Obama: The Word 'Classified' Means Whatever We Need It To Mean (techdirt.com)

An anonymous reader writes: During an interview with Fox News, President Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified" when trying to answer questions about an ongoing investigation about Hillary Clinton and her emails. Techdirt writes, "Clinton sent, received and stored classified info on a private email server. But some classified info is more equal than others. It all depends on who has it and how the current administration feels about that person. Clinton playing fast and loose with classified info is subject to an entirely different standard than the large number of whistleblowers the Obama administration has prosecuted over the years." President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country. Obama says, "There's stuff that is really top-secret, and there's stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source." Basically, classification means all things to all people, as long as it allows officials and agencies to control narratives and disrupt public accountability.

Comments

Well, duh

[kschendel]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

The last line of the summary is opinion, probably false, and flamebait. That may be what Fox or Rush Limbaugh are saying, but reasonable people need not repeat it, and it certainly doesn't belong on Slashdot.

A large part of prior discussions on the topic here was that SecState does actually have the power to unilaterally declare some material classified or not -- I believe this applies to material originating in the State Department. So, most people here should already know that there are degrees and nuances to classification, and the details of that matter considerably. I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.

Re:Well, duh

[Z00L00K]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as:
  - Top Secret
  - Secret
  - Restricted
  - Public

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Wat. The thing that people are especially freaking out about are the "SECRET/SAP" emails that went out to/from her server.

I personally don't care (the Espionage Act of 1917 contributed greatly to the downfall of the American Republic - it should be but never can be repealed) but at least understand the controversy.

Re:Well, duh

[Kevin by the Beach]

I agree that this is posturing for a likely "decline to prosecute", just the beginning of the spin cycle.

Equal prosecution under the law isn't in the constitution. (but, maybe it should be)

Re:Well, duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, the outlines of this issue were (surprisingly comprehensively) addressed by a ficticious talking egg in an 1871 children's book:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Re:Well, duh

[Registered Coward v2]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Exactly. In some cases, the first law of thermodynamics was considered classified and NOFORN.

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

First I've heard of this. There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access? Who was the classification authority and when were they classified?

There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.

Re:Well, duh

[AntronArgaiv]

Well, yes, but...

if it's MARKED classified, it shouldn't have gone over her email server. To date, news reports indicate that this happened rarely, perhaps never.

If it WAS marked classified, and those markings were removed, that's a whole 'nother problem, separate and distinct (and far more serious) from Clinton running a private email server.

If it WASN'T marked classified, and should have been, that's also a bigger issue, but one on which reasonable people might differ. So, there should be more latitude if this was the case with a few messages. Reports indicate that re-examination of all the messages indicate that some of them were in this category.

So...did Clinton knowingly and deliberately violate the law? Depends if you want her to have done so or not, because whether a message should have been classified or not seems to be a debatable point. It's hard to see a crime here.

Re:Well, duh

[Pseudonymous Powers]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as: - Top Secret - Secret - Restricted - Public

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

I agree (except for your proposed "default to secret" policy--see below).

If some things are indeed "more secret" than other things at the same level of classification, that means that we don't have enough levels of classification. The exact meaning of each level of secrecy, and which roles will have access to it, should be well-defined and a matter of public record. It sounds from this story like that's not the case, at least in certain officials' imaginations--probably because a lack of clarity lets them do whatever they want, whenever they want, and say it's just a matter of discretion.

Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Or, we could default to "public", because this is a democracy, and we already make more things secret than is healthy.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. And at the TS or S level, you can have an additional layer under the umbrella of "special access program". SAP, whether it's TS or S is that highly classified group Obama was talking about. A few of the email's on Clinton's server were TS/SAP, which is essentially the highest level of classification available. Also, as the TS/SAP emails were apparently about a drone program, the classifying authority would likely be DoD or CIA... not the Dept. of State.

What people don't understand is that this kind of stuff isn't discussed outside of a vault. Computers authorized to even have emails mentioning it have to be classified at the TS/SAP level, and stored in a vault as well. The amount of security needed to store such information is so extreme, that there is no way Clinton didn't know she was in violation of protocol. What she did constitutes negligent handling of classified information, which, along with straight up disclosure as the NDA signed to grant clearance makes no distinction, is punishable by up to 10 years and $10,000 per count where each classified document would be a single count. Even disregarding the whole criminal aspect of it, and the possibility of indictment, I cannot understand how this wouldn't disqualify her purely on her character. If she's playing fast and loose with highly sensitive documents, what other corners will she cut as president, and how will that negatively impact our country and worldwide repuation?

Re:Well, duh

[chromaexcursion]

you left out Compartmented.

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

The closest thing I can find is: this which says that certain unmarked emails 'passed through her server' (whatever that means? Did someone send her something? Did she send someone something) that 'tracked' classified documents. So: someone sends you an email, and some years later, the CIA says that the information is the same as information in a classified document. How much trouble are you in?

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

Releasing names of intelligence operatives is a great example. For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail. (Not exactly, he got thrown in jail for lying about it later, but then Bush bailed him out.) Can you please point me at a source of Clinton naming intel operatives?

Re:Well, duh

[joshki]

Actually both are felonies. Classification of data does not depend on how it is marked. One might be able to make a reasonable argument that they were not aware of some data being classified if it were marked incorrectly or not at all, but with the magnitude of this problem and her position at the time she does not enjoy the ability to make that argument.

