Name:	rude evin -	Reply
Subject:	Good news for HRC??
Date:	1/7/2016 10:26:54 AM

NBC/WSJ poll results....."73 % of US want next Pres to take a different approach from BHO"

NBC has chosen not to air this negative news on their broadcast....

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Good news for Trump
Date:	1/8/2016 3:06:14 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/whoa-hillary-e-mail-instructs-aide-to-transmit-classified-e-mail-without-markings/

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Good news for Trump
Date:	1/8/2016 4:58:02 PM

In a normal world this email alone would be grounds for criminal charges.  The more we see and read the more egregious her actions are and more deserving of not only an indictment but a conviction.  To the extent it does not happen, we are approaching banana republic status.  Then again, the way dear leader uses EO's and the decision not to indict Lois Lerner seems to me to indicate we may already be there.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Good news for Trump
Date:	1/8/2016 5:57:51 PM

If we were to get a president of a different party could Lerner still be indicted after 1-20-17?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Good news for Trump
Date:	1/8/2016 6:10:31 PM

If these emails that she voluntarily turned over contain so much incriminating info just image what the 30k "personal" emails that she deleted must contain. Funny also that we are not hearing anything about those since they finally confiscated the hardware. The FBI could recover all those but we hear nothing about the info in those. Its like they are only investigating the ones she initially submitted. There is no way all those deleted were personal. They hold lots of info regarding the family criminal enterprise err, I mean foundation, and and access I would bet.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/8/2016 6:48:09 PM

Depending on who the classifying authority was for the Talking Points, that person also has the authority to unclassify the material.  If Hilary was the classifying authority, she also had the authority to unclassify it.  A lot of times Talking Points are classified, or even marked "For Official Use Only" (which technically is not a classification) to prevent them from being leaked.  (Yes, technically it is an abuse of the security classification program, but it is done fairly regularly for this reason).  Without knowing the contents, without knowing the classification authority, this might not be the huge violation, it seems. 

I AM NOT sticking up for Hilary, because I don't think she should have used her home server for ANY official business, but I am making the point that in this particular case, without knowing the details, may not have compromised national security.  I think she was pretty stupid to put these directions in an email - she should have just called them and told them to do and not put it writing. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/8/2016 7:06:30 PM

Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it. You would think "the smartest woman in the country" would know better.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/8/2016 8:40:52 PM

She probably didn't figure her emails would ever be a problem... except despite what she says, it was against policy to not use official email for government business.  That came into effect the year before I retired and that would make it 2005.  I suspect she was told this, and just decided that no one was going to take on the Secretary of State.  Wrong....

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Quote of the Day
Date:	1/8/2016 9:10:00 PM

Hound, regarding HRC email use: "... I think she was pretty stupid..."

:-)

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/8/2016 9:12:24 PM

Oh, but she thinks laws and rules are for everyone but HRC!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Quote of the Day
Date:	1/8/2016 10:12:14 PM

Yep!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/9/2016 10:20:02 AM

From what I read it is a federal offense to take something marked classified, remove the classified designation and then send it on.  Maybe the language in the law doesn't apply to Hillary but if that's the case then we are a banana republic.  Of course this was the interpretation of a former federal judge and prosecutor so what the heck would he know?  I know you're not defending her but you seem to be implying that she is above the law.  Doesn't seem right to me but I am guessing Lynch and Obama will go with their interpretation. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A minor technicality
Date:	1/9/2016 10:31:49 AM

No, I am not saying she is above the law.  I'm merely pointing out that as a "classifying authority", if she was, she also had the authority to declassify it.  That is how formerly classifed material can be declassified - it is solely at the decretion of the person or aurthority that classified it in the first place.  I'll give you another example.  High level officials traveling itineraries are usually classified (for obvious reasons) or at a minimum stamped "For Official Use Only" (depending on who the traveler is), but then are usually declassfied at the completion of the travel.  So unless her talking points were based on intelligence from another classifying authority, she technically had the right to unclassify them.  Most of the time this is not done for convenience, as the email chain would imply, but as a minor technicality it may not be a big as deal than is implied. 

Classifying and unclassifying documents is an arcane, complex  and judgemental process at best.  Some people have said that the govenment overclassifies documents, many times just to keep them from the media.  And yes, it is a felony to transmit classified information in a non-secure environment and to those without a need to know, because it implies harm to the national security of th U.S.   But then, some regard the young man that worked at the CIA and did a mass disclosure of classified information, a hero. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 9:03:41 AM

You know I've looked all over the place on the Internet and can't find one reference to a government official being able to arbitrarily declassify something like an email or any document.  Can you send me a reference because I can't find it anywhere. There is a ton of information about automatic declassification after 10 or 25 years but I couldn't find anything like what you described.  And it's interesting that no one, not even Hillary herself or her defenders, have raised this defense. Seems like a no brainier to me and she and her allies would be all over the media raising this slam dunk defense.  And you would think the FBI would close up shop on their investigation instead of moving closer to an indictment. Also, if she had the authority to declassify the emails then why were they heavily redacted before being released?  Doesn't make sense to me.  

Send me a source that grants a govt employee like the SOS the right to arbitrarily declassify something as I can't find it anywhere. Very strange if correct. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 11:40:27 AM (updated 1/10/2016 11:54:28 AM)

There is an Executive Order concerning classified national security information.  Hound is right about the classifying authority.  Someone some where has to decide information is classified, and that person can conversely decide that certain information is no longer classified.  The "declassify after X years" rule is sort of a catchall declassification schedule when the information doesn't warrant special treatment.  You may find the acronym "OADR" on some classified documents as well.  The acronym stands for "Originating Agency's Determination Required" and it basically means that the person or office deciding classification has to be consulted and give approval before another person or agency declassifies the information.

I think HRC would be opening a huge can of worms if she were to now to backtrack and admit there was information on her server that was classified but is not now.  If she were to be the classifying authority for some of the information she could have mounted that defense early on, but would run the risk that part of the classified information on that server belonged to an Agency outside the State Department (e.g., Director of Central Intelligence).  It is in a way amusing to watch her squirm.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 11:53:34 AM

Martini Google "Executive Order on National Security Information" or "Executive Order 15326".  That is where you will find the information.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 1:42:36 PM

So can a head of an agency declassify another agency or branches documents or is that only the purview of the originating agency?  If they can then it makes no sense for her to not use that defense. Too bad, I declassified it before I let it be sent on my personal email network. Admittedly she would have to prove that she did so before it got to her. That would be fun to wash her explain that one. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 2:37:51 PM (updated 1/10/2016 2:43:16 PM)

In the email chain I read she was waiting on talking points from somewhere else and was impatient they hadn't come yet so she ordered it stripped and sent. If she was the originator of the document and hence the classifying agent why would she be waiting on someone else to send it? Curios minds want to know.

I'm certain hound and hodga know what they're talking about. Even if what they say is what happened (she classified it so she could declassify it) it just shows that she put her convenience over national security.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/10/2016 3:54:08 PM

 A classifying authority can only declassified that which they classified in the first place.  If the authority obtains classified information from another source document with another classifying authority, then that authority would have to make a determination if the information was still classified. 

Let me give you an example.  I write talking points that I don't take from a classified source document, but I, as a classifying authority, determine putting all this information together in one place makes it sensitive and I decide to classify it. Maybe it is talking points on a change in strategy, or that we have decided to provide some assistance to another country)  I can then declassify it when if/when I decide that it is no longer classified.  (i.e., if I gave the speech and then the information was out there in open source). (BTW, some would argue that this would be an abuse of the classification system, but it is done on a fairly regular basis to prevent leaks to the media). 

Now suppose I am writing talking points, but I obtain specific classified information from a document produced by one of the intelligence agencies, who have their own classifying authorities and include that in my talking points.  My entire document is then classified by the inclusion of that data, and I cannot unclassify it unless I delete that data or I contact the classifying authority of that particular data and get them to declassify that data. 

Since Hiliary is not addressing any of the classified data and State Department reviewing authority is still reviewing documents to figure out which ones likely contain classified information and may have been unsecured or improperly marked, then it would not make sense for her, at this point, to mount any defense.  And then they would likely have to prove that she knowingly exposed classifed data that she knew was indeed classified. 

Sorry to disappoint, but I sincerely doubt that anything is going to come from any of this.  The classifying system is arcane and subjective and most people, unless they work with it all the time, have any idea how it works.  I've even seen experts argue whether something was really classified or not.  And FYI, to add a little more spice, just because information appears in the media or on the internet, doesn't mean it still isn't classified by the government. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Lifer
Date:	1/10/2016 3:57:50 PM

Because it is a sad truth that Cabinet members, like the Secretary of State, don't write their own talking points.  She might have given them some guidance on what she wanted to say (or maybe not), but the staff would actually write them and have them staffed around before they go to the Principal.  Then likely she would review them, change them as she wanted, send them back to the staff, who might make the changes (if they were very minor) or might have to restaff them again for comments on her proposed changes.  (In case you were wondering what staffs do all day). 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 5:27:06 PM

I believe the original classifying authority retains control, so no, she couldn't tell the Director of CIA that he doesn't know what he is doing.  HRC's control would only be over State Department-classified documents.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/10/2016 5:34:09 PM

I guess I should read all new posts before answering one farther up the chain.  In any case it looks like you and I are in agreement.  I also agree about the subjectivity.  When we used to go in to do our computer security evaluations one of our first questions was "do you have a Sceurity Classification Guide" and almost 100% of the answers was "no", leading to wildly varying opinions of what should be classified and to what level.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/10/2016 8:59:11 PM

Well if all this is true I cannot for the life of me understand why Petraus had to plea bargain. I guess we are officially a banana republic where the high and mighty get away with crimes. Just amazing to me the FBI has dropped this investigation.  She is apparently subject to no laws. Pretty sad. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I can't find this anywhere
Date:	1/10/2016 9:59:28 PM

Well if that's case she did indeed break the law.  This is just one of many reasons For limited federal government. These people act like they are royalty and are above the laws applicable to us mere mortals. I seriously doubt our current DOJ will allow an indictment to happen. And at this point Hillary may be the best candidate for the GOP to run against. Time will tell. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/10/2016 10:28:24 PM

Well, we know why Petraus got by - he's one of Obama's special advisors. 

Two things that Petraus did - didn't have the classified information in a secure location and he shared classified information with someone (his girlfriend) that had a clearance, but didn't thave a "need to know".  I've heard Petarus claim that he actually has secure storage in his home that had been approved.  His bigger sin, to me, was sharing classified information with someone who didn't have a need to know.  That's one of the things - not only do you have to have a clearance, but you also have to have a need to know. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/11/2016 6:31:58 AM

Petraus had his personal journal in his desk drawer and allowed his gf/biographer access it. Hillary sent her server with thousands of classified files to a third party for administration. She turned total control of said files over not knowing who had access but knowing with certainty that not one of them had clearance. I think we all agree she broke the law, we are just debating to what degree. I am sick of Clinton's and bush's and would be happy if they would just slink off into the night like the weasals they are.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no
Date:	1/11/2016 3:38:11 PM

So what you are saying is what Patreus did was worse than what Hillary did?!?!?!?  All I can say to that is she should only hope for thinking like that if this ever gets to a jury.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Curiosity question
Date:	1/11/2016 4:09:02 PM

The question that I have never really considered until now is this: Who decides need-to-know? 

I would guess that decision is made by the person allowing another person access to the information.  The rules on need to know are far less firm than the rules on classification.  Don't know of any definitive guidance on that aspect.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no, that's not what I am saying - and Hodja
Date:	1/11/2016 4:48:59 PM

It's two different instances of involving classified data.  Both are wrong.  You seem intent on finding me sympathetic to Hilary, but that is not the case.  Nor am I sympathetic to Petraus.  I think he should have been reduced in rank over everything that happned with his "biographer".  I knew a man that went to jail for showing some rather inocuous classified data to a foreign national who was his friend.  Just let him look at it.  And he got 10 years, and the foreign national was expelled from the country.

I'm not saying that I don't think Hilary deserves jail time, I'm just saying that I don't think it will happen. Perhaps if I or everyone else knew exactly what classified data was transmitted via unsecure means, it would be easier to judge.  But as it stands, she's no longer a state department employee and the chances of her getting charged and jailed is remote.  If anything, she may be fined like Petraus was. 

Hodja, I have no idea who makes the determination of who has a need to know - except the person doing the transfer and the one receiving the information.  Inquiries are supposed to be made as to why that person has a "need to know" before the transfer takes place.  As you know, the higher the level of classification, there more paritions there are - and just because you have a level of security clearance doesn't automatically make you eligible to receive all data at that level.  You have to be read on to certain compartments before you can access information that is restricted in that compartment.  And the reason they do that is to prevent espionage.  The last big spy case involved a guy working for the CIA that was accessing files that he wasn't read in on and didn't have the need to know.  I still can't believe that a contractor at the CIA had so much access to files and was able to capture and release so much dmanaging information. Of course, if he is ever returned to the U.S., I hope he is convicted of high treason.  But there many that regard him as a hero.

But he a day to day basis, I agree with you that "need to know" can be tricky.  I guess that is considered part of the responsibility of having a security clearance. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	MM - no, that's not what I am saying - and Hodja
Date:	1/11/2016 5:05:40 PM

Well I agree with you that she probably won't be indicted but for a totally different reason and that is pure politics instead of what is true and right.  But I do think you are providing exculpatory explanations that seems to imply she hasn't done something wrong vis-a-vis this particular email.  But I do know you are no fan of her so I take your explanations with that in mind.

Couple of interesting developments.  More than half of Democrats in some poll said she should still run even if she is indicted.  That to me is madness......but all too common with the modern Democrat party these days.  If she were a Republican she would have been gone a long time ago.  Also, it seems the FBI has now expanded its investigation into corruption charges along with the other alleged criminal acts.

Do you think if she loses either the nomination or the general that Obama will pardon her?  I do if she has ammo against him which she probably does.  

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Not Sure....
Date:	1/11/2016 5:38:39 PM

Not sure what in my posts made you think I am giving HRC a pass.  Certainly there was no intent to do so.  I just stated the rules regarding information classification and handling as I know them.  In my opinion she should be put under the jail.  Her arrogance and flaunting of the rules that the rest of us must live by is maddening.  I can't believe so many Dems still support her sorry a$$.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Not Sure....
Date:	1/12/2016 6:34:27 PM

I thought I was just explaining how this works, and I wasn't giving Hilary a pass.  Actually, I am very, very conservative when it comes to classified data .  My observation is that a lot of political appointees play fast ad loose with classified - I had a boss who was a political and stood up in an open forum with the media present and released classified information - pretty significant classified information that put sources at risk.  He got fired for it, but he was totally incompetent anyway. And it is common practice in DC to be very careful what information you give to the HIll, because they are known to totally disregard classification.  So don't ever think that I think that anyone should be given a pass. 

Given what I remember about Hilary in the WH, and then as SecState, I don't know why people support her.  But it appears that she has become a power player and the Democrats seem scared to death of her.  Maybe she's got a lot of dirt on everyone.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Not Sure....
Date:	1/13/2016 10:41:29 PM

I think his comment was directed at me and not you.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Not Sure....
Date:	1/14/2016 1:30:57 PM

Actually I was responding to Hound's comment that was under my post, but on further reflection I think her comment was directed at you.  My posts were intended only to explain what I know about classifying and protecting national security information, something I have dealt with day to day for almost half a century.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	What difference does beyond top secret make?????
Date:	1/20/2016 5:11:12 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	What difference does beyond top secret make?????
Date:	1/25/2016 9:42:30 PM

Nothing if the perpetrators are allowed to skate.  If it weren't for Fox News, very few would even know of its existence.  The question is this: will Obama's political agenda trump even the FBI's penchant for independence?

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	What difference does beyond top secret make?????
Date:	1/25/2016 10:02:50 PM

http://www.infowars.com/fbi-investigators-will-go-public-if-obamas-attorney-general-does-not-indict-hillary-clinton/

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	What difference does beyond top secret make?????
Date:	1/26/2016 10:26:06 AM

The FBI cannot indict anyone. It will have to come from the Attorney General Loretta Lynch's DoJ... The FBI can recommend and will but can't do anything else. Clinton may be forced into a plea bargain to get a conviction that Obama can pardon before Jan. 20,2017 when Trump takes over. If the Obama DoJ were to do nothing with the FBI report, you can be certain the Trump DoJ will... and there won't be a pardon waiting for her either.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	What difference does beyond top secret make?????
Date:	1/26/2016 12:11:17 PM

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/another-day-another-new-clinton-crime