The process is not in place to enable prosecutions.  The process is to ensure classified material is being handled properly.

To explain it in basic terms, as I said, the information is what's classified, not the documents. 

If you speak classified information so someone without proper authorization hears it, how would you "prove" that in court?

Same for documents.  If a document is mis-marked (too high or low) but it wasn't compromised (disclosed to someone unauthorized), then it's an administrative infraction, not a crime.  I saw this a few times.  We dealt in computer tapes onboard the AWACS.  Tapes that were used a certain number of times were replaced with new.  The tapes were marked secret, but we degassed them (erased with electromagnets) so there was no data on them before shipping.

The problem was 2 fold.  The night shift degaussed the tapes, but one did not have the secret label removed.  The second problem was my counterpart shipped the tapes back on the C-141 rotator unclassified, even though our standing procedure was to ship them back as classified to avoid them getting bumped from the aircraft over higher priority cargo.

The investigation showed the tape was blank, just shipped and marked incorrectly.  I was written up for not ensuring the shipping was done correctly, but that counseling sheet was removed after 6 months of no other problems.

My counterpart was a higher rank officer, even though I was the Officer in Charge (OIC) due to my previous experience there.  He knew he was shipping the tapes using the wrong classification, but them lied about it.  He returned 2 weeks before me, so he had time to smear me.

I copied our log book showing I'd instructed him to ship classified.  He took them to logistics and had them processed on his own.  He wound up losing his line number for the promotion to major he'd already been selected for.  His big no-no was lying about what he was told.

The boxes arrived still sealed just as they were sent.  No delay in transit, and no signs of tampering.  It was determined to be a failure to follow administrative procedures with no potential compromise of classified.

The same should have been done for Trump.  In investigation is necessary to know what was mishandled and what the chances of unauthorized access might be.  Then, if warranted, there's a determination made as to any mitigation actions required, such as changing access codes or code words, altering computer code, adding a layer of protection around the affected data, or simply creating a replacement for whatever was compromised.

None of that was done before the FBI released fake pictures to the public -- a purely political move.  Completely 180 from how they handled Hillary and Biden -- and Bill Clinton, too.  He and Hillary had FbI files on their political opponents they were not authorized to possess.  The files went missing, then mysteriously appeared in a reading room that had already been searched.

BTW, if something Top secret is declassified or downgraded, it's no longer Top secret and no longer subject to inventory.  Chances are the document would be reproduced with proper markings and the old documents destroyed, which is what the disposition would show in the inventory.

Thank you for that lengthy explanation.

I understand that the prosecution is going to have multiple things they are going to have to prove including but not limited to:
1. The materials had actual classified information and not just information that had been incorrectly given a high classification
2. That the material was properly marked classified so Trump cannot claim he had no way of knowing.
3. That the information in the material had not been declassified.
4. That Trump knew the classified materials were in his possession.

What I am trying to figure out is #3. How would the prosecution make the case that Trump had not declassified the information and how will Trump make the case that it had been declassified.

Two of the other people I talked to with experience in this area explained (i am paraphrasing here) that when classified materials would be brought into a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) someone was assigned control of the material. They had to sign it out and sign it back in, and they wouldn't just drop it off at the SCIF and leave. So if and when someone with authority to declassify the material did so then the custodian would have some sort of record to cover that since the document wouldn't be going back into the classified storage. Because of this, there should be some sort of record that Trump had declassified these documents. What am I missing here?

you still haven't explained this sentence


Plus Comey's reasons for nor referring charges weren't merely to avoid interfering with the election.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-no-charges-against-hillary-clinton-are-appropriate-for-email-server-use/
Plus if he were that worried about interfering with the election he wouldn't have announced the case was being reopened right before the election.

Many on the left blame Comey for Clintons loss to Trump because they believe that Comey's announcement that the investigation was being reopened swayed enough voters.

Unless you think Comey is a moron it doesn't make any sense for him to have announced the re-opening of the investigation if he were trying to avoid any interference with the election. If he were worried about interfering, he could have waited until after the election. So the suggestion that charges weren't filed out of a desire to avoid interfering with the election does not fit in line with the fact that he ended up doing something that "interfered" with the election.

but isn't not announcing so as to not influence the vote also influencing the vote?

all kinds of memes can be entered here...

Many on the left blame Comey for Clintons loss to Trump because they believe that Comey's announcement that the investigation was being reopened swayed enough voters.

Unless you think Comey is a moron it doesn't make any sense for him to have announced the re-opening of the investigation if he were trying to avoid any interference with the election. If he were worried about interfering, he could have waited until after the election. So the suggestion that charges weren't filed out of a desire to avoid interfering with the election does not fit in line with the fact that he ended up doing something that "interfered" with the election.

A wise monk once said:  "Always tell the truth, and you won't have to remember anything."

With HRC, that is literally impossible.

they covered that in your training with HPD, surely they do in the FBI...

I don't have any idea whether they cover that in their training but it is certainly a possibility. More likely than the idea of the "deep state" out to get Trump at every turn.

Spookes were pissed at trump. He removed their security clearance once they retired.

Spooke makes 160k a year. After 30 years retires and gets jack shit. They can take their clearance to private intel companies. Its a use it or lose it clearance, even though no longer a spook employee. So these private intel comps will hire them and pay $400k a year salary as an executive VP or something. Basically, paying for their clearance.

Trump undid this. Once u retire, u lost it. Many younger spookes left due to having no incentive to stay for 30yrs and retire.

Add in he reduced funding to them cause they promoted Russia hoax. He used private intel for cheaper and was often better due to less red tape/restrictions/rules/laws because these private intel firms dont fall under the executive branch.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

but isn't not announcing so as to not influence the vote also influencing the vote?

all kinds of memes can be entered here...

Fair point.

My point was that Comey clearly wasn't just trying to help Hillary.

I think he was caught between a rock and a hard place

they covered that in your training with HPD, surely they do in the FBI...

People also forget..

Overall incompetence is a much more likely explanation than malice.

now you're moving goalposts to forgetting?
got it...

People also forget..

Overall incompetence is a much more likely explanation than malice.

I don't have any idea whether they cover that in their training but it is certainly a possibility. More likely than the idea of the "deep state" out to get Trump at every turn.

Read my spook post.

now you're moving goalposts to forgetting?
got it...

No goalposts moving, just pointing out considerations you hadn't seemed to consider.

Read my spook post.

I did. Interesting theory.

please show me how pointing out holes in your "nuance" "assumptions" "conjecture" says anything about what i have and have not considered...

No goalposts moving, just pointing out considerations you hadn't seemed to consider.

Two of the other people I talked to with experience in this area explained (i am paraphrasing here) that when classified materials would be brought into a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) someone was assigned control of the material. They had to sign it out and sign it back in, and they wouldn't just drop it off at the SCIF and leave. So if and when someone with authority to declassify the material did so then the custodian would have some sort of record to cover that since the document wouldn't be going back into the classified storage. Because of this, there should be some sort of record that Trump had declassified these documents. What am I missing here?

Are your sources accurate?

I did. Interesting theory.

Google. It's not a theory. It's public record. Thanks for playing.

Spookes had the highest exit rate in 2016 and on.

Two of the other people I talked to with experience in this area explained (i am paraphrasing here) that when classified materials would be brought into a SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) someone was assigned control of the material. They had to sign it out and sign it back in, and they wouldn't just drop it off at the SCIF and leave. So if and when someone with authority to declassify the material did so then the custodian would have some sort of record to cover that since the document wouldn't be going back into the classified storage. Because of this, there should be some sort of record that Trump had declassified these documents. What am I missing here?

The process you are trying to regurgitate is for transferring classified material. 

When classified is couriered outside of its regular storage facility, it must be accompanied by a "sender's" signature showing it's being transferred.  the courier must sign for custody when they get it.  When handed to the recipient, that person must also sign the form, keep a copy, and give the courier the original.

I was a courier for classified whenever i flew to Saudi Arabia.  I signed for it at the tarmac where the C-141 sat waiting for cargo and passengers.  I'd remain on the aircraft as the rest of the passengers arrived.  At that stage, there were two signatures on the form -- the originator's and mine.

When I arrived at the Riyadh airport, a member of my unit already in country would meet me at the aircraft and sign for the material.  At that point, it was no longer my responsibility.

Had I been diverted to a different location due to weather or equipment problems, I would have checked in the material with the base security office, had them sign it in, then I would sign it out before departure.

This process is only to show who had custody when.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of classified markings or it being downgraded.

if you are downgrading a piece of classified material, there's no hand receipt required.  It's still in the same place.

However, if you place it in a burn bag, that bag will be signed for by the classified destruct detail to show you no longer are in custody.

Stop trying to assign reasons for processes you have no idea how they work or why they exist.

Every branch of the military and every agency that handles classified has their own set of forms for transfer, loss and destruction of classified information/material.  if there was one version of the forms we all used, I could show you the actual forms.  Instead, just use Google as you normally would.  Maybe seeing the forms will explain why what you think happens is not what really happens.

please show me how pointing out holes in your "nuance" "assumptions" "conjecture" says anything about what i have and have not considered...

You haven't posted any holes.

All you did was find something was done improperly and jumped to the conclusion that it must be malice without even considering incompetence or ignorance.

Google. It's not a theory. It's public record. Thanks for playing.

Spookes had the highest exit rate in 2016 and on.

I wasn't saying the removal of their security clearances was a theory, I meant the implications. Perhaps I should have explained it better.

I wasn't saying the removal of their security clearances was a theory, I meant the implications. Perhaps I should have explained it better.

 

Half the time you're arguing, it's because you said things that were false, then backtracked saying you didn't word it properly.

Hint:  There's no difference between making a false statement and saying something you believe is true in an inaccurate way.

Both are WrOnG!

please show me where i jumped to the conclusion it was "done improperly"

You haven't posted any holes.

All you did was find something was done improperly and jumped to the conclusion that it must be malice without even considering incompetence or ignorance.