HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NOT TOP SECRET AT THE TIM...

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:06 AM

NOT TOP SECRET AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT period!

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by rhett o rick (a host of the General Discussion forum).

40 replies, 1794 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply NOT TOP SECRET AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT period! (Original post)
liberal N proud Jan 2016 OP
livetohike Jan 2016 #1
dorkzilla Jan 2016 #2
4139 Jan 2016 #3
CTyankee Jan 2016 #4
IggleDoer Jan 2016 #5
wyldwolf Jan 2016 #6
joshcryer Jan 2016 #9
IggleDoer Jan 2016 #7
cali Jan 2016 #8
TipTok Jan 2016 #10
randome Jan 2016 #14
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #18
randome Jan 2016 #25
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #38
Jarqui Jan 2016 #11
tk2kewl Jan 2016 #24
Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #12
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #13
kentuck Jan 2016 #15
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #17
kentuck Jan 2016 #20
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #21
kentuck Jan 2016 #26
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #30
kentuck Jan 2016 #32
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #35
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #39
handmade34 Jan 2016 #29
librechik Jan 2016 #16
liberal N proud Jan 2016 #19
librechik Jan 2016 #23
handmade34 Jan 2016 #31
kentuck Jan 2016 #34
MineralMan Jan 2016 #22
randr Jan 2016 #27
Metric System Jan 2016 #28
kentuck Jan 2016 #33
karynnj Jan 2016 #36
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #37
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #40

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:12 AM

1. That's right. This is so ridiculous and tiresome. N/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:12 AM

2. Well I'm happy you cleared that up! nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:15 AM

3. We don't know what the content is..

Did someone, of a bunch of folks screw up and not mark them 'Top Secret' at the time they were sent? We don't know. The fact they were not marked does not mean they were not top secret at the time.

Until we know it's no be deal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4139 (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:20 AM

4. Since they are now top secret we won't know, will we?

This could be huge or it could be interpreted as a lack of judgment on her part. But if they are top secret now, don't count on seeing them.

The worst thing about this is that is hanging over her head now.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4139 (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:22 AM

5. Or were they marked "Top Secret" later by a Hillary hater?

Just to create a scandal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:27 AM

6. Which is why it's unlikely Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing

And while I'm loathe to quote Michael Goodwin, he has a point when he wrote Obama wouldn’t be (essentially) endorsing Clinton if he intended to let the Justice Department indict her.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:43 AM

9. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would be doing a witch hunt.

At the behest of McCullough (and by proxy, Gowdy), Burr was pushed to dig. Nothing is there or we'd know. We know Benghazi was a CIA OP. We know Benghazi was followed by evacuations. We know the SoS office handled those evacuations.

So I'm guessing names were dropped in the communication which flagged operatives whose names can't be known in order to maintain their cover. The entire memo gets flagged automatically in that event.

It's possible (no, likely), the SoS office didn't even know, so the entire thing had to be flagged. If they did a partial release, you'd be able to figure out who the operatives were. It's all or nothing.

If you're evacuating people you're going to contact family, you're going to send out a call, "Hey, your son is OK and being evacuated, and the administration is making sure it happens safely." If said individual was an operative it would be completely innocent, but it would have to be classified in a release. Especially because the media would scrutinize the evacuation details to find out who these people were.

And I would wager my guess is correct because no where in the emails is anything about those evacuation procedures.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:28 AM

7. The other day, I drove through a school zone, at the legal speed before the warning lights were on.

When I came back, the school zone warning lights were on and drove at the school zone speed. Should I get a ticket anyway because the rules changed after I drove by the first time?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:32 AM

8. Not marked top secret

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:44 AM

10. It's the information that is classified....

 

... and the marking isn't the determining factor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TipTok (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:33 AM

14. So if I send you a classified document, you are guilty because your email system accepted it?

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:42 AM

18. Actually, yes--you have to report it immediately. You can't take it home with you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:51 AM

25. 'Intent' is part of this determination and there is no intent (none) for Clinton to hide anything.

 

She turned over the emails so why would she do this if there was a 'smoking gun' she was afraid of? Why even have a private server unless it was, as she said, for convenience and it was allowed under the older rules?

No one thinks this through very well. It's like a shiny new object to try and bludgeon a fellow Democrat. If nothing else, one should, IMO, keep an objective viewpoint and err on the side that things are just as she said. I believe that's what Sherlock Holmes would do, absent evidence to the contrary, of course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:33 PM

38. She didn't do it for "convenience". That is ludicrous. It would be far more convenient

to use the .gov email system than to hire a former campaign staffer to set up and manage your server on your own payroll (in addition, she got Pagliano a position at State--which hat was he wearing at any given time?). What's easier, two devices or carrying around your own fucking IT guy? Intent--well, if she set up her own server and didn't manage it in a way that only completely unclassified or personal correspondence was on it when the emails were turned over, and she's still insisting that the stuff on there is "innocuous" and should be released--then she intends for this material to be on the server. Of course, in no way will it be released, because it's classified and no one else wants to get into trouble.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:50 AM

11. That's the Clinton spin but as usual, not the truth

State Department Transcript of State Department spokesman Kirby yesterday:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251855.htm
"As to whether they were classified at the time they were sent, the State Department, in the FOIA process, is focusing on whether they need to be classified today. Questions about classification at the time they were sent are being and will be handled separately by the State Department."


