APNewsBreak: US declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
As scary as it may be, I held one of the highest clearances while I was active duty, assigned to the US Army Visual Information Center in the Pentagon. Room 5A132 for anyone that spent time in the building. I had it because I was developing film and color printing top secret photographs alongside government employees. We all went through security training on a regular basis and it amazes me that anyone could defend this bullshit.
Click to expand...
Big whoop. I had Top Secret clearance.
Since I didn't have a need to know. I didn't see anything top secret.
But if I did. It wasn't marked.
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Big whoop. I had Top Secret clearance.
Since I didn't have a need to know. I didn't see anything top secret.
But if I did. It wasn't marked.
Click to expand...
How would you know? You told everybody that you mentally checked out a month ago. All of the sudden stopped taking your meds, and became very distant...
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, which Schmidt provided in an email, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

In short, the State Department was required to ensure that Secretary Clinton's emails, including those on personal accounts, were preserved in an agency record-keeping system. The failure to ensure such preservation would therefore likely be in violation of the federal requirements, though it's not clear whether all of her personal emails – or just those related to official business – would be required.

Schmidt believes that all of Clinton's emails would be required, and pointed to a 2008 definition from NARA that defines federal records as "documentary materials that agencies create and receive while conducting business that provide evidence of the agency's organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and operations, or because they contain information of value. "

@see4
Click to expand...
Right. So why is Hillary Clinton being investigated for something she did not "create". Again, someone authorized the use of home mail servers. Who? And why?
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Big whoop. I had Top Secret clearance.
Since I didn't have a need to know. I didn't see anything top secret.
But if I did. It wasn't marked.
Click to expand...
Every yahoo in our photo lab had a top secret clearance, about six of us had clearances far beyond that and dealt with all the truly sensitive material. I was active duty in the late 80's and EVERY piece of classified material was clearly labeled, ridiculously so. There was also a documented chain of possession as the material went through the lab. Maybe things have changed, but I find it hard to believe.

I do believe you had a top secret clearance, but you admit you never handled classified material on a regular basis. I would argue that if you had, you would find almost all of Clinton's excuses and explanations wildly unbelievable.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
My father had top secret clearance in the airforce. If he did not lock up and secure the information properly, he could be prosecuted.

If he had taken some of it home, or left it where people could access it....
Click to expand...
Hillary did not leave her home mail server "open" for anyone to access it. And because an authoritative body gave her access to the mail exchange servers (located on government property) - that authoritative body is responsible for the security and maintenance of the email records. Again, Hillary herself did not set up her some mail server, someone authorized it and gave her access. She just used the tools provided to her. And up until 2014, as I've mentioned several times before, unless specifically stated, documents, electronic or otherwise, could be considered "unclassified".
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Every yahoo in our photo lab had a top secret clearance, about six of us had clearances far beyond that and dealt with all the truly sensitive material. I was active duty in the late 80's and EVERY piece of classified material was clearly labeled, ridiculously so. There was also a documented chain of possession as the material went through the lab. Maybe things have changed, but I find it hard to believe.

I do believe you had a top secret clearance, but you admit you never handled classified material on a regular basis. I would argue that if you had, you would find almost all of Clinton's excuses and explanations wildly unbelievable.
Click to expand...
What clearance is, "far beyond", top secret? Inquiring minds want to know. o_O
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Right. So why is Hillary Clinton being investigated for something she did not "create". Again, someone authorized the use of home mail servers. Who? And why?
Click to expand...
When it comes to classified material exposure, your argument is as valid as this scenario.

"Hey Sarge, can I sell these weapon blueprints to this Chinese spy I met at Starbucks."

"Sure, Private. Go right ahead"

"Hey, don't blame me, I had Sarge's permission"

Exaggerated, but when it comes to classified information, you're held responsible for ANYTHING that comes into your possession or care. No one can give you authorization to disregard security protocol...not even the POTUS.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
What clearance is, "far beyond", top secret? Inquiring minds want to know. o_O
Click to expand...
While the term top secret is the highest of the three clearances, there is a considerable amount of material that requires more highly scrutinized background investigation, as well as a definitive need to know, to view.

That material has been spoken of in the recent news articles as there were several emails on Clinton's server that qualified for the higher designation. SCI and SAP are the current designators, but for the life of me, I remember my designator being top secret SVI. The only reason I had the "need to know" was someone had to develop the film and print the photographs. Ahh, the good 'ol days before digital.

Edit: I dug around in my closet and looked at my packet, it was SCI. My how the memory goes with age and drug use.
 
Last edited:
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
When it comes to classified material exposure, your argument is as valid as this scenario.

"Hey Sarge, can I sell these weapon blueprints to this Chinese spy I met at Starbucks."

"Sure, Private. Go right ahead"

"Hey, don't blame me, I had Sarge's permission"

Exaggerated, but when it comes to classified information, you're held responsible for ANYTHING that comes into your possession or care. No one can give you authorization to disregard security protocol...not even the POTUS.
Click to expand...
So if it not marked classified.
How do you know it is or not?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Every yahoo in our photo lab had a top secret clearance, about six of us had clearances far beyond that and dealt with all the truly sensitive material. I was active duty in the late 80's and EVERY piece of classified material was clearly labeled, ridiculously so. There was also a documented chain of possession as the material went through the lab. Maybe things have changed, but I find it hard to believe.

I do believe you had a top secret clearance, but you admit you never handled classified material on a regular basis. I would argue that if you had, you would find almost all of Clinton's excuses and explanations wildly unbelievable.
Click to expand...
General dynamics boat yard. My badge read top secret.
And as you stated. Everything classified was labeled.
Clinton received emails that originated from elsewhere and none zero zilch was labeled classified. Half the documents were classified retroactively.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
So if it not marked classified.
How do you know it is or not?
Click to expand...
It's very simple, EVERY piece of information that is classified is clearly marked. The only way you recieve unmarked classified material is if it is illegally duplicated by some means and then forwarded. If she can convince the same underlings that she instructed to remove classified markings, to take the fall and say they did it entirely on their own, well done her.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
One thing we can be sure of is the conservatives at RIU have already proved themselves to be irrational when it comes to political differences, some even espousing global conspiracy theories when the chips don't fall in their favor. As we've seen in the past with examples like anthropogenic climate change (Climategate), Planned Parenthood and Benghazi, it doesn't matter to them if dozens of independent, bipartisan investigations find no criminal wrongdoing, they lay guilt regardless

The ol' 'Boy who cried wolf' predicament..

And when this turns out to be the same thing, nothing will change
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
General dynamics boat yard. My badge read top secret.
And as you stated. Everything classified was labeled.
Clinton received emails that originated from elsewhere and none zero zilch was labeled classified. Half the documents were classified retroactively.
Click to expand...
Actually, they have her instructing underlings to forward classified excerpts without the classified labeling via unsecured means.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
One thing we can be sure of is the conservatives at RIU have already proved themselves to be irrational when it comes to political differences, some even espousing global conspiracy theories when the chips don't fall in their favor. As we've seen in the past with examples like anthropogenic climate change (Climategate), Planned Parenthood and Benghazi, it doesn't matter to them if dozens of independent, bipartisan investigations find no criminal wrongdoing, they lay guilt regardless

The ol' 'Boy who cried wolf' predicament..

And when this turns out to be the same thing, nothing will change
Click to expand...
We are talking about facts here. Meanwhile you and your ilk are speculating.

We can sit here and say Republicans do wrong, while your type think ONLY Republicans do wrong.

We have posted the exact laws and nondisclosure agreements she broke.

If you want to keep letting them chip away at the foundations of our Society, with their blatant disregard for the law, well you go ahead.

Just don't cry to us when your Knights in shining armor start to beat and abuse you.
 
R

red w. blue

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
We are talking about facts here. Meanwhile you and your ilk are speculating.

We can sit here and say Republicans do wrong, while your type think ONLY Republicans do wrong.

We have posted the exact laws and nondisclosure agreements she broke.

If you want to keep letting them chip away at the foundations of our Society, with their blatant disregard for the law, well you go ahead.

Just don't cry to us when your Knights in shining armor start to beat and abuse you.
Click to expand...
Liberals and truth, are like oil and water they just don't mix well. To bad there isn't a surfactant for this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top