly so that would need to be investigated too.
No. Hillary's situation was completely different. In her case, she did not have declassification authority nor were the documents in question declassified. She stored classified documents outside of a classified facility. The problem was she deleted them before the investigation completed.
-
No. Hillary's situation was completely different. In her case, she did not have declassification authority nor were the documents in question declassified. She stored classified documents outside of a classified facility. The problem was she deleted them before the investigation completed.
She had emails with classified information on her servers but there were a couple of key factors.
#1. She was the recipient of those emails, not the sender.
#2. The emails containing the classified information were not marked declassified so it becomes difficult to impossible to prove she could have known it was classified.
-
You still aren't using the term whataboutism correctly but that aside, yes I am making a position. I learned enough to justify taking a solid stance.
As to taking a picture and then whiting out words on the documents I don't know the specifics of how the words were whited out but I have done enough photo editing to know it is quite easy to do without being reversible.
As to why? I would guess that if they didn't release the photos then Trump and his supporters would claim lack of photos meant Trump was being framed. Given the polarizing and high profile nature of this investigation I agree with the decision to release a redacted photo over releasing nothing.
What if your source for info is anti trump?
Is your source a DOD high level, at the top type of employee who might know the SOP or a level lower than i just mentioned.
Is your source an attorney who has represented any former potus so they have XP in the matter and thus spend hundreda of billable hours doing research.
What if the FBI is planting docs since everyone was kicked out of the room.
What if they were all declassified since Trump wasnt allowed to prove himself yet.
What if the 4th amdendment was ignored.
Its fun to play whataboutism.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Hillary's situation was a little bit different if I understand correctly and while definitely unethical not technically illegal on her part, but thats another conversation.
I think that even if classified documents were in Trump's possession it might be difficult to prove a criminal case. Given that he probably didn't do all the packing and moving himself there is a large window of doubt as to whether he took them or someone else placed them in a box destined for his house. Classified documents are also supposed to have a sort of custody log if I understand correctly so that would need to be investigated too.
Not technically illegal? Ok because she was “recipient”? Mmmkay…
-
She had emails with classified information on her servers but there were a couple of key factors.
#1. She was the recipient of those emails, not the sender.
#2. The emails containing the classified information were not marked declassified so it becomes difficult to impossible to prove she could have known it was classified.
#1 = spillage
#2 if they were not marked declassified they were still classified. The servers were outside of a SCIF.
-
Not technically illegal? Ok because she was “recipient”? Mmmkay…
So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?
-
#1 = spillage
#2 if they were not marked declassified they were still classified. The servers were outside of a SCIF.
Spillage?
The emails were never marked classified even though they should have been. They contained information that was classified but it was not marked such as it should have been so she wouldn't have known it was classified. More the fault of the sender than the recipient.
-
Spillage?
The emails were never marked classified even though they should have been. They contained information that was classified but it was not marked such as it should have been so she wouldn't have known it was classified. More the fault of the sender than the recipient.
Yes. An investigation is warranted even if the recipient was not the intended recipient. Read about marking classified material here: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf (https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf)
-
Yes. An investigation is warranted even if the recipient was not the intended recipient. Read about marking classified material here: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf (https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf)
I definitely think an investigation was warranted.
-
So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?
You have clearance?
-
So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?
You wouldnt have access to classified material without a clearance. When you do you have a clearance you would know not to do that. Your security manager would initiate the investigation if that happens. FBI investigates crimes.
-
So if I put something classified into an email and send it to you can the FBI throw you in jail?
It depends. If you know (or suspect) the information is classified (marked or not), AND you don't report it to your security manager, AND/OR you disclose that information to someone who isn't cleared AND has no need to know, then YES, you can be thrown in jail.
There have been classified documents read into the Congressional record by members of Congress. Nothing happened to the Congress-critters, because they have immunity for anything they say on the floor of their chamber.
There have also been classified documents posted to the Internet (WikiLeaks, etc.). If you have a clearance, and you know the information you're viewing online is classified, you are violating your NDA. You have no need to know, and for all you know, the information is DISinformation -- intended to catch government employees of guard or plant seeds of doubt in their minds about their loyalty to the government.
When WikiLeaks published the Clinton emails, everyone with a clearance was warned to stay away. Even though the information is now in the public domain, it's still classified unless someone declassifies it. You are still bound by the handing rules for classified info. Joe Blow with no clearance can copy and paste it into emails, but you'll be guilty of violating the law.