The Inspector Generals had a bit of a time with the state department on this. In June-July 2015, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/23_july_2015_cn_summary_of_ic_ig_support_to_state_department_ig.pdf
"State personnel continue to deny the classified character of the released information despite a definitive determination from the IC Interagency FOIA process)"


The old Clinton game of "in the face of the troubling truth, deny, deny, and then deny some more" has operated like a broken record since they came to Washington but lost some it's pizzazz with a stained blue dress.

The State Department is waking up to their errors in handling this material and how they've (intentionally?) been misinforming the American public. This transcript today shows Kirby is starting to catch on and back peddled on what was classified at the time of transmission - as is the accurate case because the state department has already been found by the Inspector General as being in denial after a formal determination has been made.

But here's the thing, aside from the 22 top secret emails (which now some are trying to spin "oh but they just got upgraded to top secret" as if they wouldn't have has any secret or confidential classification before). Yesterday, the State Department declined to release to the FOIA claim 18 emails between the past Secretary of State (Hillary) and with the President of the United States. And she did not inform the president their communications were completely unsecure. Think about that for a moment. No, think about for a second longer.

The lame defense of "well it depends what was said in those emails" is beyond absurd. Ignoring what the president might write to her during a sleepless night at 4am in an email, one example: the transmission of those emails very probably contains some valid IP addresses or transmission information that would help spies trying to tap into the White House to find a data pipe to attack. It's indefensible conduct. No acceptable excuse.

So stop the BS spin. The game is over. Whether anyone got anything or not or whether any information that was sent was classified or not (which I argue that communications with the president and the Secretary of State are automatically classified as confidential), she's guilty of compromising the security of the Office of the President of the United states and the Secretary of State of the United States - for starters - ignoring the other top secret stuff and the 1,300 other classified items found in her emails - which the FBI and others are trying to chase down.

Once again, history is repeating itself. A Clinton does something wrong. Rather than fess up and be part of the solution, it's "deny, deny, deny", triggering massive investigations, massive media attention circus, etc - when those FBI agents should be going after terrorists and the media should be focusing some of their attention on Bernie to get closer to fair balance and solving some of these issues he's talking about.

I'm sick of this crap from the Clintons and you should be too. They need to head out to their pasture of speaking fees - where bilking money out of Wall Street wallets actually might do us some good for a change.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:49 AM

24. SOS should have enough sense to know what communication is sensitive

 

lazy? poor judgement? incomplete understanding of the issues or procedures?

I agree enough with the Clintons, triangulation and neoliberalism.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:27 AM

12. Clinton demonstrated a remarkable lack of good judgement

 

by deciding to use her own private email server.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:28 AM

13. I think that excuse has worn thin. The information was classified, even if it wasn't

officially marked or an intact document from the classified system. It had ZERO business being on a private home server FOR YEARS until the State Dept. and judges demanded it and the intel community could evaluate it. If I rip off the price tag and walk out of a store with a shirt I didn't pay for, it's still stolen, even without the tag. Classified information that's being discussed on private email systems is still classified, even if it takes years to discover and classify it. Ridiculous argument, that somehow this is all OK.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:36 AM

15. But it was no problem when Colin Powell did it?

Only when Hillary did it? Because they changed the fucking rule? Do people understand what they are arguing about?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:41 AM

17. Colin Powell didn't have his own SERVER SET UP EXCLUSIVELY to avoid State Dept. system.

All cabinet members probably have private accounts in addition to government accounts. Most of them used their accounts properly. This argument is extremely dumb.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:44 AM

20. Where do you get this BS?

"...SERVER SET UP EXCLUSIVELY to avoid State Dept. system."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:46 AM

21. I think you are entirely unaware of this whole issue. You need to educate yourself on the facts.

Otherwise I am wasting my time. Hillary Clinton never had a government account. She hired an IT guy (who is since planning to plead the fifth) to set up her server right before taking office as SOS. Colin Powell never did that. In fact NO OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL has completely avoided government email by setting up a home server for government business.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:51 AM

26. I have heard enough to know that...

...the Bush Administration destroyed millions (millions!) of emails directly related to a criminal investigation and nothing was done about it. I know that Republicans are known for attempting to make mountains out of molehills when it comes to the Clintons. I simply cannot take their claims of criminality seriously.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:58 AM

30. This isn't about Republicans. It's about the intelligence community,

the State Dept. (who are only just recently able to see her years of correspondence), the FBI, and the ability of citizens and Congress to access the archives of the Secretary of State for FOIA. Hillary Clinton did this entirely to herself. She set it up this way, and managed it irresponsibly and possibly illegally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:02 PM

32. It is my understanding that there is an "intelligence branch" within the State Dept...

..and when they send email within departments, they are automatically classified. They are not sent without a classification. Is that not correct?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:14 PM

35. You can't jump between systems. Classified networks cannot communicate

with non-classified networks or private email. Hillary's staff discussed this now-classified info outside of all government systems--the State Dept. apparently never saw it thus were unable to evaluate it. It appears her staff received/read info through the classified systems and summarized it for her on her own email system, which was held unsecured for years after her tenure had ended. The FBI is investigating how this material ended up on her server.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:43 PM

39. Here you go

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7573383

And no, her server did NOT go though the State systems. THAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT of setting them up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:57 AM

29. the Republican propaganda

is powerful

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:39 AM

16. yes indeed. This is nothing but a media hit job before Iowa

Mainstream assholes like Halperin want Dems to fail. So they attack the frontrunner WITH ANYTHING and hope to force them to act weak in response.

can I say once again how much I HATE OUR STUPID POLITICAL SYSTEM

why do we always have to be committing suicide?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:43 AM

19. Timing makes it suspect

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:48 AM

23. exactly. And there is nothing new, except "People are saying"

reminds me of the way Cheney planted the aluminum tube story and then went on TV saying NYT says aluminum tubes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:59 AM

31. same as "13 Hours"

being released just before the primaries... powerful, subliminal (or not so) messages

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to handmade34 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:07 PM

34. Right!

This was a CIA operation, signed off by David Petraeus, head of CIA, who supposedly reported to the Secretary of State. The "movie" is a political hit piece.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:47 AM

22. Exactly. There will be no indictment or prosecution.

It is that simple. People who oppose Clinton are simply picking what seems like low-hanging fruit. Trouble is that the fruit is not ripe and has worms in it anyhow.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:53 AM

27. Another waste of everyones time

and our tax dollars

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:54 AM

28. Reading over this thread it's clear that Sanders supporters are hanging their hopes on to anything.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:03 PM

33. I'm a Sanders supporter...

but I am simply sick of the lies.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:20 PM

36. Not really - what I saw was many agreeing with Sanders position of staying 100% out of this

You might note that President Obama has NOT made an effort to defend Hillary and it would be impossible for any Secretary of State to do more to distance himself and stay far far away from this.

What I do see is that there are no HRC supporters showing any concern that this could be a burden if she gets the nomination. That is the fear that I hear from many Sanders or O'Malley supporters. Part of the concern is that where there is no easily defined end to this story that benefits Clinton. The SD tranches will continue until everything that the SD thinks can go out, is out. However, there is still the specter of the FBI investigation. Does that end with a public report? If so, the best case is that it is public and they recommend against any indictments and refuse to say anything more. At that point, the issue exists only on the level of judgement.

However, based on DU/Daily Kos alone because it is too recent for me to have a sense of what people I know are saying, I suspect this might not have much impact on the primaries. That may be premature. The answer might be with people on the fence who are reading and thinking, but not posting. I would say this is not what she wants to speak of in the run up to the primaries. Still, the establish lines up in her favor -- she got the NYT endorsement today. (and yes, they were the first to cover that she had a private server.) Only time will tell.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:23 PM

37. I will say this once again, this is a highly technical story

 

that is beyond most partisans.

I did READ one of the early emails that was LATER classified. That email, with the other three, which started this, was downloaded by me and buttloads of other press. and the information in it, whether it was marked classified or not, matters little, should not have been released.


This was the reason Reuters ran that story where they questioned some of this while the IG started to ask questions that things started to get interesting. And they continue to get interesting.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

While I am disgusted people are defending this breach of common sense, I am not surprised it is beyond the reach of partisans and most Americans. You should ask folks who have actually handled intel if an email identifying heads of state with messages from such a head of state are born classified. It does not matter if this was on the Behghazi affair (PM Cameron is mentioned with a message to POTUS), or it was the same PM Cameron arranging dinner and a theater in DC.

And I will leave it at that.

Will there be prosecution? HELL NO. She is well connected. If this was private jones, or technician jones at State, at the very least they would lose their clearance for an unintended leak. And private Jones might face a court martial.

This was an unforced error on her part. None told her to do this shit. And spare the Powell. He had a GMAIL address for shit like what time for dinner and theater in a computer that did NOT go though any of State systems, they are called unsecured machines, and many government officials have those. They are meant for fully unclassed stuff. He started doing that as SedDef. ? Her server had those too. I really feel sorry for the graduate history student. Talk of information overload.

As to the timing of the release, if they wanted to do REAL DAMAGE they would have released this on humpday, not on news dump Friday after most of the news cycle. So you are right, I am reaching for the tinfoil. but for very different reasons than you are.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 30, 2016, 12:47 PM

40. Please consider reposting in GD: P. nm

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink