Much Ado About Nothing: Clinton's Emails

[Ebsy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Swing and a miss. Shut down the House Select Committee, shut down the FBI investigation, and force the RNC to pay for both!

[IceSpear]

but muh criminal investigation!

The media doesn't actually care about the facts though. They had fun swinging at their pinata and got their horse race, that's all that matters.

[SillyAmerican]

Swing and a miss. Shut down the House Select Committee, shut down the FBI investigation, and force the RNC to pay for both!

Swing and a miss? According to the latest info available (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/30/clinton-email-classification-rate-rises/) 325 messages deemed ‘confidential,’ one deemed ‘secret’ in the new batch. So around 1000 problematic emails thus far. Perhaps your little happy dance was a bit premature...

[SillyAmerican]

By the way, in anticipation of the objection I know is coming regarding the classification of the emails in question, here's something to think about, via a comment that was posted to the article I cited:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Slander and/or Libel]

By the way, in anticipation of the objection I know is coming regarding the classification of the emails in question, here's something to think about, via a comment that was posted to the article I cited:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you actually read up on the executive order cited in the internet comment you're citing here?

I did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is outlining when information may be originally classified, if all of the following are true.

• Original classification authority is doing the classifying.
• Information owned by, controlled by, produced by/for USG.
• Information falls under categories in section 1.4.
• Determination that unauthorized disclosure would harm national security (and such damage must be identified/described)

So then what? I suppose we have to look at a couple of things. Who is an original classification authority?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, as you'd expect. Agency heads and those to whom they delegate authority. What about information falling under categories in section 1.4, from that list above?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So presumably we're talking about either section b or section d there. Fine. But as we can see, nothing there about communication between State and foreign officials being automatically classified. Again, for that classification to happen, it has to be classified by the Secretary (or someone delegated OCA by the Secretary), has to be controlled by the US, has to be foreign government information, and has to be specifically demonstrated that its disclosure would harm national security. That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

[wolfsblood07]

I knew it would amount to nothing. Even not following it closely at all, I knew it.
I agree it was worth looking into, but in the end Hillary whipped us and even Laura Ingraham knew it.

[Kingpoleon]

It's not classified because she didn't classify it.

I thought you were better than this, Atlas.

[SillyAmerican]

That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

Well, we'll see what the FBI has to say about it in the next few weeks. Apparently, there are more than a few examples of sensitive information being discussed via the private email server to give folks pause. And to say that a classification is allowed but not automatic is silly: if it's allowed, presumably the person acting as Secretary of State would know whether or not a transmission is sensitive enough to warrant a classification, and what that classification should be. But again, we'll see what the FBI has to say on the subject.

[Ebsy]

[Kingpoleon]

That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

Well, we'll see what the FBI has to say about it in the next few weeks. Apparently, there are more than a few examples of sensitive information being discussed via the private email server to give folks pause. And to say that a classification is allowed but not automatic is silly: if it's allowed, presumably the person acting as Secretary of State would know whether or not a transmission is sensitive enough to warrant a classification, and what that classification should be. But again, we'll see what the FBI has to say on the subject.

She should be briefed. Some sources ay she de-classified the information to ask for advice from a former campaign official, which would be illegal, I believe. Could our New York Lawyer Torie comment?

[bobloblaw]

That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

Well, we'll see what the FBI has to say about it in the next few weeks. Apparently, there are more than a few examples of sensitive information being discussed via the private email server to give folks pause. And to say that a classification is allowed but not automatic is silly: if it's allowed, presumably the person acting as Secretary of State would know whether or not a transmission is sensitive enough to warrant a classification, and what that classification should be. But again, we'll see what the FBI has to say on the subject.

She should be briefed. Some sources ay she de-classified the information to ask for advice from a former campaign official, which would be illegal, I believe. Could our New York Lawyer Torie comment?

FBI is still investigating. Having a private server in your basement is a bit more than nothing

[Ebsy]

That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

Well, we'll see what the FBI has to say about it in the next few weeks. Apparently, there are more than a few examples of sensitive information being discussed via the private email server to give folks pause. And to say that a classification is allowed but not automatic is silly: if it's allowed, presumably the person acting as Secretary of State would know whether or not a transmission is sensitive enough to warrant a classification, and what that classification should be. But again, we'll see what the FBI has to say on the subject.

She should be briefed. Some sources ay she de-classified the information to ask for advice from a former campaign official, which would be illegal, I believe. Could our New York Lawyer Torie comment?

FBI is still investigating. Having a private server in your basement is a bit more than nothing

It's significantly less than criminal. Why do you guys insist on discussing the FBI probe as if it is a criminal investigation that will end in indictments and prosecutions when all evidence points to it being, well, not that?

[Slander and/or Libel]

That's what has to be in place for classification to be allowed, not for it to be automatic.

At best, there may be a security classification guide somewhere at State that designates some information automatically classified, but that work is certainly not done by EO 13526.

Well, we'll see what the FBI has to say about it in the next few weeks. Apparently, there are more than a few examples of sensitive information being discussed via the private email server to give folks pause. And to say that a classification is allowed but not automatic is silly: if it's allowed, presumably the person acting as Secretary of State would know whether or not a transmission is sensitive enough to warrant a classification, and what that classification should be. But again, we'll see what the FBI has to say on the subject.

That's all you have to say to that? I cited the source that you claimed proves something, and showed that it proves nothing of the sort. Admit it. You were trusting an Internet comment as gospel.

[SillyAmerican]

That's all you have to say to that? I cited the source that you claimed proves something, and showed that it proves nothing of the sort. Admit it. You were trusting an Internet comment as gospel.

You obviously believe that Secretary of State Clinton is not responsible for knowing the security classification of her emails. (This would not even be an issue, but for the fact that for some reason, Mrs. Clinton insisted on making use of a private server). I feel that she does in fact bear this responsibility. As I said, we shall see on which side the FBI ultimately comes down; it's only a matter of time. Based on what's been reported thus far, I don't think anyone can say the FBI is wasting its time. But we'll see...

[Likely Voter]

Anyone who believes the DOJ is going to indict Clinton should start selling her short on PredictIt and Betfair Exchange. You will make a fortune.

Before you do that, you may want to read what Aland Dershowitz told Newsmax today:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again that is at Newsmax!

Sorry but I don't think Loretta Lynch is going to go out of her way to indict Hillary Clinton (essentially ending her campaign).

[Ebsy]

That's all you have to say to that? I cited the source that you claimed proves something, and showed that it proves nothing of the sort. Admit it. You were trusting an Internet comment as gospel.

You obviously believe that Secretary of State Clinton is not responsible for knowing the security classification of her emails. (This would not even be an issue, but for the fact that for some reason, Mrs. Clinton insisted on making use of a private server). I feel that she does in fact bear this responsibility. As I said, we shall see on which side the FBI ultimately comes down; it's only a matter of time. Based on what's been reported thus far, I don't think anyone can say the FBI is wasting its time. But we'll see...

Because everything would be so much better security-wise if she had used a government account and had it breached when the State Department servers were hacked. Of course, people tend to ignore the fact that there is no evidence of such a breach on Clinton's private server, which would definitely show up under forensic investigation.

[heatmaster]

Well I always knew there was nothing😉 she pulled a rope a dope move, and I dunno for what reason. She should be prosecuted for wasting everybody's time.

[Slander and/or Libel]

That's all you have to say to that? I cited the source that you claimed proves something, and showed that it proves nothing of the sort. Admit it. You were trusting an Internet comment as gospel.

You obviously believe that Secretary of State Clinton is not responsible for knowing the security classification of her emails. (This would not even be an issue, but for the fact that for some reason, Mrs. Clinton insisted on making use of a private server). I feel that she does in fact bear this responsibility. As I said, we shall see on which side the FBI ultimately comes down; it's only a matter of time. Based on what's been reported thus far, I don't think anyone can say the FBI is wasting its time. But we'll see...

I said no such thing. I said you trusted a random internet comment's factual assertion, and I proved you wrong about that factual assertion. Your inability to admit that tells me all I need to know about your motivations here.

[SillyAmerican]

I said no such thing. I said you trusted a random internet comment's factual assertion, and I proved you wrong about that factual assertion. Your inability to admit that tells me all I need to know about your motivations here.

You seem to think Obama's Executive Order (dated Dec., 2009) #13526 doesn't apply to the Secretary of State. I say that it might. Of course, I don't know, as I don't know what's in those email messages, so I can't say whether or not items 2, 3, or 4 of the executive order are satisfied. Apparently, you know for certain that they don't (although I don't quite know how you're so sure).

So for the record, you haven't proved me wrong about any "factual assertion"; the executive order may in fact apply.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Not the point. The Order doesn't specify what information must be classified, as in automatically. It specifies what may be classified, at the discretion of the OCA, and with specific justification.

[SillyAmerican]

Not the point. The Order doesn't specify what information must be classified, as in automatically. It specifies what may be classified, at the discretion of the OCA, and with specific justification.

So let's just be clear what you're saying. If email messages are found in which

• the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
• the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of the executive order;
• it is determined that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage;

then the fact the the original classification authority failed to classify the information is perfectly fine by you, given that the executive order doesn't mandate such action. That's your position, correct?

[Slander and/or Libel]

You keep attributing things i never said to me.

You claimed, citing an anonymous internet comment as a source, that this particular EO automatically made the communications we're talking about classified.

I looked up the EO, and it doesn't say that.

I'm not making value judgments, saying what I'd be fine with. Only saying that the factual assertion, which you uncritically accepted and passed on as the truth, is flatly wrong.

[emailking]

Yeah I agree with Figs here. SillyAmerican, the post you cited said: "According to Obama's Executive Order (dated Dec., 2009) #13526 ANY communication between the State Dept and foreign officials automatically is classified the second it is typed out." But what if the communication isn't expected to damage national security if it became public? Then it wouldn't be classified, right?

Whether it's allowed to be classified or is automatically classified when it is expected to be damaging is kind of beside the point. If it's totally benign information (e.g. schedule availability), it's not classified simply because it's communication between the State Department and foreign officials.

[heatmaster]

I said no such thing. I said you trusted a random internet comment's factual assertion, and I proved you wrong about that factual assertion. Your inability to admit that tells me all I need to know about your motivations here.

You seem to think Obama's Executive Order (dated Dec., 2009) #13526 doesn't apply to the Secretary of State. I say that it might. Of course, I don't know, as I don't know what's in those email messages, so I can't say whether or not items 2, 3, or 4 of the executive order are satisfied. Apparently, you know for certain that they don't (although I don't quite know how you're so sure).

So for the record, you haven't proved me wrong about any "factual assertion"; the executive order may in fact apply.

Well I was playing the devils advocate,  a purely academic exercise on my part, wanted to see how far you Democrats were prepared to go with your nonsensical arguments. Talk about blind faith. Hillary didn't have me fooled one minute. One thing,  you don't know,  is where I really did stand on Hillary or the issue of her emails,  great thing about being a devil's advocate, you can never or will be proven wrong😊

[SillyAmerican]

Yeah I agree with Figs here. SillyAmerican, the post you cited said: "According to Obama's Executive Order (dated Dec., 2009) #13526 ANY communication between the State Dept and foreign officials automatically is classified the second it is typed out." But what if the communication isn't expected to damage national security if it became public? Then it wouldn't be classified, right?

Whether it's allowed to be classified or is automatically classified when it is expected to be damaging is kind of beside the point. If it's totally benign information (e.g. schedule availability), it's not classified simply because it's communication between the State Department and foreign officials.

No, I completely agree: only those emails which satisfy the requirements laid out in the EO would be covered. And I believe Mrs. Clinton has indicated that none of the emails on the server would fall under the EO. I'm not sure I believe that, and I thought that's what the FBI is looking into, which is why I said we have to wait to see what's actually in the emails that are questionable. But if there are messages which discuss sensitive government business on the server, is the Secretary saying "they weren't classified" sufficient to dismiss the question of her competence in this role? (I mean, given the nature and stipulations of the EO?) Frankly, I'm much more interested in what the FBI considers sensitive government business than I am what Mrs. Clinton considers the same, because I consider the judgement of anyone acting in a key government role who thinks it's just fine to use a personal server while serving in that capacity to be severely flawed.