-
You wouldnt have access to classified material without a clearance. When you do you have a clearance you would know not to do that. Your security manager would initiate the investigation if that happens. FBI investigates crimes.
Yup. He (appears to be, or allegedly) playing "what if" games in something he doesn't have direct experience in. Yeah, I guess technically someone can email a classified document from a secure system, or otherwise remove the file and transmit via unsecure system.
Here's another clue, just because someone has clearance, doesn't mean they have access to SIPR, specifically email. . .
-
Yup. He (appears to be, or allegedly) playing "what if" games in something he doesn't have direct experience in. Yeah, I guess technically someone can email a classified document from a secure system, or otherwise remove the file and transmit via unsecure system.
Here's another clue, just because someone has clearance, doesn't mean they have access to SIPR, specifically email. . .
There was evidence recorded in the Hildabeast email hearings that she ordered her staff to manually transfer messages from the classified network to the unclassified email system and send it to her. Apparently she was having connection issues with the SIPR side, so she had her people retype the info on the "low side" so she could get a copy.
That shows a knowing and willing effort to circumvent administrative and technological measures to keep "high" and "low" side information physically separate -- basically causing a spillage to the unclassified network where her illegal email server and BlackBerry devices had access to the info.
If the messages didn't have classification markings after being transferred from high to low, that was intentional and in no way mitigates Clinton from knowing its classification when she knew where it originated.
She really should be in prison for breaking the law, and "intent" was provable no matter what Comey said.
-
.
-
It depends. If you know (or suspect) the information is classified (marked or not), AND you don't report it to your security manager, AND/OR you disclose that information to someone who isn't cleared AND has no need to know, then YES, you can be thrown in jail.
There have been classified documents read into the Congressional record by members of Congress. Nothing happened to the Congress-critters, because they have immunity for anything they say on the floor of their chamber.
There have also been classified documents posted to the Internet (WikiLeaks, etc.). If you have a clearance, and you know the information you're viewing online is classified, you are violating your NDA. You have no need to know, and for all you know, the information is DISinformation -- intended to catch government employees of guard or plant seeds of doubt in their minds about their loyalty to the government.
When WikiLeaks published the Clinton emails, everyone with a clearance was warned to stay away. Even though the information is now in the public domain, it's still classified unless someone declassifies it. You are still bound by the handing rules for classified info. Joe Blow with no clearance can copy and paste it into emails, but you'll be guilty of violating the law.
Thank you for that context
-
There was evidence recorded in the Hildabeast email hearings that she ordered her staff to manually transfer messages from the classified network to the unclassified email system and send it to her. Apparently she was having connection issues with the SIPR side, so she had her people retype the info on the "low side" so she could get a copy.
That shows a knowing and willing effort to circumvent administrative and technological measures to keep "high" and "low" side information physically separate -- basically causing a spillage to the unclassified network where her illegal email server and BlackBerry devices had access to the info.
If the messages didn't have classification markings after being transferred from high to low, that was intentional and in no way mitigates Clinton from knowing its classification when she knew where it originated.
She really should be in prison for breaking the law, and "intent" was provable no matter what Comey said.
So you are "alleging" that HRC knowingly and willfully broke laws regarding safeguards and HANDLING of classified material? In which she and her staff admitted to? Nooooo. . .
Then "what if" and "think about this/that" thought experiments no longer fun. . .
-
So you are "alleging" that HRC knowingly and willfully broke laws regarding safeguards and HANDLING of classified material? In which she and her staff admitted to? Nooooo. . .
Then "what if" and "think about this/that" thought experiments no longer fun. . .
Many believe themselves to be knowledgable in areas they have no training, education or experience in. Part of that is because they believe the soundbites they get from the "news" are likely accurate and all they need to know on the subject, and/or the Internet/Google gives them ready access to all the information they will ever want making them just as smart as if they already read the Wiki page before entering a discussion.
They assume everyone else is at the same level as they are, so they are comfortable that nobody will question their "facts" and "understanding." If they are questioned, they can Google the "sources" they used as "proof" what they said was true -- even though they got their facts from those sources making them nothing more than a Xerox copy of the webpage, not someone whose ideas and opinions were validated by an independent source.
The underlying cause of this is they don't want to be in a position where they have to admit they don't know something. They have an opinion no matter how little they know of the issue. It's based often on nothing more than an NPR news report that took them all of 15 seconds to broadcast.
People have become lazy. Why learn when the totality of human knowledge and opinion is at your fingertips? Kind of reminds me of the Matrix, only in a less productive sense:
"Can you fly one of these?"
"Not yet."
[begin chopper flight training program upload]
-
Don;t be lazy. "Google" with Dewey
-
Many believe themselves to be knowledgable in areas they have no training, education or experience in. Part of that is because they believe the soundbites they get from the "news" are likely accurate and all they need to know on the subject, and/or the Internet/Google gives them ready access to all the information they will ever want making them just as smart as if they already read the Wiki page before entering a discussion.
They assume everyone else is at the same level as they are, so they are comfortable that nobody will question their "facts" and "understanding." If they are questioned, they can Google the "sources" they used as "proof" what they said was true -- even though they got their facts from those sources making them nothing more than a Xerox copy of the webpage, not someone whose ideas and opinions were validated by an independent source.
The underlying cause of this is they don't want to be in a position where they have to admit they don't know something. They have an opinion no matter how little they know of the issue. It's based often on nothing more than an NPR news report that took them all of 15 seconds to broadcast.
People have become lazy. Why learn when the totality of human knowledge and opinion is at your fingertips? Kind of reminds me of the Matrix, only in a less productive sense:
"Can you fly one of these?"
"Not yet."
[begin chopper flight training program upload]
Easy for folks who do have experience and training in a subject to expose the "believers". . .
-
Easy for folks who do have experience and training in a subject to expose the "believers". . .
Shining the light of truth on the "believers" is, as you said, easy.
Getting them to see the light is the really difficult part.
Especially true when there are so many versions of the narrative they can find to validate their beliefs.
-
So did this major bombshell investigation just end cause theres nothing illegal there?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So did this major bombshell investigation just end cause theres nothing illegal there?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
No; AG Garland just appointed a special counsel who is going to look into it, among other things.
-
No; AG Garland just appointed a special counsel who is going to look into it, among other things.
Would it be fair to say the preliminary investigation and gathering of evidence found zip. So now a special counsel has to look more/deeper?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Would it be fair to say the preliminary investigation and gathering of evidence found zip. So now a special counsel has to look more/deeper?
Sounds a lot like election interference to me.
Former President Donald Trump will be the subject of a second special counsel
investigation, this one focused on his handling of classified documents found at
his Mar-a-Lago home and “key aspects” of the investigation into his role in the
Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday.
“Based on recent developments, including Trump’s announcement that he is a
candidate for president in the next election, and the current president’s intention
to be a candidate in the next election, I have concluded it is in the public interest
to appoint a special counsel,” Garland said at a news conference.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/attorney-general-merrick-garland-names-special-counsel-justice-depts-t-rcna57920
The riots around the US that saw billions in property damage and over a dozen people murdered were characterized as "Protests" and "mostly peaceful."
A few hours of protesting at the Capitol are characterized as an "Attack" and "Riot."
We have a real honesty deficit in our media.
-
Would it be fair to say the preliminary investigation and gathering of evidence found zip. So now a special counsel has to look more/deeper?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
No, I don’t believe that would be fair. I believe they found a number of classified documents that weren’t properly secured and no evidence that they had been declassified. They just hadn’t taken any further action, and now that former President Trump has announced his candidacy, they’ve appointed a special counsel in an effort to provide independence from the DOJ for the investigation, given the obvious political concerns.
-
It just means they wanted a different prosecutor to file the indictment and prosecute the case. It's a simple case where:
1. Investigators presented evidence to judge that there where stolen Top Secret Government documents at the Ex-presidents house and were granted search warrant.
2. Search warrant was executed and evidence of crime was found in the Ex-Presidents desk drawer among other places.
Document case is a paper case and solid. Obstruction case investigation continues. If the DOJ was not going to indict there would be no reason to assign a special prosecutor. Ever other person that has had documents labeled TS SCI at there house has gone to prison. It's just a matter of time before the grand jury determines probably cause which will allow the DOJ to create the indictment.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Trump was not indicted after 2+ years of Russia Collusion investigations, including an independent Counsel.
Hillary had TS/SCI AND HIGHER classified documents on her server, PC and handheld devices, but she never went to prison.
The server Clinton used as secretary of state contained "several dozen emails containing
classified information determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the
CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels," the inspector general, Charles
McCullough, wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News. "SAP" stands for
special access programs, which carry a classification level higher than top secret.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/
-
It just means they wanted a different prosecutor to file the indictment and prosecute the case. It's a simple case where:
1. Investigators presented evidence to judge that there where stolen Top Secret Government documents at the Ex-presidents house and were granted search warrant.
2. Search warrant was executed and evidence of crime was found in the Ex-Presidents desk drawer among other places.
Document case is a paper case and solid. Obstruction case investigation continues. If the DOJ was not going to indict there would be no reason to assign a special prosecutor. Every other person that has had documents labeled TS SCI at there house has gone to prison. It's just a matter of time before the grand jury determines probable cause which will allow the DOJ to create the indictment.
You have any names or references for this?
-
You have any names or references for this?
What HAS been discussed at length on this board is that poster has NO idea what the rules, protocols, etc are with classified documents. Just tries to parrot talking points they've heard online in attempts to show credibility. . .
-
What HAS been discussed at length on this board is that poster has NO idea what the rules, protocols, etc are with classified documents. Just tries to parrot talking points they've heard online in attempts to show credibility. . .
Reminds me of another poster that writes as though everything said is a fact
-
Document case is a paper case and solid. Obstruction case investigation continues. If the DOJ was not going to indict there would be no reason to assign a special prosecutor. Every other person that has had documents labeled TS SCI at there house has gone to prison. It's just a matter of time before the grand jury determines probable cause which will allow the DOJ to create the indictment.
Jean says it's a solid case. So we all know what that means.
"A solid case is as solid of a case that one being solidity can be on a solid". -Era. RhayJean.
-
What HAS been discussed at length on this board is that poster has NO idea what the rules, protocols, etc are with classified documents. Just tries to parrot talking points they've heard online in attempts to show credibility. . .
At least xhe doesn't use big words that I have to google.
Ever watch the Darrell Brooks highlights? It's actually very comical and related to how xhe post. Basically, "It makes sense in my head, thus it's true, even when all other evidence shows it's not true."
-
Glad nobody here thinks like this ...
https://youtube.com/shorts/Rtbru2jTMDU?feature=share
Laws for thee, but not for me.
-
SNIP
The server Clinton used as secretary of state contained "several dozen emails containing
classified information determined by the [intelligence community] element to be at the
CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels," the inspector general, Charles
McCullough, wrote in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News. "SAP" stands for
special access programs, which carry a classification level higher than top secret.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/
Not surprisingly, CBS gets it wrong here… There are only three levels of classification, and Top Secret is the highest one. WITHIN those levels there are various caveats, dissemination controls, and other control measures, like SAPs. You can have Secret or Confidential information that’s protected by a SAP.
-
Not surprisingly, CBS gets it wrong here… There are only three levels of classification, and Top Secret is the highest one. WITHIN those levels there are various caveats, dissemination controls, and other control measures, like SAPs. You can have Secret or Confidential information that’s protected by a SAP.
There's a difference between classified information and an individual's clearance level. True, any SCI or SAP program can and will involve lower-than-TS information, but to access it, you still must possess the highest security clearance needed for that program.
Ordinarily you must be cleared for TS access before you can be cleared for SCI or SAP programs TS investigations require the same level of investigation as SCI, which is why the label TS/SCI for an individual's security clearance is common. I honestly never encountered anyone with SCI or SAP access who held a security clearance below TS.
It's complicated, so I don't expect CBS to report more than they did. What they stated are the same words people who handle clearances use all the time.
This is taken from the IG and IC reports on the Clinton Emails. The sources are included in the Wiki footnotes if you want to see how the official letters stated the classifications. Since it's in quotes, I expect that to be a direct quote from the IC inspector's letter to Congress.
The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016.
In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn
declaration that "several dozen emails [had been] determined by the IC element
to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels."
Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails
from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general
himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced
by the emails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
-
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Trump was not indicted after 2+ years of Russia Collusion investigations, including an independent Counsel.
