Hillary is Officially 'F*ED': Guccifer - 'I hacked Hillary's server'

[JoeB131]

A secret clearance is basically issued. Every 18 Series Special Forces operator has one. A TS takes an FBI investigation.

so what?

Guy, I hate to break it to you, but nothing is going to come of this.

I mean, seriously, did you guys learn nothing from the 1990's. You know, when you trotted out your parade of "scandals" like the travel office, the FBI files, Vince Foster, Whitewater and finally Zippergate, and at the end of the day, you were much like the boy who cried wolf.

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of trying to convince people that an e-mail about a news story that Sid Blumenthal sent her was "Top Secret", how about running a candidate who appeals to women, Hispanics, Young people and other groups you've consistently lost.

Oh,wait. Too late. You guys already picked your guy and did the exact opposite of that.

 

[hadit]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

 

[Faun]

This info should all but guarantee Hillary goes to prison!

(RE: Drudgereport.com)

Yeah any day now. Any day now...

Umm... no, not any day now...

Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

 

[paperview]

You're not getting it.

Seriously.

No, I know how the SCIF system for classified information. I written on it numerous times here. Also the SIPRNet. (Here, have a WikiLeak.)

What is at hand is the retroactive classification of emails deemed classified or sensitive *because* the FOIA request forces information to be released.

Otherwise we wouldn't know. Just like Powell's emails to his personal .AOL address were found to contain classified information after a review.

Had Clinton used the state.gov address, nothing would have changed what was in the emails. FOIA. Understand how and what it does.


I'm sure you still don't get it, though, so keep flicking that retroactive, overclassified chicken.

No sir. A FOIA request doesn't and never will change the determination of the classification of ANY SECURE communication.. That content is classified BY RECOGNITION of the content. Not by what some pajama reporter determines that they want to access.

No such thing as " a retro-active" REclassification. This stuff resides in PEOPLE'S HEADs. And those selected people are trained in RECOGNIZING every little part of what content IS classified. Problem with Hilary stuff laying BARE NAKED in a Lawyer shop with DOZEN of assistants pawing through it for WEEKS -- is that NONE of folks should have even been reading it or trying to determine what was and was not "classified" and at what levels. Which is why the FBI swooped in and took possession of ALL of it...

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.

Your Honor, I'd like to call Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Stand...


Q: : And I want to ask you about her emails. You've been in government pretty much your whole life. Secretary Clinton has spent a good deal of time in government. I know there is lots of overclassification and people complain about that. But with your experience, if you read a document in an email, would you have a pretty good idea whether it should be marked Top Secret even if it wasn't?


ROBERT GATES: Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret.


RADDATZ: Even if it’s the highest classification?


GATES: And I would look at somebody and say, I'm about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that's marked Top Secret. And that's going to do serious damage to the United States?

Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it's classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not."

^ From the May 1 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.


Your honor, the jury finds the defendant: Not Guilty

 

[Care4all]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

And what about the 8 people who also had T/S clearance and obligation to classify the info if it was T/S that handled it....? Back and forth via email FOR A YEAR on an UNCLASSIFIED government system, that forwarded the info to Clinton a year later?

You guys live in some ''fantasy'' world.....and your hatred for Clinton is deep....so deep that your common sense, NEVER comes in to play I'm afraid to say...you just want to nail her, whatever it takes.....it's clear as day.

 

[hadit]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

And what about the 8 people who also had T/S clearance and obligation to classify the info if it was T/S that handled it....? Back and forth via email FOR A YEAR on an UNCLASSIFIED government system, that forwarded the info to Clinton a year later?

You guys live in some ''fantasy'' world.....and your hatred for Clinton is deep....so deep that your common sense, NEVER comes in to play I'm afraid to say...you just want to nail her, whatever it takes.....it's clear as day.

What about them? They should ALL be held responsible if they mishandled classified information. The fact remains, however, that "It wasn't marked classified at the time" is NOT a substantive defense of Hillary. Note as well that I'm not saying that she deliberately broke the law, I'm saying that she was careless with classified information.

 

[JoeB131]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

Real world, important people have people to make those determinations.

And given that no one has even characterized these "Secrets" yet... it's kind of hard to get worked up over them.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Yes because it was being released to the public. State said as much. They said they were upgraded to prevent release. How do you not know this?

If it was CLASSIFIED when it was REVIEWED ---- then it was CLASSIFIED when it was first communicated. Nothing changes -- except the TOP LEVEL stuff was exposed to a lot of workers and lawyers who were NOT CLEARED to review it...

 

[flacaltenn]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

And what about the 8 people who also had T/S clearance and obligation to classify the info if it was T/S that handled it....? Back and forth via email FOR A YEAR on an UNCLASSIFIED government system, that forwarded the info to Clinton a year later?

You guys live in some ''fantasy'' world.....and your hatred for Clinton is deep....so deep that your common sense, NEVER comes in to play I'm afraid to say...you just want to nail her, whatever it takes.....it's clear as day.

What about them? They should ALL be held responsible if they mishandled classified information. The fact remains, however, that "It wasn't marked classified at the time" is NOT a substantive defense of Hillary. Note as well that I'm not saying that she deliberately broke the law, I'm saying that she was careless with classified information.

She DELIBERATELY broke the law the first time she saw Classified Info travel over that comm link and did not FIX the problem or report it... She was the one cleared into the majority of closeted programs and SHE was trained to recognize the classification of everything she heard or saw..

 

[bodecea]

Checking in...how's that indictment coming along?

 

[flacaltenn]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

And what about the 8 people who also had T/S clearance and obligation to classify the info if it was T/S that handled it....? Back and forth via email FOR A YEAR on an UNCLASSIFIED government system, that forwarded the info to Clinton a year later?

You guys live in some ''fantasy'' world.....and your hatred for Clinton is deep....so deep that your common sense, NEVER comes in to play I'm afraid to say...you just want to nail her, whatever it takes.....it's clear as day.

They ALL should lose their clearances if they continue to compromise that information over a year or several years.. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[hadit]

The "It wasn't marked classified" dodge requires Hillary to be incompetent. As Sec State, it is her responsibility to mark information as classified and handle it appropriately, not have someone else do it for her. It's a loser defense.

Real world, important people have people to make those determinations.

And given that no one has even characterized these "Secrets" yet... it's kind of hard to get worked up over them.

Irrelevant. She was responsible to know and the information is under her control. She set this environment up and it was hers.

 

[flacaltenn]

No sir. A FOIA request doesn't and never will change the determination of the classification of ANY SECURE communication.. That content is classified BY RECOGNITION of the content. Not by what some pajama reporter determines that they want to access.

No such thing as " a retro-active" REclassification. This stuff resides in PEOPLE'S HEADs. And those selected people are trained in RECOGNIZING every little part of what content IS classified. Problem with Hilary stuff laying BARE NAKED in a Lawyer shop with DOZEN of assistants pawing through it for WEEKS -- is that NONE of folks should have even been reading it or trying to determine what was and was not "classified" and at what levels. Which is why the FBI swooped in and took possession of ALL of it...

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.

Your Honor, I'd like to call Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Stand...


Q: : And I want to ask you about her emails. You've been in government pretty much your whole life. Secretary Clinton has spent a good deal of time in government. I know there is lots of overclassification and people complain about that. But with your experience, if you read a document in an email, would you have a pretty good idea whether it should be marked Top Secret even if it wasn't?


ROBERT GATES: Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret.


RADDATZ: Even if it’s the highest classification?


GATES: And I would look at somebody and say, I'm about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that's marked Top Secret. And that's going to do serious damage to the United States?

Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it's classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not."

^ From the May 1 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.


Your honor, the jury finds the defendant: Not Guilty

Gates has the right to review and APPEAL classifications. But in this case --- he was admonishing an aide for giving it to him as a talking point. Things are "overclassified" because if folks are in doubt -- they ERR on the side of caution.

But NONE of that discussion goes to the CRIMINAL act of ALLOWING that information to LEAVE the secure channels it is SUPPOSED to travel in..

If you are the Big Cheese and you WANT to stick your neck out and reclassify something -- that's YOUR burden. HERE -- he's producing an example where NO information ever left the approved handling or channels.

 

[hadit]

Checking in...how's that indictment coming along?

It's going nowhere, because even if the FBI recommends it, the DOJ will never do it. The best we can hope for is she becomes toxic enough to retire the Clinton brand.

 

[flacaltenn]

Checking in...how's that indictment coming along?

It's going nowhere, because even if the FBI recommends it, the DOJ will never do it. The best we can hope for is she becomes toxic enough to retire the Clinton brand.

Actually no indictment is neccessary. The FBI merely has to REVOKE her courtesy clearances she currently has and issue a statement that she would NOT BE a suitable candidate for future security clearances. All within their rights to do..

So THEN --- we see who will ride the suicide train with her all the way to November....

 

[mudwhistle]

A secret clearance is basically issued. Every 18 Series Special Forces operator has one. A TS takes an FBI investigation.

so what?

Guy, I hate to break it to you, but nothing is going to come of this.

I mean, seriously, did you guys learn nothing from the 1990's. You know, when you trotted out your parade of "scandals" like the travel office, the FBI files, Vince Foster, Whitewater and finally Zippergate, and at the end of the day, you were much like the boy who cried wolf.

Here's a crazy idea. Instead of trying to convince people that an e-mail about a news story that Sid Blumenthal sent her was "Top Secret", how about running a candidate who appeals to women, Hispanics, Young people and other groups you've consistently lost.

Oh,wait. Too late. You guys already picked your guy and did the exact opposite of that.

I figure nothing will come of it because the White House and the Democratic Party as a whole is corrupt up to their eyeballs.
And running a candidate who appeals to women means running a faggot who doesn't tell the truth. No Republican will ever appeal to women. If jobs, secure borders, and national security doesn't appeal to women then maybe they should go pound sand.

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant. She was responsible to know and the information is under her control. She set this environment up and it was hers.

Again, please cite another case of someone being sent to prison for receiving 'classified' material unknowingly.

thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

I figure nothing will come of it because the White House and the Democratic Party as a whole is corrupt up to their eyeballs.
And running a candidate who appeals to women means running a faggot who doesn't tell the truth. No Republican will ever appeal to women. If jobs, secure borders, and national security doesn't appeal to women then maybe they should go pound sand.

Or maybe they should realize Republicans suck at those things.

Last time you guys held power, you fucked up the jobs thing, you fucked up the national security thing, and you weren't all that keen on the borders things.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually no indictment is neccessary. The FBI merely has to REVOKE her courtesy clearances she currently has and issue a statement that she would NOT BE a suitable candidate for future security clearances. All within their rights to do..

So THEN --- we see who will ride the suicide train with her all the way to November....

I garuntee you, the FBI guy who does that is going to find every hooker he ever contacted has been given a slot on the 5:30 news to tell us he isn't the straight arrow he claims to be.

No FBI agent is going to commit career suicide by trying to backdoor the next boss.

Here's how it's going to play out. the FBI will issue a report saying that the State Department didn't break any laws, but that their adherence to rules was lax and they really need to look at that.

Hillary will get elected. You will be whining about her for the next four years the way you've whined about Obama for the last 8. But you'll still get your fat government checks.

 

[hadit]

Irrelevant. She was responsible to know and the information is under her control. She set this environment up and it was hers.

Again, please cite another case of someone being sent to prison for receiving 'classified' material unknowingly.

thanks.

Dude, you seem incapable of seeing anything beyond the narrowest of things that conveniently spin things positively for Hillary. Your laughable post only slightly reaches the level of deserving a reply, but here goes.

1. I didn't ever say Hillary would be sent to prison. I have, however, stated that any ordinary person who did what she did would have been charged long ago. I don't think that's even controversial.
2. If you are seriously saying that Hillary received emails containing classified information and DID NOT KNOW IT, you are not defending her, because you're basically saying she was incompetent as Sec State and should never see the inside of the White House again without a visitor's pass.
3. I do not believe Hillary will go to prison. The best outcome we can hope for from this is for her to be nominated, then this to make her so toxic that she cannot possibly win the White House and democrat hopes for totalitarian control will be dashed for another generation.