Posted on Nov 30, 2015
Do you believe this?... Nearly 1,000 Clinton emails had classified info...
3.48K
39
32
4
4
0
Hillary said her emails were not classified... But, this report says nearly 1000 emails on her personal server were classified...
Most of us military leaders would be fired and disciplined for having just one classified email on an unclassified system...
I wonder what it will take to get the MSM to take notice?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/30/nearly-1000-clinton-emails-had-classified-info.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Most of us military leaders would be fired and disciplined for having just one classified email on an unclassified system...
I wonder what it will take to get the MSM to take notice?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/30/nearly-1000-clinton-emails-had-classified-info.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Posted in these groups: 
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
Sir: This is the key sentence in the story: “But the large number of emails containing now-classified material further underscores how much sensitive information was crossing her private server, a situation her critics have described as a security risk.” The key phrase is “now-classified material.”
It would serve everyone well---especially everyone in the DoD and USG---to take a few minutes to learn about the process through which information is classified. Anyone with any actual knowledge or experience with classifying information will not have any issue with the fact that some government agencies have determined that some of the information in Clinton’s emails is “now-classified material” (that she used her own server instead of a DoS server, well, that’s a different topic). It is unfortunate that so many folks lack knowledge or experience with classifying information, especially folks that have been in the military for a long period of time.
For example, let’s say that at some point you (or anyone on RallyPoint) becomes a public figure, and for whatever reason an investigation is initiated against you, during which all of your emails over your lifetime and all of your social media posts and everything you’ve ever written is examined. Any government agency involved in that investigation could look at any piece of anything you’ve ever produced and say, wait a minute, this is “now-classified material” even though at the time you produced it, it wasn’t classified material and thus wasn’t subject to the controls required for classified materials.
Those that believe Clinton actually violated any actual law due to the “now-classified material” determined to have been in her emails simply does not understand the classification process.
Unfortunately, though, facts and knowledge no longer matter (if they ever did) in U.S. political dialogue. As Bernie Sanders said in the first Democratic debate, everyone is sick of hearing about Clinton’s emails. And with McCarthy’s admission that the Benghazi Committee was designed as a partisan attack vehicle to hurt Clinton, it wouldn’t be surprising if this email scandal at the end of the day actually helped Clinton vs. hurt her. After all, the Republican base has seemingly dismissed the Republican Party as ineffective and irrelevant, as evidenced by the Trump/Carson phenomenon and the extremely low approval rating Republicans give Republican politicians.
It would serve everyone well---especially everyone in the DoD and USG---to take a few minutes to learn about the process through which information is classified. Anyone with any actual knowledge or experience with classifying information will not have any issue with the fact that some government agencies have determined that some of the information in Clinton’s emails is “now-classified material” (that she used her own server instead of a DoS server, well, that’s a different topic). It is unfortunate that so many folks lack knowledge or experience with classifying information, especially folks that have been in the military for a long period of time.
For example, let’s say that at some point you (or anyone on RallyPoint) becomes a public figure, and for whatever reason an investigation is initiated against you, during which all of your emails over your lifetime and all of your social media posts and everything you’ve ever written is examined. Any government agency involved in that investigation could look at any piece of anything you’ve ever produced and say, wait a minute, this is “now-classified material” even though at the time you produced it, it wasn’t classified material and thus wasn’t subject to the controls required for classified materials.
Those that believe Clinton actually violated any actual law due to the “now-classified material” determined to have been in her emails simply does not understand the classification process.
Unfortunately, though, facts and knowledge no longer matter (if they ever did) in U.S. political dialogue. As Bernie Sanders said in the first Democratic debate, everyone is sick of hearing about Clinton’s emails. And with McCarthy’s admission that the Benghazi Committee was designed as a partisan attack vehicle to hurt Clinton, it wouldn’t be surprising if this email scandal at the end of the day actually helped Clinton vs. hurt her. After all, the Republican base has seemingly dismissed the Republican Party as ineffective and irrelevant, as evidenced by the Trump/Carson phenomenon and the extremely low approval rating Republicans give Republican politicians.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ (Join to see) - This gets even more complicated when we go through change of commands/charters, and declassification procedures, and other agencies looking at data/information.
I remember having to be the outside inspector (assistant) once for another command and coming across documentation which they were just "warehousing," for lack of a better word. We dinged them on it, saying it should have been destroyed years ago, and they fought back saying they were well within regs. And this was within the same "agency."
I remember having to be the outside inspector (assistant) once for another command and coming across documentation which they were just "warehousing," for lack of a better word. We dinged them on it, saying it should have been destroyed years ago, and they fought back saying they were well within regs. And this was within the same "agency."
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
You nailed that one Richard. I just wish our media was this honest. I know in my day if I had released any information on Star Wars Laser projects if it even smelled of being classified I would have been burned at the stake. To make excuses for this woman is beyond unacceptable. She knew exactly what she was doing and didn't give a crap if it was legal or not.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Fair points, all. Except the one about most diplomatic communications being classified. Having worked as a diplomat now for going on four years, I really don't think most diplomatic communications are classified, and, if they are, most of them are "SBU" (which is DoS' "U//FOUO" marking). And except the one about Clinton's emails being classified. As the original classification authority as SECSTATE at the time the emails were sent, by definition the fact that she did not mark them as classified means that they weren't classified. That's how classification in the U.S. Government works (and this argument stands unless and until someone shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or someone using her server actually stripped classification markings off of documents or information and then sent it as unclassified. That such evidence hasn't emerged yet suggests it isn't going to.)
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSgt John S. I was only interested in trying to help people understand the classification process, original classification authority, and related topics. I'm not really interested in discussing your or my partisan views on politicians here on RallyPoint.
FOIA is an interesting angle to this discussion. Simply stated, no regulation or requirement existed that dictated as SECSTATE Clinton not use a private server (evidence: every previous SECSTATE also did not use a DoS server). One could argue that the fact that the emails are being turned over equals some sort of accountability, although the fact that some emails were apparently deemed "personal" in nature and forever deleted might counter this accountability assessment. At the same time, though, "personal" communication isn't subject to public release, so there's two ways to look at this.
FOIA is an interesting angle to this discussion. Simply stated, no regulation or requirement existed that dictated as SECSTATE Clinton not use a private server (evidence: every previous SECSTATE also did not use a DoS server). One could argue that the fact that the emails are being turned over equals some sort of accountability, although the fact that some emails were apparently deemed "personal" in nature and forever deleted might counter this accountability assessment. At the same time, though, "personal" communication isn't subject to public release, so there's two ways to look at this.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Yes but nothing is going to happen to her. She will get the nomination. Obama doesn't even care.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Not very surprising COL Charles Williams. Military security levels are based on severity of the threat if information is released. I wonder how many of the emails contained information that would have been disastrous for this nation or our allies if released.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is a violation of about six federal statutes, times 1,000 counts apiece. Sounds like HRC should draw a sentence of about 80,000 years in prison.
Won't matter, because of any if this sticks, the President will pardon her.
Won't matter, because of any if this sticks, the President will pardon her.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
Nothing that she does surprises me. She should be in jail - not running for President.
(2)
(0)
1SG Jason Smith
I'm betting that somehow Obama will pardon her or invoke some kind of executive privilege for her before he leaves office next year
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
She's horrible.
I hope -something- comes along and wrecks her campaign definitively.
Walt
I hope -something- comes along and wrecks her campaign definitively.
Walt
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Normally I look at the source before I make a decision if the story has any merit to it. Normally if it is FOX News about Democrats I would dismiss it, just as I would anything on MSNBC about Republicans. (I have a thing about reporting facts and allowing me to decide if it is bad or good.)
Knowing Clinton's history as a liar and having less than spectacular morals I would say this would not surprise me in the least.
Knowing Clinton's history as a liar and having less than spectacular morals I would say this would not surprise me in the least.
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
PO2 Mark Saffell Which time? That bitch can look anyone in the face and flat lie to them with no remorse for her actions what so ever. She truly has sociopathic tenancies as well as political zealot. That makes her a true to life super villain. I truly believe she would kill to advance her political beliefs and then she would justify it as one for the many.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I saw an ABC Interview last night where she said she can never see a reason to send ground troops into Iraq or Syria. That is a huge lie from her or she is truly dangerous for America. The interviewer asked even after Paris if it happened here and she replied Never. So basically she told ISIS That is they attack America she isn't coming after them.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It was more than that. They don't tally the unclass info that was still FOUO. Based on what I know in my job field, if someone did this same thing, they would lose their clearance for life and probably be court=martialed.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
No Probably to it. I have been gone from McDonnell Douglas for 20 years and I am willing to bet if I disclosed what I know even 20 years later my but would be in Jail. Its beyond belief that she is still walking around free.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There has been a laser focus in the media on whether Mrs. Clinton sent/received/stored classified material on her private server, whether that data was actually compromised, and whether any of that represents a clear violation of law. What people seem to be forgetting is that the use of a private email server in the first place is a violation of law all by itself.
All government employees, from the POTUS on down are required by law to use Government owned and controlled information systems when conducting Government business. This is for a number of reasons, but mostly so that we don't get to decide on an individual basis which official Government communications we think the Government is entitled to see. Do we ALWAYS do it? No. A lot of business happens on private and contracted information systems in the name of convenience or expedience. That being said, those instances are the exception. Mrs. Clinton did it as a matter of routine.
Whether you believe she was doing it because she was trying to hide something from the public (criminal), or you believe her story that she just didn't want to have to carry multiple devices (lazy, stupid, and irresponsible), it's still patently illegal.
All government employees, from the POTUS on down are required by law to use Government owned and controlled information systems when conducting Government business. This is for a number of reasons, but mostly so that we don't get to decide on an individual basis which official Government communications we think the Government is entitled to see. Do we ALWAYS do it? No. A lot of business happens on private and contracted information systems in the name of convenience or expedience. That being said, those instances are the exception. Mrs. Clinton did it as a matter of routine.
Whether you believe she was doing it because she was trying to hide something from the public (criminal), or you believe her story that she just didn't want to have to carry multiple devices (lazy, stupid, and irresponsible), it's still patently illegal.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google