Hillary had TS/SCI AND HIGHER classified documents on her server, PC and handheld devices, but she never went to prison.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/
https://youtu.be/PmFBDN7ugeM
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
There's a difference between classified information and an individual's clearance level. True, any SCI or SAP program can and will involve lower-than-TS information, but to access it, you still must possess the highest security clearance needed for that program.
Ordinarily you must be cleared for TS access before you can be cleared for SCI or SAP programs TS investigations require the same level of investigation as SCI, which is why the label TS/SCI for an individual's security clearance is common. I honestly never encountered anyone with SCI or SAP access who held a security clearance below TS.
It's complicated, so I don't expect CBS to report more than they did. What they stated are the same words people who handle clearances use all the time.
This is taken from the IG and IC reports on the Clinton Emails. The sources are included in the Wiki footnotes if you want to see how the official letters stated the classifications. Since it's in quotes, I expect that to be a direct quote from the IC inspector's letter to Congress.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
You’re right that it’s uncommon (very) to find somebody with SCI or SAP access who doesn’t already have a TS clearance, but SCI and SAP are not classification levels, per se. They are additional control measures to ensure need to know and additional protection for particularly sensitive information. I know for 99% of people it’s a distinction without a difference, but I interpret rules for a living… so I kinda geek out on stuff like this. :geekdanc:
-
You’re right that it’s uncommon (very) to find somebody with SCI or SAP access who doesn’t already have a TS clearance, but SCI and SAP are not classification levels, per se. They are additional control measures to ensure need to know and additional protection for particularly sensitive information. I know for 99% of people it’s a distinction without a difference, but I interpret rules for a living… so I kinda geek out on stuff like this. :geekdanc:
I get it. But expecting the media to get something hyper-accurate like this when even the IG and IC reports use the exact same inaccuracies is unrealistic.
Just my opinion, of course.
-
Your wrong. Why do you choose to lie and spread misinformation?
Trump could be charged with obstruction in the Russia case and Bill Barr lied about the report. So there is that.
Hillary did not have any classified MARKED documents or emails on the server. That's why markings is part of the training employees received. Aggregation of unclassified information that while unclassified alone MAY become classified when combined. Nothing is confirmed.
Now with Trump we have 179 specific classified documents that have been recovered and empty classified document folders for those that are missing. You'll find out it's a simple case to prosecute.
I used to just believe you are stupid, now I know you are.
"You'll find out it's a simple case to prosecute."
Have a good day Karen.
:wacko:
-
I used to just believe you are stupid, now I know you are.
"You'll find out it's a simple case to prosecute."
Have a good day Karen.
:wacko:
Yup. More parroting from someone who has never handled classified documents. Yeah, because removal of marking are all that is needed. . . plus contradicting their own statements. . .
-
Hillary not only stored AT LEAST 110 classified emails on her server, but she also used portable devices to discuss and send/received classified information.
Classified information doesn't become unclassified just because it lacks markings. She knew what was classified.
But no charges because she didn't "intend" to break the laws she did -- which is not an element of the NDA she signed. She was responsible for proper storage and protection of that information, and failure to do so intentionally OR THROUGH NEGLIGENCE is a serious national security breach and against the law.
She also failed to leave those emails and documents at the state department when she left. That's a major violation of the law -- theft of government documents.
She also is responsible for the destruction of 30,000+ files on her computers and the physical destruction of government devices such as tablets and cell phones.
No charges for willful destruction of government property and records.
The reason many of the emails and files are known to the FBI is because Anthony Weiner's laptop had COPIES of everything his wife -- Clinton's Chief of Staff -- sent and received. That constitutes unauthorized disclosure. Weiner did not have clearance to access state department communications.
Comey testified under oath that Clinton made many false statements to the FBI and the public about her emails and storage of classified.
No charges of obstructing the investigation or lying to the FBI.
If your name is Clinton or you are in their circle, the laws just don't apply.
If Hillary can skate on the "I didn't mean to" defense, so can Trump. :thumbsup:
Almost every government official tied to this criminal activity was given immunity by the DOJ. Why? Immunity is a tool used to motivate someone to be a witness against someone else or to provide evidence to make a case against someone else. Immunity is never offered unless there is some benefit to the prosecution.
Since nobody was prosecuted, it sure looks like immunity was being offered to protect the players, not to help make a case against anyone.
-
SNIP
If Hillary can skate on the "I didn't mean to" defense, so can Trump. :thumbsup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlEo8PQChG4
-
If Hillary can skate on the "I didn't mean to" defense, so can Trump. :thumbsup:
This is where TDS kicks in and will say he cannot use that defense.
