Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are wrong on that.... This is PRECISELY how it works...and how it has worked from the beginning of time.
Throughout the govt, there has ALWAYS BEEN classifying information to be released on FOIA, AFTER THE FACT, after the original transmission, sometimes even a year or two later. Every govt official has STATED this....over and over and over again.
truth will set you free...
What the hell does a FOIA have to do with whether material was classified or not?
And it's YOU that doesn't understand how this applies to the most restricted and secret levels. If in the process of a FOIA request someone accidentally discovers ANY classified content -- it is redacted. If that communication traveled over an UNSECURE channel it then a CRIME..
The way it's supposed to work is that CLASSIFIED info travels over it's own methods. And NONE of that stuff is subject to FOIA at all. Not without an expiration date or Executive order. . The only time this matters is when a crime has ALREADY been committed.
You're missing the point. None of those emails had classified content at the time of their transmittal. The content of the emails was later classified upon review for public release. Why is that so hard to understand?
No --- you don't understand that classified conversations don't REQUIRE markings. No more than a person to person classified convo requires a marking. The procedures are suppose to identify the people at both ends and verify that they are ENTITLED to that convo.. And ALL of it was SUPPOSED to flow ONLY in certified secure channels..
It is the CONTENT that determines the classifications. NOT the markings. And CONTENT resides mostly in people's heads. They were selected and trained to recognize the boundaries.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
What the hell does a FOIA have to do with whether material was classified or not?
And it's YOU that doesn't understand how this applies to the most restricted and secret levels. If in the process of a FOIA request someone accidentally discovers ANY classified content -- it is redacted. If that communication traveled over an UNSECURE channel it then a CRIME..
The way it's supposed to work is that CLASSIFIED info travels over it's own methods. And NONE of that stuff is subject to FOIA at all. Not without an expiration date or Executive order. . The only time this matters is when a crime has ALREADY been committed.
You're missing the point. None of those emails had classified content at the time of their transmittal. The content of the emails was later classified upon review for public release. Why is that so hard to understand?
No --- you don't understand that classified conversations don't REQUIRE markings. No more than a person to person classified convo requires a marking. The procedures are suppose to identify the people at both ends and verify that they are ENTITLED to that convo.. And ALL of it was SUPPOSED to flow ONLY in certified secure channels..
It is the CONTENT that determines the classifications. NOT the markings. And CONTENT resides mostly in people's heads. They were selected and trained to recognize the boundaries.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
You're missing the point. None of those emails had classified content at the time of their transmittal. The content of the emails was later classified upon review for public release. Why is that so hard to understand?
No --- you don't understand that classified conversations don't REQUIRE markings. No more than a person to person classified convo requires a marking. The procedures are suppose to identify the people at both ends and verify that they are ENTITLED to that convo.. And ALL of it was SUPPOSED to flow ONLY in certified secure channels..
It is the CONTENT that determines the classifications. NOT the markings. And CONTENT resides mostly in people's heads. They were selected and trained to recognize the boundaries.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
What the hell does a FOIA have to do with whether material was classified or not?
And it's YOU that doesn't understand how this applies to the most restricted and secret levels. If in the process of a FOIA request someone accidentally discovers ANY classified content -- it is redacted. If that communication traveled over an UNSECURE channel it then a CRIME..
The way it's supposed to work is that CLASSIFIED info travels over it's own methods. And NONE of that stuff is subject to FOIA at all. Not without an expiration date or Executive order. . The only time this matters is when a crime has ALREADY been committed.
You're missing the point. None of those emails had classified content at the time of their transmittal. The content of the emails was later classified upon review for public release. Why is that so hard to understand?
No --- you don't understand that classified conversations don't REQUIRE markings. No more than a person to person classified convo requires a marking. The procedures are suppose to identify the people at both ends and verify that they are ENTITLED to that convo.. And ALL of it was SUPPOSED to flow ONLY in certified secure channels..
It is the CONTENT that determines the classifications. NOT the markings. And CONTENT resides mostly in people's heads. They were selected and trained to recognize the boundaries.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
No --- you don't understand that classified conversations don't REQUIRE markings. No more than a person to person classified convo requires a marking. The procedures are suppose to identify the people at both ends and verify that they are ENTITLED to that convo.. And ALL of it was SUPPOSED to flow ONLY in certified secure channels..
It is the CONTENT that determines the classifications. NOT the markings. And CONTENT resides mostly in people's heads. They were selected and trained to recognize the boundaries.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
Ridiculous.
Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
Ridiculous.
So you believe that SOMEONE -- on a WHIM --- decided to SUDDENLY classify material as TS SCI??? Long after it was generated.. That's how you believe poor Hilary was TRAPPED into having it on a unprotected commercial network and equipment. Now THAT's ridiculous.. And it shows how little the public understands about the process and the rules.
The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
I think hilary set up the server specifically so it could be easilly hacked.....and she sold information to foreign governments and then let them go into her server to get it......she got cash, they got the info. and she didn't have to hand it to them........that is the story not getting covered.....
'Classified' is 'subjective'?! WTF? You're an idiot!The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
The problem is, the 'classified' designation is largely subjective.What YOU might consider classified someone else might not.
But I'm still waiting for you to point out an example of someone going to prison because someone else sent them an e-mail they shouldn't have seen.
'Classified' is 'subjective'?! WTF? You're an idiot!
The WH declared there was information on Hillary's private server so secret it could not be released in any form because it would cause grave damage to our national security.
Does that sound 'subjective'?
And now today it is being reported that the State Department is suddenly, and conveniently, claiming not only all e-mails and Hillary-associated documents but also the entire '.pst' file of Hillary's IT Tech - Pagluano, who maintained Hillary's private server, are suddenly 'missing'...at the time he is being called to testify before the FBI.
there was a couple articles on it, stating Kerry's State department was arguing with the Intelligence community over whether the email truly contained top secret info....they argued for months over it, but the Intelligence community won the battle and designated it T/S, and another of the T/S emails that the intelligence community wanted top secret was supplied info to her from Blumenthal, and Blumenthal got the info from PUBLIC sources, initially the intelligence community thought it was classified as T.S before she received the email on it, but when they researched it, the FBI found that they did not get this info and decide it would be designated T/s until a week after she had received the info.Whatever dude. Even routine correspondence among staffers can become classified or redacted if later released. That doesn't mean it was classified at the time or that anyone did anything wrong.
Oh they can redact a LOT of stuff. They can claim Executive Privilege and redact it.. They can claim it's SENSITIVE (like all those TPP trade papers. But if it is redacted for CLASSIFICATION. It was ALWAYS classified. There is no discretion, interpretation or whim involved. And if those communications appeared outside of security containment -- it IS a crime..
Sensitive is a classification. Something is only classified from the date of the classification forward. None of these were classified until they were reviewed for release years after Clinton's tenure had ended and her server was no more. To suggest anything other than that is wishful thinking.
The CONTENT was classified when the communications were GENERATED,.. That definition NEVER changed. It was improperly channeled and handled. In fact -- that IS THE Crime right there.
Material at that level being SCI means that it should NEVER have been outside of secure containment.
Ridiculous.
So you believe that SOMEONE -- on a WHIM --- decided to SUDDENLY classify material as TS SCI??? Long after it was generated.. That's how you believe poor Hilary was TRAPPED into having it on a unprotected commercial network and equipment. Now THAT's ridiculous.. And it shows how little the public understands about the process and the rules.
The book is Revelation....just sayin'...it ain't plural.It's in Revelations..This info should all but guarantee Hillary goes to prison!
(RE: Drudgereport.com)
Yeah any day now. Any day now...
You're no genius either.If he's a hacker like your a genius there's nothing to worry about.Guccifer is a notorious hacker of not only those on the left but those on the right. I remember how he hacked into Coin Powell's email.
The WH declared information was found in Hillary's server SO secret it can not be released in any form because it would cause grave danage to our National Security....
'Until I see what's in the e-mail that's just one guy's opinion.' - JoeB
Good grief, Gruber was right!
It is obvious you have NO CLUE about classified information, what makes it classified, and how it becomes classified. Documents are not classified based on OPINION. Source, content, and more effect the classification level of information. It isn't based on one or two people sitting around a table giving their OPINION.
And 'Until I read it...' - SERIOUSLY?! What part of 'can not be released (to anyone)' do you not understand?!
That has to be one of the most embarassing posts I have read in a long time...if not ever.
The Kremlin is planning on releasing 20,000 of Hillary's emails that they hacked off of her server as well........so.....we're waiting for the other shoe to drop any day now.This info should all but guarantee Hillary goes to prison!
(RE: Drudgereport.com)
Yeah any day now. Any day now...
It is obvious you have NO CLUE about classified information, what makes it classified, and how it becomes classified. Documents are not classified based on OPINION. Source, content, and more effect the classification level of information. It isn't based on one or two people sitting around a table giving their OPINION.
And 'Until I read it...' - SERIOUSLY?! What part of 'can not be released (to anyone)' do you not understand?!
That has to be one of the most embarassing posts I have read in a long time...if not ever.
A secret clearance is basically issued. Every 18 Series Special Forces operator has one. A TS takes an FBI investigation.It is obvious you have NO CLUE about classified information, what makes it classified, and how it becomes classified. Documents are not classified based on OPINION. Source, content, and more effect the classification level of information. It isn't based on one or two people sitting around a table giving their OPINION.
Guy, I used to have a Secret Clearence. stuff that is "classified' even back in the 1980's was stuff you could find out through careful research. And that was before we had an "information age".
The thing is, we live in an age of government not keeping secrets from our enemies, but from us.
And 'Until I read it...' - SERIOUSLY?! What part of 'can not be released (to anyone)' do you not understand?!
That has to be one of the most embarassing posts I have read in a long time...if not ever.
No, guy, what's embarrassing is that you think you are going to get Hillary on some legal technicality.
It's like you guys learned not a fucking thing from the 1990's, when you spent 70 million dollars, came up with a jizz-stained dress and said, "See, see, we told you they were dirty!" and the rest of us said, "Dude, it was only a blow job!"
