Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Where are the reports, though?

At the moment we only have your and Seaward's assertions. Surely you can see the value of providing independent accounts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are the reports, though?

At the moment we only have your and Seaward's assertions. Surely you can see the value of providing independent accounts.

Evidently, this is what they are referring to that s so damning http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

Interesting to note that the email was never sent via a non secure fax.

The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.

I agree with this sentiment in principle, (release the alien information already! ) but it does tend to run counter to the narrative of why this is supposedly a big deal: that Clinton put at risk information which should not have been made public.

Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.

Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The email/server scandal matters to me because of the principles involved not the technical details of the matter. Public officials are required to use government email/servers because they're public servants and therefore the public needs a certain level of transparency to make accountability possble. There is no reason for public officials to be doing their official governmnt jobs behind the backs of the people. Why did HRC need to do routine SecState business on her own private email/server when the other public employees she was communitcating with were all using ther government email/srvers? Why does HRC not want her work as SecState to be as transparent and accountable as it is required to be? Why hide? People who want to avoid transparency and accountability shouldn't be holding public office and they definitely shouldn't be holding the highest/most powerful public office.

I agree with this sentiment in principle, (release the alien information already! ) but it does tend to run counter to the narrative of why this is supposedly a big deal: that Clinton put at risk information which should not have been made public.

That's because the people making the most noise about it are also politicians, just from the opposing party. Politicians don't really want transparency and accountability that would make it harder for them to do all those shady things that make them personally wealthy and powerful while working for "the people." Republicans in DC know that if they ramp up the righteous indignation over HRC's avoiding govt oversight the first thing Democrats will do is start looking at how those Republicans handle their offcial correspondence. Politicians say they want to be transparent with their work but then they're always trying to dodge FOIA requests, hiding all kinds of stuff behind security clearances and doing backroom deals and off the record meetings/correspondence etc. Politicians always have to twist things up and play semantic games to make sure that they only make accusations against the other side from a position of "strength." So Republicans, believing that they're strong on national security attack Clinton based upon TS protocols instead of the principle of transparency and accountability. Just like they attacked Bill on the affair because they're supposedly the party of family values and morality instead of pushing the narrative that PotUS has to tell the truth under oath regardless of the subject matter because PotUS serves the people and the people are entitled to the truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.

Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...

Both nominees are terrible. The more I see of either of them or listen to them talk the less I want either one in charge of anything. HRC comes across as an entitled back room dealing establishment career politician and Trump comes off as a bloviating egomaniacal reality tv star. It's insane.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's why I qualified the emails originating from State, Whembly.

AGAIN. You cannot simply order "remove the classification" and just send it. Here's the actual email in question:

Here's the relevant law regarding this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

I like how you talk out of two sides of your mouth with this. On the one hand, the FBI don't feth around with this. On the other, we might have two sets of laws for those in power and those who aren't. It seems like you are setting yourself up to be correct no matter what the FBI determines to state that you were right.

I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.

Right now, the wagons are circled around HRC.

How is it this former ambassador losing his job for using is private emails for work:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-ambassador/

And yet, HRC's private email uses is kosher?

Answer me this, if the FBI does not recommend indictment at the end of the day, will you drop all discussion of this email business because "they don't feth around"?

No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.

In what way is the excerpt from the Cornell site relevant to the Clinton case?

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, the specific details of what was emailed when is important, but the principle is more important in terms of presidential material, and I think the motive was immediately apparent: an end-run around the Freedom of Information Act, like so many other elected officials before her.

Part of me hopes she loses for that reason alone, if that would make elected officials stop thinking it's OK to run the people's offices like your own private fiefdoms. However, when running against a dude with a mind-blowing 70% disapproval rate...

And now, you've distilled my delimma...

I've railed against HRC on this issue... then, I turnaround and realize "FETH!" that means Trump's President!

:cries:

In what way is the excerpt from the Cornell site relevant to the Clinton case?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In what way is the excerpt from the Cornell site relevant to the Clinton case?

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

In what way is that relevant to the Clinton case?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In what way is that relevant to the Clinton case?

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

What I mean is, how is the Cornell law excerpt relevant to what you are saying?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Unclassified material doesn’t need to be transmitted by secure fax... if the material wasn’t classified, Sullivan would have had them faxed normally.

Right?

With that in mind: HRC ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. in addition, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified... only sensitive to national security.

This is just an EMAIL about what to do with 'faxing' sensitive information across unsecured lines. Simply turning it to "no identifying heading" and send "nonsecured" is a huge no-no.

So, if her operation is that nonchalant about faxing sensitive information... well... you can finish where I'm going with this....

Besides... *the smoking gun* is literally her private email server.

Was the information sensitive to national defence?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Was the information sensitive to national defence?

It's classified.

KK: Start here for 30,000 ft view and follow the links that spawns from his post...
http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-hillary-clintons-emailgate/

Governments classify all kinds of things.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Governments classify all kinds of things.

And your point?

If you want more information, start here for 30,000 ft view and follow the links that spawns from his post...
http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-hillary-clintons-emailgate/

Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?

Edit: to clarify non-papers are a specific thing, basically just a memo or informal note. So:

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” might very well be an intentional order to violate all kinds of laws. But it could also very well mean

"I need these talking points. If you cannot sent me the entire classified document via secure means, write me a memo with the talking points and no classified information and send it to me via non-secure means."

It's not the smoking gun people like to pretend it is.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
That's why I qualified the emails originating from State, Whembly.

AGAIN. You cannot simply order "remove the classification" and just send it. Here's the actual email in question:

Spoiler:

Here's the relevant law regarding this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

I like how you talk out of two sides of your mouth with this. On the one hand, the FBI don't feth around with this. On the other, we might have two sets of laws for those in power and those who aren't. It seems like you are setting yourself up to be correct no matter what the FBI determines to state that you were right.

I'm not talking both sides of my mouth as they're both questions that we need to answer.

Right now, the wagons are circled around HRC.

How is it this former ambassador losing his job for using is private emails for work:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-ambassador/

And yet, HRC's private email uses is kosher?

Answer me this, if the FBI does not recommend indictment at the end of the day, will you drop all discussion of this email business because "they don't feth around"?

No. Because, we cannot function as a society if the powerful/well connected are implicitedly allowed to get away from breaking the law.

Here's the thing though, if the FBI does not recommend indictment, that would mean they found no evidence of her breaking the law since "they don't feth around". Again, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of course, since you have already determined the outcome, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer.

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?

No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.

Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?

No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.

Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).

See my edit above.

I know it won't matter, but it's there anyway.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Governments classify all kinds of things.

And your point?

If you want more information, start here for 30,000 ft view and follow the links that spawns from his post...
http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-hillary-clintons-emailgate/

My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.

As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?

No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.

Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).

See my edit above.

I know it won't matter, but it's there anyway.

I still think that's still a "no no".

You not supposed to "talk around" the information in an unsecured manner. (I think that's what it's called)

And frankly, they have access to secured government communication means... its just that they chose not to use it.

 whembly wrote:


I fething despise Obama more than ever...

He's more angry at Trump that he is at the death of those 50 victims.

That whole speech can be distilled to:

America... I'm am disappointed in you.

feth him. He's now making me reconsider my #NeverTrump stance just to fething spite Obama. FETH!

Side note, guys, it's happening!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Governments classify all kinds of things.

And your point?

If you want more information, start here for 30,000 ft view and follow the links that spawns from his post...
http://observer.com/2016/06/the-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-hillary-clintons-emailgate/

My point is that classifying a document doesn't make it relevant to national defence. If the document that Clinton wanted declassified was not in fact relevant to national defence, then the law from Cornell didn't apply to it.

As far as I am aware, the material Clinton wanted to see was merely a list of talking points. This doesn't immediately spring to mind as being national defence material.

Um... that law isn't just "national defense materials"... read the whole section.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I fething despise Obama more than ever...

He's more angry at Trump that he is at the death of those 50 victims.

That whole speech can be distilled to:

America... I'm am disappointed in you.

feth him. He's now making me reconsider my #NeverTrump stance just to fething spite Obama. FETH!

Side note, guys, it's happening!

I know... FETH. OBAMA. FOR. THIS.

At the moment, I'm still on the Gary Johnson train... but, maaaaaaaaaaaan.

Everybody, PM me your dates for when whembly officially bites the bullet. Whoever guesses closest gets free DCM membership for a year!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Isn't it also perfectly legal and appropriate to remove the classified information from papers that also contain talking point, thereby making what's left non-classified and able to send non-secure?

No... that action doesn't "declassify" it... there's a formal process to declassify information.

Furthermore, all DoS talking points are classified (mostly 'confidential' the lowest ranking, but still in the classified bucket).

There is, it is laid out by presidential executive order and part of it is

"PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;" and
"
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; 4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency."

So if the classification was established within the Dept. Of State, Clinton, by being the head of the Dept. can declassify anything that originated from that department. The only way I can see her having a legal problem here is with classified information not originating from the DOS, which there could very well be. I just don't have all the facts, and neither do you. However, unlike you, I am withholding my opinion of guilt until I do get the facts or until those who know them make a determination.

 d-usa wrote:
Everybody, PM me your dates for when whembly officially bites the bullet. Whoever guesses closest gets free DCM membership for a year!

I will put in $10 to that pot.