-
.
-
Markings were never removed because the documents were never marked because per the creator they were not classified. Now someone can come in after the fact and make a determination that the information should be classified. If that was done you would not need to know. You are obviously ignorant of the rules which is understandable.
Not sure why I'm wasting my time. . . anyways
That's not what you said previously. And just because markings are removed, doesn't automatically change the sensitivity of the document. You said it yourself, information in aggregate can affect/change classification.
I am ignorant? You have ZERO direct personal experience or training on the subject. It's obvious. . . yet you continue to try to parrot crap you read on the interwebs. . . go peddle your BS elsewhere. . .
-
You have no reason to feel shameful for being ignorant of something you have no exposure to. Markings are not removed because they markings never existed in the first place. Obviously people should be aware of the topic in email and in public. Don't discuss work when having lunch in town. Also probably shouldn't decorate your downtown bar with classified documents.
SNIP
That's not what you stated "as fact" previously. You better check your facts. And I'm not talking about Drumpf. . .
Shameful? pffft. . . thinking you know is different than knowing. . .
-
Markings were never removed because the documents were never marked because per the creator they were not classified. Now someone can come in after the fact and make a determination that the information should be classified. If that was done you would not need to know. You are obviously ignorant of the rules which is understandable.
Jean says:
"In my mind theyre TS , thus that is enough to make it so. Due to the classification of classifying , classified clearance of claasification."
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Not sure why I'm wasting my time. . . anyways
That's not what you said previously. And just because markings are removed, doesn't automatically change the sensitivity of the document. You said it yourself, information in aggregate can affect/change classification.
I am ignorant? You have ZERO direct personal experience or training on the subject. It's obvious. . . yet you continue to try to parrot crap you read on the interwebs. . . go peddle your BS elsewhere. . .
Its not wasting time. Its showing others that this topic is above xis paygrade.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
.
-
Your wrong. Why do you choose to lie and spread misinformation?
[snip after OP accuses others of that which xhe is guilty]
information that while unclassified alone MAY become classified when combined. Nothing is confirmed.
Information that is unclassified remains unclassified. If it is combined with other unclassified information that becomes sensitive when viewed together, it's STILL UNCLASSIFIED.
The term for such aggregated information that may become sensitive is EEFI -- Essential Elements of Friendly Information.
https://youtu.be/kmTxWuvj__8
-
Its not wasting time. Its showing others that this topic is above xis paygrade.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
It's not about paygrade. It's about basic intelligence and ability to think for one's self and form rational thought, and not just parroting what they heard because it fits what they THINK is the truth. Nevermind the TRANSCRIPTS of a Liberal led investigation confirmed much of what we're bringing up and goes against the crap that is being thrown on the board. Don't even have to bring up facts, just point out the contradictions in the "statements of fact".
For those that don't have time to dive into the transcripts, see two articles that cover the above. One from arguably an "center" site and another from a known left biased site.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/)
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/)
Not that what is stated in those articles are fact. One would think that anyone with half a brain could see the differences between Clinton and Trump. And I'm no fan of Trump. Again, just pointing out stuff that folks who are blinded by TDS seem to just gloss over, especially when it doesn't fit their narrative. . .
-
Information that is unclassified remains unclassified. If it is combined with other unclassified information that becomes sensitive when viewed together, it's STILL UNCLASSIFIED.
The term for such aggregated information that may become sensitive is EEFI -- Essential Elements of Friendly Information.
Think it is parroting and mixing parts and portions of aggregate, compilation, etc. Feynman. . .
Easy to see how the ignorant and uneducated on the issue can believe/feel they are always right. Ya know, because momma told 'em. . .
-
It's not about paygrade.
This was a joke about paygrade.
-
You better check your facts because they are wrong. You misunderstood.
Says Jean when confronted about being wrong again.
-
This was a joke about paygrade.
Yeah, I know. Only the intelligent would pick up on that. But you sure it was a joke? ;D
bazinga
-
Says Jean when confronted about being wrong again.
#iknowyouarebutwhatami
#sticksandstones
That's an impressive level of online forum banter. . . impressive intelligence level. . .
-
Your wrong. Why do you choose to lie and spread misinformation?
Trump could be charged with obstruction in the Russia case and Bill Barr lied about the report. So there is that.
Hillary did not have any classified MARKED documents or emails on the server. That's why markings is part of the training employees received. Aggregation of unclassified information that while unclassified alone MAY become classified when combined. Nothing is confirmed.
Now with Trump we have 179 specific classified documents that have been recovered and empty classified document folders for those that are missing. You'll find out it's a simple case to prosecute.
“Hillary did not have any classified MARKED documents or emails on the server. That's why markings is part of the training employees received.”
Literally doesn’t matter. What makes information classified is the damage it would do to national security if it were disclosed. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was what is known as an “Original Classification Authority,” or OCA. As an OCA, she was given the authority to determine whether or not new information produced by her agency was classified. She was trained on that, and should have recognized the information she was dealing with was, in fact, classified, regardless of whether it was marked.
And incidentally, it’s “you’re” in this case, not “your.” :geekdanc:
-
Information that is unclassified remains unclassified. If it is combined with other unclassified information that becomes sensitive when viewed together, it's STILL UNCLASSIFIED.
The term for such aggregated information that may become sensitive is EEFI -- Essential Elements of Friendly Information.
Not strictly true. It is possible for unclassified information, when combined with other unclassified information, to become classified. For example, the timeframe of an exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, and the location of the exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, but if you combine the timeframe and the location in one document, it becomes classified. It’s called “classification by compilation.”
-
Not strictly true. It is possible for unclassified information, when combined with other unclassified information, to become classified. For example, the timeframe of an exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, and the location of the exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, but if you combine the timeframe and the location in one document, it becomes classified. It’s called “classification by compilation.”
No, no, no. Your wrong. You misunderstood.
[sarcasm/] ;D
What I was mentioning earlier. Where the “other one” was grasping at that concept. Also about the markings. Doesn’t matter the markings, removal, etc, particularly in the context of HRC. She knew the rules, her staff knew the rules, and even then, knowledge of the rules isn’t relevant to the misconduct. So claiming ignorance isn’t a mitigating circumstance.
-
Not strictly true. It is possible for unclassified information, when combined with other unclassified information, to become classified. For example, the timeframe of an exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, and the location of the exercise, by itself, could be unclassified, but if you combine the timeframe and the location in one document, it becomes classified. It’s called “classification by compilation.”
In the example you gave, there would need to be a predetermined classification and protection level when the aggregated/compiled unclassified information is combined in the same document.
The example I found deals with reports -- specifically theater-wide operation failure reports. A Security Classification Guide (SCG) could dictate that one such report alone is unclassified. But, when 2 or more such reports are part of a compilation, the compiled document, not the individual reports, is classified SECRET.
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2c9bed1/Classification-by-Compilation-1-Definition-Sometimes-combining-two-or-more/
This clarifies what I was saying. The unclassified information remains unclassified. It's the compiled document containing more than one unclassified report that becomes classified. You can still disseminate and discuss each report individually and the information remains unclassified -- as long as you avoid disseminating or discussing more than one theater-wide operation failure report when doing so.
It's a little like mixing drinks. You can talk about a bottle of vodka, a jug of orange juice, and a bucket of ice with no issues. But as soon as you mix them together, they become a Screwdriver. You wouldn't then treat the vodka, OJ and ice individually as a mixed drink. Only when combined would you be correct in that "classification".
-
Yeah, I know. Only the intelligent would pick up on that. But you sure it was a joke? ;D
bazinga
No focus
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
.
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221125/b8517043bda8cb132c8c3628c4d21ef1.jpg)
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
You are misinformed.
You may want to learn how compilation of unclassified information/data may create a classified compilation.
Learn to read.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=47426.msg440513#msg440513
A compilation does not make the independent unclassified information portions classified when not compiled.
What would the portion markings be?
Go read what I already posted. I can try to teach you, but I can't understand it for you.
-
Learn to read.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=47426.msg440513#msg440513
A compilation does not make the independent unclassified information portions classified when not compiled.
What would the portion markings be?
Go read what I already posted. I can try to teach you, but I can't understand it for you.
Feelings is greater than reading.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Feelings is greater than reading.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://youtu.be/cf9RU3ykbY0
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
You are misinformed.
You may want to learn how compilation of unclassified information/data may create a classified compilation.
Jean says
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk