U.S. Politics - the pre-pre-pre-pre Primary season edition

[Mudguard]

I'm talking about the thirty thousand emails she's turned over and any attachments included in those emails.

Where's your support for your claim that all her emails were reviewed as a matter of course?

[Swordfish]

The perspective differences about the email issues are interesting. A more right leaning board I frequent sees this as something that might sink Clinton. Here, it's a non-issue. I have no one I'm excited about for 2016 and as such this is interesting to watch from the "outside".

 

 

It's a non issue here because a lot of board members are considering her a lock no matter what.  Time will tell if that position is correct or not.

[Inigima]

I'm talking about the thirty thousand emails she's turned over and any attachments included in those emails.

Where's your support for your claim that all her emails were reviewed as a matter of course?

I'm not making that claim. I'm claiming that -- and this is an assumption, but, I think, a good one -- attached documents containing classified information coming from a government shop are reviewed for classification.

Your claim that the original text of her emails -- as in, what she wrote herself -- contained classified info is on you, or on the auditors, to show, as well as that the content of those emails was classified when she wrote them.

[Mudguard]

I'm not making that claim. I'm claiming that -- and this is an assumption, but, I think, a good one -- attached documents containing classified information coming from a government shop are reviewed for classification.

Your claim that the original text of her emails -- as in, what she wrote herself -- contained classified info is on you, or on the auditors, to show, as well as that the content of those emails was classified when she wrote them.

I don't understand why you are making the distinction between attached documents and her emails.  We don't know what part of the email, whether it was the body of the email, an excerpt copied into the body of the email, or a document attached to the emails, contained the potentially classified information.

 

Right now, all we know is that 305 documents, used in the generic sense, were referred for further consultation.  The documents could be anything turned over by Clinton, including the body of emails, attachments, etc.  Is the use of this term in the news articles the reason you are focusing on "attached documents"?  In the legal profession, the terms "document" and "document review" are used broadly to cover any type of document, not just attached documents.

 

Regardless, I find your assumption that these documents, attachments or otherwise, were previously reviewed unlikely.  How do you explain the large numbers of documents that are being forwarded for further review?  If they've been reviewed once already, and if as you say they tend to be overzealous in marking, then I'd expect very few documents to need further review.

[Shryke]

Yeah, I'm with Ini here. I don't understand what you are trying to say Mudguard.

 

The situation so far is that everything was being handled as it should have been based on it's classification, except for about 4 emails (last I heard it was 4) that contained information that wasn't handled in accordance with their classification. However, it seems that those emails had their classification upgraded after they were sent to her.

 

And it is very much not the SoS's job to make sure all the emails she is sent are properly classified. That's not even the State Department's job because other departments can classify information too. It's her job to handle them according to the classification they are given.

[Inigima]

I don't understand why you are making the distinction between attached documents and her emails.  We don't know what part of the email, whether it was the body of the email, an excerpt copied into the body of the email, or a document attached to the emails, contained the potentially classified information.

 

Right now, all we know is that 305 documents, used in the generic sense, were referred for further consultation.  The documents could be anything turned over by Clinton, including the body of emails, attachments, etc.  Is the use of this term in the news articles the reason you are focusing on "attached documents"?  In the legal profession, the terms "document" and "document review" are used broadly to cover any type of document, not just attached documents.

 

Regardless, I find your assumption that these documents, attachments or otherwise, were previously reviewed unlikely.  How do you explain the large numbers of documents that are being forwarded for further review?  If they've been reviewed once already, and if as you say they tend to be overzealous in marking, then I'd expect very few documents to need further review.

 

I don't understand what about this is not clear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We don't really know shit yet. I'm not ready to declare Clinton off the hook, but I'm also not ready to declare she's guilty of anything, no matter how eager the right wing is to declare her campaign dead.

 

The reason I'm making the distinction between attached documents and original content is because you did, or at least I thought you did. In any case, she has distinct responsibilities for each:

 

• Documents she did not create: note classification level, handle accordingly.
   
• Original content: don't reveal any information currently considered classified through insecure channels or to anyone not cleared for that information.

I really don't get what is so unclear here. The difference is that she has to make the call for her own content, whereas for non-original content, the decision is already made and she is merely required to observe it.

[Biglose]

 

 

Well, there's always the thing with people like Hayyoth who still refuses to say anything bad about Walker even though five of his campaign staff had all been indicted for wrong doings. Not that he seems remotely inclined to offer the same lenient assessment to a female candidate, but that shows me that Clinton won't lose much of her current support base even if things do go worse on the email issue.

 

But yes, there's always that "if" there. My guess is that given the volume of communications, something somewhere must have been done in a way that's not appropriate. The question is whether there'll be a smoking gun for it and whether Clinton knowingly participated in it. 

Yeah, sure. So Trump is living proof that only reverse sexism exists, because the news is now down to comment on every bite he takes as if it would be a mission to mars.

Clinton is the front runner of the democratic party, Walker is well a /trumpon loser /trumpoff.

One has to keep that in mind.

[Mudguard]

I don't think we're working from the same set of assumptions. Are we or are we not talking about attached documents? If we are, the documents were presumably reviewed like any other. If not, SecState is obliged not to reveal classified information in her original emails, but if it wasn't classified information at the time, we're back where we started.

This is the first mention of attached documents by anyone in this thread, to my knowledge.  I certainly didn't use the term or make the distinction, until I responded to your email.

 

 

I don't understand what about this is not clear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: We don't really know shit yet. I'm not ready to declare Clinton off the hook, but I'm also not ready to declare she's guilty of anything, no matter how eager the right wing is to declare her campaign dead.

 

The reason I'm making the distinction between attached documents and original content is because you did, or at least I thought you did. In any case, she has distinct responsibilities for each:

 

• Documents she did not create: note classification level, handle accordingly.
   
• Original content: don't reveal any information currently considered classified through insecure channels or to anyone not cleared for that information.

I really don't get what is so unclear here. The difference is that she has to make the call for her own content, whereas for non-original content, the decision is already made and she is merely required to observe it.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.  I think she does have a duty to recognize information that should be marked classified, whether it's her own original content or other content she received from a third party.  How else do you catch materials that have been improperly classified?  I think it makes more sense to have everyone handling confidential information be able to identify it and act accordingly when they are in possession, regardless of marking. 

[Shryke]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.  I think she does have a duty to recognize information that should be marked classified, whether it's her own original content or other content she received from a third party.  How else do you catch materials that have been improperly classified?  I think it makes more sense to have everyone handling confidential information be able to identify it and act accordingly when they are in possession, regardless of marking. 

How would they know? A security clearance does not give you the ability to know what everything should be classified at.

 

This position does not make sense.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Dick Cheney revealed the identity of a CIA agent to punish her and her husband for revealing that the Nigerian yellowcake uranium stuff was likely a bogus indicator of Iraq having WMDs. Even.if.there turns out to be an actual email fire beneath all this smoke, American voters have no issue electing executives who have committed treason.

[Mudguard]

How would they know? A security clearance does not give you the ability to know what everything should be classified at.

 

This position does not make sense.

Simple, training.  Are you really suggesting the Secretary of State is unable to identify whether information in her possession should be classified without the aid of markings?

[Shryke]

Simple, training.  Are you really suggesting the Secretary of State is unable to identify whether information in her possession should be classified without the aid of markings?

 

Yes. Do you not understand that the SoS does not know everything? Nor it is her or his job to know everything? It's not John Kerry's job to decide on whether every piece of information should be classified and how. And then we get into the fact that the State Department is not even the only people classifying documents. (in fact, different departments can get into arguments over the classification level of a particular piece of information)

 

Beyond that, you seem to not understand security clearance, which is not about your ability to decide what should and should not be classified, but an assessment of whether you can be trusted with classified information.

 

Your position here does not make sense and is based on some wildly silly assumptions.

[aceluby]

 

 

It's a non issue here because a lot of board members are considering her a lock no matter what.  Time will tell if that position is correct or not.

 

I don't think she's a lock, won't be voting for her, and still think this issue is manufactured like so many others over the last 7 years or so.  

 

It's hard to take anything the right wing smear machine brings up with any kind of seriousness because they cry wolf so damn much.  

 

It doesn't surprise me one bit that right leaning boards think this will sink her.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Simple, training.  Are you really suggesting the Secretary of State is unable to identify whether information in her possession should be classified without the aid of markings?

Yeah, thats like the entire point of having classified documents. Unless someone can show that at the time she sent emails the info was classified and labelled as such how would she know?

[Inigima]

Your position here does not make sense and is based on some wildly silly assumptions.

 

To me it is based on a really strong desire for there to have been wrongdoing.

[Mudguard]

 

Yes. Do you not understand that the SoS does not know everything? Nor it is her or his job to know everything? It's not John Kerry's job to decide on whether every piece of information should be classified and how. And then we get into the fact that the State Department is not even the only people classifying documents. (in fact, different departments can get into arguments over the classification level of a particular piece of information)

 

Beyond that, you seem to not understand security clearance, which is not about your ability to decide what should and should not be classified, but an assessment of whether you can be trusted with classified information.

 

Your position here does not make sense and is based on some wildly silly assumptions.

Let me quote again Executive Order 13526:

 

 

Sec. 1.3.  Classification Authority.  (a)  The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1)  the President and the Vice President;

(2)  agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

...

(d)  All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year.  Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.  Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place.

This makes it clear that Clinton should have received training on proper classification, since as Secretary of State she is an agency head.  If you have evidence that proves that she skipped her training, please provide it.

[Inigima]

I don't understand why you think any of that is relevant. She is not obligated to classify anything.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Let me quote again Executive Order 13526:
 
This makes it clear that Clinton should have received training on proper classification, since as Secretary of State she is an agency head.  If you have evidence that proves that she skipped her training, please provide it.

Sure. But how.would that training prevent someone else from later changing a document to classified? Until that's shown to be the case its pointless to speculate.

[Mudguard]

I don't understand why you think any of that is relevant. She is not obligated to classify anything.

No, but she's obligated to properly safeguard classified information, regardless of whether it's marked or not.  Just because she receives top secret information that isn't marked doesn't mean that she can just share it with anyone she wants.  She has to be able to recognize that the information should be classified and act accordingly.   By "act accordingly, I don't mean that she has to classify the information, but if she's going to keep such information on her personal email server, she had better make sure that it meets the appropriate security requirements.  

[Mudguard]

Sure. But how.would that training prevent someone else from later changing a document to classified? Until that's shown to be the case its pointless to speculate.

I'm sorry, I don't really follow the question.  Are you asking about how documents are reclassified?