Re:Well, duh

[tripleevenfall]

I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now.

Re: Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

Try to keep up: What did she do, when did she do it, what was the classified information and when, was it marked? Unfortunately, I can't figure out exactly what happened based on all the yelling.

For example, this NPR article says that 84 emails were retroactively classified, some to confidential, some to secret, some to top secret. That's bad. Is that different from someone receiving / sending marked documents? I think so. Do you think it's the same?

Re:Well, duh

[NicBenjamin]

It's really surprising to me how much Americans can say they care about how their government works, and then display absolutely no fucking knowledge of it despite the fact 100% of us can quote the Constitution verbatim for significant passages.

For example, it is by definition impossible to create a system where 100% of the rules that apply to most people apply to the guy who makes the rules, because one of the rules is "only that guy can change the rules." In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State. The "yeah I declassified that shit without telling anyone" will work fine because the reason that shit was classified in the first place was her signature.

As for the other guys, they leaked to the media. Despite the fact the media has everyone brainwashed into thinking that a low-level government employee is not breaking the law if he leaks info to the media, this is not the case. It has never been the case. It has always been the case that the newsie gets a promotion, a Pulitzer, and a raise while his source gets jail-time unless President does some truly amazing unethical shit to rig his trial.

Re:Well, duh

[david_thornley]

There's often a tension between security and getting things done, and it's really useful to have some human judgment in the system. Having even finer grades of secrecy will accomplish little except create inefficiency and not address the need.

At some point, you have to give people discretion to get the work of the United States done. There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents, and we can lose more from delaying urgent actions than from mishandling specific classified information.

Thanks to Manning and Snowden, we know what happens when lots of top secret stuff gets dumped into public view, and it's not that bad.

Re:Well, duh

[andyring]

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Re:Well, duh

[nehumanuscrede]

We know what the distinction is, so does Hillary.

If they want to keep something off the news, then they can flag it as FOUO ( For Official Use Only ), Restricted or Confidential. Or, you know, they can fire and prosecute the persons responsible for failing to control themselves.

Once you tag something with any of the usual classification designations, a whole new set of rules goes into play. Breaking any of those rules for information which falls under any of those categories is a felony criminal offense. Period. Ignorance of the rules is not a valid excuse for breaking them. Though it seems that is really only true for us peons. Not the folks running the show :|

As you increase the classification levels, the rules governing the storage and handling of them tend to become more rigid as well. Once you start getting into the upper tiers ( TS, TS/SCI, TS/SAP, Codeword stuff, and beyond ) things start getting silly. Two person control rules, exclusion zones around the area when the material is out of storage, signing of NDA's threatening you with everything under the Sun if you ever disclose it, blahblahblah.

Stripping of the classification markings and sending it unsecured doesn't make it ok. If anything, that's willfully disseminating classified information while trying to bypass the rules regarding it. She ( and anyone who mishandles classified information ) should be fully prosecuted for her actions. Otherwise why bother with making the laws concerning them in the first place ?

Personally, they should time this to ensure any conviction of said crime isn't pardoned by His Majesty before he leaves office.

Re: Well, duh

[Bartles]

Actually, they both are felonies. Both are violations of the SoS's NDA. Both are regarded as equivalent under the law. You don't know what you are talking about. By that logic, as long as information isn't marked as classified, you can disclose it to whoever you want until some beaureaucray types is up and marks it. Does that really make sense to you?

Re:Well, duh

[neoritter]

Most of the more egregious stuff she had on her email server was not originated by the State Department.

Re:Well, duh

[cyberchondriac]

I think there's also Confidential; at least, that was my rating way back when I worked with CSC/RCA in the '80s, so I could handle data marked as "Confidential". Then there was Secret, and Top Secret.

Re:Well, duh

[amiga3D]

In other words it's only classified if someone like Snowden releases it.

Re:Well, duh

[Shoten]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Well put.

Another thing that many people are failing to mention is that the classified information that was in the emails wasn't classified at the time the emails were written and sent. This means two things: one, that Clinton is pretty much in the clear with regard to any potential prosecution, and two, that even if she'd not used a personal email server, in all likelihood the information still would have ended up on a system that was not accredited to hold classified information. This happens all the time; it's an unavoidable side effect of the way things work, since information is often classified long after it's been discussed in some way.

Re: Well, duh

[neoritter]

84 out of 2000+ were retroactively classified. And those 84 were not the 22 that were deemed to highly classified to be released. Also most of the egregious stuff came from other agencies.

Re: Well, duh

[neoritter]

Also, "was it marked" is not relevant, as whether it is or not is irrelevant under the laws and regulations that she signed onto. You are supposed to know what is classified.

Re:Well, duh

[TheCarp]

They are an independent administration that don't need no constitutional powers.

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

This is probably the worst thing I've seen in this discussion that has some factual basis, because it's willful removal of markings.

One of the problems I have with this is that it's not clear sometimes. For example, you said that she 'was having trouble receiving classified information', but the article doesn't say that, it says whether or not it was classified is unknown.

For some reason, people think that I'm trying to defend her, but i'm trying to understand what exactly she did and how bad it was on a scale from 1 to 10. I keep getting the impression that Fox thinks it's a 10 (purposefully handing marked TS/SAP info to the Chinese) and her campaign saying it was a 1 (she got an email that the classified coffee maker was broken). Does it matter? I think so. It doesn't help that people are simply wrong when they say things like the above ('classified information' versus 'sensitive information').

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

Well, now, I'm really confused. Who released her name? One a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say Hillary's email is probably a 5. If it was marked, then it's a 7. Purposely outing a intel operative is an 8.

Re:Well, duh

[neoritter]

"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."

That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious. Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies. Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.

Re:Well, duh

[neoritter]

FOUO doesn't protect something from FOIA requests.

Re:Well, duh

[JoeMerchant]

Calling "Super duper top secret" information "classified" is a way of protecting it, just like filling the "classified" channel with a bunch of unimportant fluff.

Re: Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

You cannot always know what some other agency is going to deem classified. Yes, the nuclear launch codes are going to be classified. No, the starbucks order is not going to be classified. In the middle is a gray area going from offwhite to damn near black, with some being pretty obviously classified and some almost certainly classified and she should have known it. More importantly, if you write sentence 1 (unclassified by itself) and then write sentence 2 (unclassified by itself), the paragraph can easily be classified at a high level. That's why you have people whose job it is to classify and declassify things.

To date, the things she did that I can tell: 1) received unmarked emails that 'follow' classified documents that the NSA and CIA say should have been classified; 2) told someone to fax a document without sensitive markings (might have been classified, don't know) 3) received and sent out emails that should have been classified regarding the verbal communications between foreign governments and the US government. See here.

I think that the 3 is the worse, because it particularly relates to her job and supposed training. hat is, information told to the government in confidence by foreign governments is the State Dept bread and butter, and so should have been immediately classified and handled properly.

Re:Well, duh

[oldmac31310]

Here: I'll help you with this. You need not type SJW ever again. Just cut and paste this wall. you're welcome. SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW SJW

Re:Well, duh

[Z00L00K]

Well, I primarily tried to get a better scoping than the pretty useless wording "Classified" and the range and qualifications differ somewhat between different countries so keep that in mind as well.

Re:Well, duh

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I agree that this is posturing for a likely "decline to prosecute", just the beginning of the spin cycle.

Equal prosecution under the law isn't in the constitution. (but, maybe it should be)

Pretty much. It is an admission of violation of the law and they are spreading words to minimize it.

Re:Well, duh

[mrchaotica]

If it were anyone but the Left's best hope for the Presidency, she'd be in jail.

Bullshit. Clinton is the Beltway-insider-status-quo's best hope for the Presidency. The Left's best hope for the Presidency is Sanders, and failing to prosecute criminal sociopath Clinton is nothing less than a conscious effort to sabotage him.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well damn if Clinton gets away with violating established rules, then so should I. Forgoing all the inconvenient security hassles on my government project would save the taxpayers 30% of the cost and we'd get it done in half the time. I'd be such the hero. Maybe I should post some TS/SAR source code on Slashdot servers and get some free feedback.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably a 7-9 if I had to guess. There were thousands of documents with classified info on them in an unsecure server. Note that unsecure doesn't mean what you or I would expect, that it is properly firewalled or such. The government has very strict terms about what constitutes secure at each classification level. Even at the Secret level, any machines containing Secret info have to be marked and classified as Secret, and have to be inside a vault. Any time people work on Secret info, they have to be inside the vault. The vaults have separate security, require classified combinations to enter, and have strict rules about their physical security. At the SAP level, these requirements only intensify. There were documents on her server at the Top Secret/SAP level supposedly about a drone program. This makes the classifying agency the DoD or the CIA most likely. Also note that the marking isn't what makes something classified... it is the information a document contains. Someone at her level would be briefed on every program and told what is/isn't classified and at what security level. If she didn't realize the thousands of emails on her server weren't classified, it was either due to negligence or incompetence. If she instructed aides to remove markings and send classified documents on unsecure channels (as some sources indicate), that's straight up willful disregard for procedure. Also, someone at her level would be entering/leaving classified areas/vaults multiple times per day, so she would know that a server in her house does not meet the minimum physical security required to handle classified information.

So sure, she didn't take the information to the Chinese, but she left TS/SAP information on an essentially physically unsecured server. This server was maintained by someone not cleared to that level as well. If the Chinese knew about her sever, it was likely hacked anyways, and they would have covered their tracks. Either she knowingly stored classified information in an unclassified environment, or she was so incompetent/negligent that she couldn't identify classified information and the proper safeguards for it. The NDA signed to allow access to classified information makes no distinction between negligently handling info and releasing it. Both are punishable by up to 10 years and $10,000 per count. So while she didn't willfully damage the US, she put the US in serious risk by her actions (TS is defined as information who's release would cause exceptionally grave damage to the US), and showed widespread, and likely willful, disregard for procedure.

Re:Well, duh

[aardvarkjoe]

If it were anyone but the Left's best hope for the Presidency, she'd be in jail.

The left's best hope? Hillary is probably the only possible candidate who could actually lose to Donald Trump. If the Democrats nominated somebody else (and Republicans actually stick with Trump), the Democrats would be essentially guaranteed with the presidency.

Not saying that Hillary is definitely going to lose, but a Clinton/Trump race is going to be a whole lot closer than it would otherwise be.

Re:Well, duh

[jandersen]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Exactly - classified means exactly this: that something has been 'classified', ie. put into one of several categories. One of these would be 'unrestricted' or similar.

Re:Well, duh

[operagost]

Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification. If she classified any communications, then they remain so until she officially declassified them. If she classified documents (or someone else did) and she passed them through her vulnerable email server without removing that classification, she is guilty of a violation. Doing otherwise is either lazy or scheming. I'm thinking the former here, because this whole mess started when she didn't want to carry two phones.

Come on, we're mostly IT people here. Do you like it when the CEO unofficially decides that he's above all the rules of the IT department? He'll be the first to fire people when company secrets get out. And this is why we have to demand that MINIMAL accountability to people who are supposed to be highly skilled in their area and honest in their dealings.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification.

I did not argue this. I do not have a horse in this race. Do not put words into my mouth. I'm not trying to second-guess the DoJ, and I don't particularly care what happens to Hillary. Saying that the summary is biased is not equivalent to condoning the actions of the persons described.

Re:Well, duh

[flink]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as:

  - Top Secret

  - Secret

  - Restricted

  - Public

RESTRICTED hasn't been a thing in the US since WWII. There is a CONFIDENTIAL level however. Also, there are many, many other security markings that may be placed on a document, even if it isn't classified, that modify how it may be distributed. You may be also interested to learn that there is no official comprehensive list of all markings and what they mean as each branch or program may designate their own marks that are defined in the Security Classification Guide of the program that is generating the material. See DoD manual 5200.01 for an overview of the widely used marks.

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Treating the information as SECRET means that it may only be transported by courier or over SIPRNet. This is an unreasonable precaution to take for material that is merely sensitive. Also, marking something as SECRET without the proper authority (either as directed by an Original Classification Authority or the material is generated from a previously classified source), is just as much of an issue as improperly stripping marks off of previously classed material.

In general, if something is sensitive but unclassified it is marked (U//FOUO) and may be transmitted encrypted over the internet.

Re:Well, duh

[guises]

Nuance is not how things work on the internet and, increasingly, not how things work in real life. "Trying to understand what all the fuss is about" is tantamount to taking sides, it stems from going to the absolute extreme on a position. Think about that: with one side claiming that she's the devil, the only other option is that she isn't. If you don't buy the idea that everything she does or touches or looks at is tainted and evil, then she can't possibly be as bad as they're saying she is and you are, therefore, disagreeing with them.

In your mind, "not the devil" may still leave a lot of room for negativity, but it firmly places you on the "Hillary Clinton may not necessarily be evil incarnate" side of the political isle.

Re:Well, duh

[joeboomer628]

Executive order 13526 at whitehouse.gov gives a definitive description of classified material and associated markings. Declassification requirements are also described. Opinion: If an item is classified there would be a record of it being subsequently declassified indicating what authority and when the declassification occurred.

Re:Well, duh

[funwithBSD]

Yes, but then we would miss out on the Sanders/Trump debates.

If that comes to pass I am investing in popcorn and hard liquor, because one or the other is going to be consumed in YUGE quantities.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

Only +3? this should be +6.

Re:Well, duh

[Beardo the Bearded]

THANK YOU.

There are several levels of classified documents, and 5 minutes on wikipedia would tell you everything you'd ever want to know.

Protected A / B / C is stuff that's going to fuck up one person. So if we found out that, say, HC was actually a dude or had HIV or something, that would fuck up her life but America would not be damaged.

Secret / Top Secret (usually called level II or level III) is stuff that's damaging to the country. So III might be something like today's frequencies or the inner workings of the IFF system. II would be layouts for circuit boards in warship computers, etc.

On top of that you have Controlled Goods and ITAR stuff, but that's not really Classified.

Re:Well, duh

[quantaman]

Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

Apparently “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” translates as "Make a version without the sensitive information and send that over unsecured communications" and is a common and accepted practice.

Re:Well, duh

[WhiplashII]

Of course, Trump will run with the Trump/Hillary ticket. Minds will explode.

Re:Well, duh

[Attila Dimedici]

For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail.

The only problem with this is that Scooter Libby did NOT leak Valerie Plame's name...that was Richard Armitage.

Re:Well, duh

[Attila Dimedici]

Valerie Plame's name was released by Richard Armitage, which the special prosecutor knew before he questioned Scooter Libby.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

My work in the military was in a classified career field. Most of it was Confidential, with occasional Secret classifications, and more commonly (but not mostly) NOFORN.

Much of it was of value only for short periods of time. Some was actually information that could be found publicly, that by itself was not very dangerous, but when combined with other information also sometimes available publicly could be used against our nation with damaging effect.

Some was genuinely in the realm of industrial secrets, and would materially improve the abilities of our adversaries to defeat us in war, which is by itself a good reason to keep some things secret.

Others were more operational in nature, limited duration, and could be described as useful only for a moment. Higher classifications would not yield more protection or security.

To this day I am not yet free to discuss most of my work, though my knowledge is now 19 years out of date. Some of it is still important, and I'm not at liberty to choose what to talk about and what not to. I'm also not sure if I need to notify the government if I intend to travel to Russia or other countries labelled similarly as security risks. But I'm not planning to either.

Multiple levels of classification are just as critical as file permissions in operating systems. Some levels are just useful, others critical to security.

Re:Well, duh

[Attila Dimedici]

You are overlooking that some of the emails that may not have been marked were classified by definition based on where the information they contained came from. A fact which Hillary would have been aware of.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

"There's plenty the Secretary of State can do to screw things up much worse than misfiling some documents"

Yes, but those things are often visible to all, and also actionable. Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

And NOFORN, used not just for intelligence-related information, but for specific programs or systems, such as naval nuclear propulsion.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

One of the complaints is that Hillary saw and disseminated information via her private server that she should have known, upon inspection, was or should have been classified. Her only defenses in these instances are ignorance, that is she was not trained or informed, or incompetence, that she failed to recognize the nature of the information.

Either defense seems, to me, to jeopardize her assertion that she is competent or qualified to act in our interests as our President.

Re:Well, duh

[rickb928]

Most instructive, however, is that Scooter was jailed for perjury.

Hillary could, from the information I've read in the media, be charged with perjury also.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, people like you and Obama are playing the "Nuance" game, trying to blur the line between various levels of "Classification".

The sad truth is, there was information so sensitive that even FBI agents had to get special clearance to view it. Meanwhile you're trying to pretend that it was all Hillary's yoga instruction and wedding plans.

I dare say, that if this was a (R) SecState, they would be indicted already and threatened with execution for Treason. But this is the Clintons, who get a pass on everything from Rape to whatever.

I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.

If you really support whatever Obama is spewing out of his mouth, and not actually looking at what the FBI and other agencies are saying about the actual information contained on the private and insecure email server, then you're just a partisan shill. There is a reason why the FBI is being meticulous in building an airtight case before even presenting it for consideration, and that is to get past the "nuanced" crap being spewed by Clinton and Obama.

Just like Bill's legacy is built on Monica, Obama and Hillary's legacy is being built on her trying to avoid public records keeping and Libya

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access?

The markings are irrelevant. But keep parroting the Clinton line, it makes you look really smart.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

To support the parent, here is the relevant document; the NDA Hillary signed ..

http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...

Enjoy.

Re:Well, duh

[Qzukk]

The FOIA response is redacted to the point that it is For No Use At All.

Re:Well, duh

[KGIII]

That makes me question which is for the victory of whom. 'Cause, depending on one's political standpoint, I could see it going both ways.

Re:Well, duh

[dwillden]

Very flawed understanding of Original Classification Authority: Yes she can declare anything classified by her dept as unclassified, but she has to document the declassification. Unless she can provide the declassification/downgrade records the information was not correctly declassified. She can't declassify without telling anyone because that leaves the information still classified. It must be documented so that someone else then caught with the info can then prove that the data was declassified. OCA isn't a license to do whatever you want, it still has strict procedures and requirements.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

Does it matter? I think so

it does matter. She signed a NDA explaining her duties (shirked) in regards to this information. Coffee makers don't matter, sending beyond Top Secret information from a insecure server that didn't have authorization is completely different, and is the case being built.

Re:Well, duh

[MachineShedFred]

"Classified" as in "this document or information holds a classification, such as secret, top secret, etc."

I'm sure there are classifications that are "don't put this in a press release" but hardly endanger national security. As with all things, context is key.

Re:Well, duh

[Straif]

Who released her name?

Richard Armitage.

Of course 5 seconds of goggling the whole Plame fiasco would have given you that answer. You would also learn that the investigators knew that from almost day 1 but continued their investigation for, God knows what reason.

Libby was convicted of lying to the investigators based solely on a disagreement between him and Tim Russert about a phone conversation they had a year prior, not for outing Plame. Libby said Russert dropped Plames name and said it was common knowledge amongst reporters, Russert said he didn't (though apparently originally he simply claimed he didn't remember mentioning her).

Re:Well, duh

[rahvin112]

Welcome to the presidency for as long as I can remember going back well past Roosevelt. I can't comment before that but I'm willing to bet it goes all the way back to Washington. You're naive if you don't think that's true.

Re:Well, duh

[tomhath]

Most of the more egregious stuff she had on her email server was not originated by the State Department.

Which is the reason she should have been using a government server instead of something cobbled together in her closet.

Re:Well, duh

[mjwx]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

This, For crying out loud, no shit there are levels of classified.

It covers everything from "in confidence" to "you'll get shot for even breathing about this".

The Clinton emails were probably along the lines of commercial in confidence, not vital state secrets.

Hey, but it's another reason to bash Obama, seeing as you cant find anything legitimately wrong, the Fox News types have to deliberately misinterpret words to make it sound worse than it really is.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

Meanwhile you're trying to pretend that it was all Hillary's yoga instruction and wedding plans.

Strawman. No one said anything of the sort, and certainly not I.

I dare say, that if this was a (R) SecState, they would be indicted already and threatened with execution for Treason.

Why reason when you can invent?

If you really support whatever Obama is spewing out of his mouth, and not actually looking at what the FBI and other agencies are saying about the actual information contained on the private and insecure email server, then you're just a partisan shill.

You have constructed a poor argument against someone else's position. I would be just as happy if Hillary went to jail. Whatever the DoJ does is fine by me; I'm not about to second-guess them, certainly not without all of their information. I am sure that they will take full account of the degree and nature of her wrongdoing. Are you seriously trying to advance the idea that "classification means all things to all people"? Do you deny that there are differing levels of classification? From my perspective, it seems just as likely that the nuances of classification would work against her, but if Fox News claims otherwise, well, I'm sure they applied their usual rigorous standard of unbiased non-partisan reporting.

Re:Well, duh

[Holi]

To me it was never about "classified" documents that may have passed across her sever, but the possible violation of the Federal Records Act of 2009.

Re:Well, duh

[Solandri]

A co-worker at my lab was visiting the Pentagon for a meeting with one of his research sponsors. He visited the restroom at the same time as another guy with a stack of papers in his hand. He said hi and went in a stall, the other guy used a urinal. When he got out of the stall, he noticed the stack of papers on the sink. He called security and turned the papers over. They interviewed him briefly to get a description of the guy. As he was walking to his meeting, he passed by security escorting the guy out of the building, presumably to a waiting police car.

That's what happens and how quickly they happen when you mishandle classified materials. If you're not a favored politician.

Re:Well, duh

[NicBenjamin]

"In this case all Classified information is Classified by the Executive Branch, which means the guy who runs the Executive Branch (Obama), and his closest advisers (like Clinton) by definition are the guys who decide whether something is Classified, and therefore they can declassify shit simply by talking about it. Legally speaking much of the case against Clinton will collapse in Court simply because most shit that was on her server, and was classified, was classified by the state department, using her authority as Secretary of State."

That's some fundamentally flawed understanding of classification authority. Let's go backwards first. A lot of the classified information was classified by other agencies, so the case collapsing because some or most of it is from the State department is spurious.

I don't believe you've disagreed with me.

There is not much real world difference between "much of the cases" collapsing and "a lot of it" not collapsing. It's a matter of emphasis.

Also how the Judge is likely to call the balls and strikes on the rest of the case. A prosecutor who tries to charge a major political candidate months before the election with a docket that includes any charges that are by definition not crimes is gonna not gonna get a lot of the close calls to go his way.

Next, not even the original classifying agency can declassify something without discussing it with other agencies.

True in terms of inter-agency DC politics.

But if you think a anybody would go to jail for releasing info the DoD had classified three years ago, changed it's mind about six months ago, neglected to get the paperwork from higher-ups you've clearly never met a Jury.

And since this is a criminal investigation, the only legal standard that matters is the "would a Jury think it was so damaging she should go to jail" standard.

Finally, under the law, the President delegates classification authority to the agencies. The President can not declassify something on a whim, they must ask the agency to declassify it. The agency head can decline to do so; but theoretically the President could just fire the head of the agency and keep doing so until someone agrees to.

You're gonna actually have to cite the law here. If it's a statute name the statute.

I suspect you're talking about an Executive Order, probably this one, and in this context an Executive Order is meaningless because of the way the government is designed. Why? Because an Executive Order is a statement saying what the President thinks should be done. If the President goes out and does something using a different procedure then he laid out in the Executive order he has not actually violated the law, because he has unilateral authority to change his Executive Orders anytime he likes.

And does that apply to Hillary Clinton to? Of course, if Obama says he trusts her.

Re:Well, duh

[tnk1]

Thanks to Manning and Snowden, we know what happens when lots of top secret stuff gets dumped into public view, and it's not that bad.

You're wrong, it's bad. Just try and do business with Europeans these days. You think there has been no effect on US business interests? Think again. What a gigantic pain the ass this has all been. And we don't we keep private information on our system, unless some doofus on the customer side decides to embed that stuff into a file. I can't even imagine the crap that the people who actually do handle personal data have had to go through.

Re:Well, duh

[tnk1]

Admittedly, mostly by dismissing the Secretary, but still, a private email server and circumventing classified information handling isn't 'misfiling'. It's intentional according to the publicized information I have read.

So you actually mean there really is nearly nothing that can be done about it, because you just don't dismiss a senior cabinet secretary for something like this. You cover it up or try and brush it off. Sort of like Obama is doing now, because even after that person is gone, you don't want to deal with the fallout on your administration.

Re:Well, duh

[AntronArgaiv]

You are overlooking that some of the emails that may not have been marked were classified by definition based on where the information they contained came from. A fact which Hillary would have been aware of.

Covered in case #3 - not marked but should have been. I don't think it's a slam dunk that she (or whoever wrote the email) should have known these emails should have been marked...AND sent over a secure channel (see below)

In any case, we are told the number of emails in this category is small. I suspect this is where reasonable people differ on how to classify them.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that some emails which should not have been sent, were. Makes no difference if it's a personal email server or an unclassified State Department server, they should not have been sent over an unclassified channel. That's a whole separate issue from the private email server.

Re:Well, duh

[tnk1]

Although you have to admit, his release was pretty egregious.

You could argue that Hillary was just clueless, which is not a huge surprise for a government political appointee. Not saying that excuses her, but still.

Oh the other hand, she is arguing in her campaign that she has the "experience" to run the country. She certainly as been in a number of roles, but if she just half-arsed her way through them, that "experience" may not really count as more than "time in job".

Re:Well, duh

[Attila Dimedici]

There are certain sources of information which the information from is always classified. Knowledge of the existence of some of these sources is classified. even if the information in question is mundane and in the public, it is classified because it came from these sources. Part of the reason it is classified is because revealing it may reveal information about those sources...information which may put lives in danger. If Hillary did not know that these emails were classified, she was not qualified to be Secretary of State, let alone President.

Re:Well, duh

[MachineShedFred]

Well, that depends - has she testified to any of this mail business while under oath in a deposition, a court of law, or a congressional hearing? If not, then it's not perjury - it's lying to the press, which is the mainstay of American politics.

I don't believe there has been any official under-oath testimony yet. We'll see what she says when there is, but I'll bet it happens as a sealed deposition so we still won't hear it.

Re:Well, duh

[oh_my_080980980]

Umm no the Secretary of State does not have that authority.

Re:Well, duh

[kriston]

Mrs. Clinton's instructions for a staff member to remove markings represents some horribly egregious judgement on her part.

I'm going to abstain from correcting all of the laughably wrong posts about clearance levels and markings in this discussion. So far, nobody has gotten it right, and it's funny to watch everyone correcting each other with even more incorrect information.

Re:Well, duh

[LynnwoodRooster]

From a legal standpoint, there is classified or not. The degree of classification is irrelevant. Classified information is to be handled in certain ways - from low-level classified information to top secret. Failure with any classified information is the breach, is the illegal activity.

There are multiple grades of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder. But all are murder, and all are illegal and all have penalties associated. Claiming otherwise is simply a "laws for thee and not for me" abrogation of the rule of law.

Re: Well, duh

[KenHansen]

This is the same administration that classified 18" wide creeks as 'navigable waterways' subject to federal regulations and oversight... Ever since the Democrats 'popped their cherry' by challenging the the definition of 'is' they have been busy redefining words when the facts were against them. (My personal favorite was when they argued that a man putting his penis in a woman's mouth was not a sexual act - apparently it's how some Arkansas natives greet each other.) Closest Republicans came to dramatic re-interpretation was 'ketchup as a vegetable' in the eighties as I recall.

Re:Well, duh

[LynnwoodRooster]

Even the NY Times has written about it. And contrary to what the Hillary camp/Obama Administration are trying to use to deflect, classified - and secret - information is rarely marked as such. It's implied in who it came from and what the subject is about. So you treat ALL information as classified at the beginning, and treat it as unclassified if after a review it's determined to be such. That's why everything starts on a secured e-mail system in the first place. And that's why Hillary using her own unsecured server is a major breach and illegal action.

Re:Well, duh

[Darinbob]

True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge. For awhile we stretched the laws because of war time, then we stretched the laws because of commie fears, then we continue stretching the laws because of terrorist fears.

Washington was one of the most mild. In some ways he didn't really want the job. The presidency changed quickly though because the constitutional convention kicked too many extremely important cans down the road.

Really though, the Obama administration is not taking this to new heights, it's only following well trodden paths.

Interesting that the most recent single-term presidents seem to have the most broad non-partisan appeal whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.

Re:Well, duh

[LynnwoodRooster]

It was Richard Armitage who leaked the name. Libby was not charged with the leak at all; he was actually charged and convicted with obstruction of justice and perjury. And President Bush did not pardon him - he commuted the prison sentence but left the financial penalty and the conviction in place (meaning Libby is now and will forever be, barring some future pardon, a convicted Federal felon).

Re: Well, duh

[KenHansen]

For example, Valerie Plame was an operative whose name was leaked by Scooty Libby, for which he was thrown in jail. (Not exactly, he got thrown in jail for lying about it later, but then Bush bailed him out.)

Wrong, Scooter had his prison sentence commuted, but the conviction stands... He was not pardoned by Bush'43, he paid a quarter-million dollars in fines and penalties, and had two years of supervised release.

Re:Well, duh

[Darinbob]

Well sure, but if you've got a political agenda to find some dirt on Bill Clinton you'll spend two terms wasting tax payer's money trying to find it, and end up with nothing more than laying about an affair. Then an impeachment that was guaranteed to fail and make everyone calling for it look like a fool. Biggest waste of time ever. That sort of thing should be inexcusable no matter what your political leanings are.

(when I was on a jury trial we actually had one jurist reluctantly admit that the defendant was not guilty of the charges while claiming "but he must be guilty of something!", which sums up the Starr Commission)

Re: Well, duh

[KenHansen]

It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods.

Do you know what was the cause of her 'trouble receiving classified information'? Her decision to never access the classified email system ever during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, see it is impossible to send an email from the secure email system to an insecure email address - there are no gateways between the two for security reasons. This is a self-inflicted 'trouble', she was a victim of her own decision, and that she actually instructed an underling on how to violate the law and send her classified information via insecure email is quite literally a 'smoking gun'.

Re: Well, duh

[Darinbob]

Clinton had an affair. He lied about it. Big. Fucking. Deal. But Republicans were hopping up and down with glee over it, "finally we caught the sumbitch!", then looked like morons when their impeachment for high crimes predicatably failed. None of those so called fiscal conservatives were ever ashamed at the complete waste of time and tax payer money over that debacle.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

There are multiple grades of murder, from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated murder. But all are murder, and all are illegal and all have penalties associated.

You forgot self-defense.

Failure with any classified information is the breach, is the illegal activity.

The statement which I was responding to was, "Basically, classification means all things to all people..." Are you arguing that there are not distinctions in law as to the degree of offense? Or does that only apply to murder?

My patience is running thin. You are arguing against a position I explicitly do not hold, merely because I am not willing to condemn this person out-of-hand. I do not know the contents of these emails, their classification, the origin of that classification, or the applicable law at the time that any of these events occurred, and thankfully it's not my job to unravel that mess. When the FBI announces the results of their investigation, I am sure I will be happy with whatever happens — let justice be done. Until then, I see no reason to tolerate polemical falsehoods.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

1) She was not a CIA "operative".
2) If that is the category of releasing "classified" information then Hillary is going to jail forever
3) Libby didn't go to jail for releasing the name, nobody in fact did. He went to jail for lying during the investigation.
4) She was well known in DC as working for the CIA, it wasn't much of a secret.

This is one of those really good examples of two sets of rules in DC, one for (D) and one for (R) (and visa versa) where the rules are selectively applied, to those people who are "disliked" and excused when "liked" by the powers to be.

Which is, IMHO, why so many people are so fucking upset with the beltway insiders, that we're even considering Sanders and Trump. But if you're a diehard (D) or (R), you only see the other side as being evil, when the reality is that there is only one side.

Nick Memphis: And what side are you on?

Senator Charles F. Meachum: There are no sides. There's no Sunnis and Shiites. There's no Democrats and Republicans. There's only HAVES and HAVE-NOTS.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

So...did Clinton knowingly and deliberately violate the law?

That is not the criteria for enforcement of relevant laws. "Ignorance is no excuse before the law"

BUT besides that, she singed a NDA document outlining her DUTIES and responsibilities and under that NDA, she failed. Suffice it to say, if she didn't know, that makes her unqualified to be Secretary of State, as well as President.

Here it is, for your viewing pleasure http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

"negligent handling" (Section 3, first sentence)

Having it on a unauthorized server is, by definition "negligent", given the nature of some of the information. Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Ignorance is also not an excuse.

But go ahead, and keep repeating talking points handed out by HRC and the rest of the DNC crew

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

"Negligent handling" Section 3, first sentence.

Intent has nothing to do with it, having access to it has nothing to do with it. NOT properly handling the information (containment) is everything.

But then again, you pay attemtion to the bits you care about, and ignore the bits that actually pertain the question at hand.

YES, she had rights to see, view, have access to that information. That was never in dispute. The where, when, why and how is. But keep on those talking points, the Low Information voters love it.

Re:Well, duh

[mrchaotica]

It doesn't help that Clinton is power-hungry. Her support for the TPP is proof enough of that, let alone all the other pro-Wall-Street / anti-actual-people positions she's taken.

Re:Well, duh

[Rakarra]

True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge

I think it's sliiiiightly different, but with the same result. They love the war they have going with each other. Each tries to expand the executive when their side is in charge, and each side fights like hell to stop it when the other guy is in power.

Washington was one of the most mild.

The political rancor could get just as strident in the late 1700s, but what made Washington so amazing is that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists pleaded with him to run. The two opposing ideologies all agreed that Washington, the only US President ever with no political party, was the correct choice, and they all agreed on this twice!

whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.

I think the media is now inherently polarizing. I'd have thought that more openness in communication would bring people together more, but it's actually just made it easier to create and find echo chambers where fringe opinions become reinforced and more mainstreamed.

Re: Well, duh

[Rakarra]

Ever since the Democrats 'popped their cherry' by challenging the the definition of 'is'

It was a proper question to ask, because guess what, the 'is' in the question had an implication that wasn't stated. This was after Lewinsky had left the White House and there was no more contact between her and Clinton, meaning that particular affair was over. He was asked the question, is there anything going on between you two? 'No' would have been a technically correct answer because they weren't seeing each other.... anymore. But that wasn't what the question was really trying to get after. What did he mean by "Is?" did he really mean only now, or any time in the past? Does "is" also mean "was?" No surprise those sorts of statements made Mr. Starr pretty suspicious.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" seems pretty obviously a lie, though. Harder to get more direct than that!

Re:Well, duh

[dpille]

Proper citation to actual law usually reads, for instance, 35 USC 798(a), not "section 3, first sentence, of some contract." Indeed, 35 USC 798(a), while referenced in the document you linked to, is just one of the many criminal statutes referenced therein that there is no plausible basis for believing Hillary Clinton violated. By definition, we look to the "definitions" section of laws to figure out how things are defined. Your view of "negligent" has nothing to do with it. I assume ignorance is your excuse. But go ahead, keep repeating whatever talking points you've convinced yourself of. I'll stick to being able to do rudimentary research with a basic understanding of the differences between criminal and contract law.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

I was pointing to the NDA linked in my previous comment. Section 3, first sentence ..."negligent handling".

I suggest this as a good read: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/se...

See page #7 (10 in the PDF)

Agency heads are required to establish procedures for receiving classified information in a manner that precludes unauthorized access, provides for detection of tampering and confirmation of contents, and ensures the timely acknowledgment of the receipt

I'm willing to sit here and have you explain how Hillary's private Email system was set up to follow the procedures she set up, or was supposed to setup.

Specifically

Section 2001.48 prescribes measures to be taken in the event of loss, possible compromise, or
unauthorized disclosure. It states: “Any person w
ho has knowledge that classified information has
been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s)
shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”

The problem is, that should COULDN'T have known because she didn't take the precautions needed, which is all that is required to prove negligence.

But what do I know, I'm just spewing Talking Points delivered by who knows who.

Re:Well, duh

[The-Ixian]

Any more power hungry than any person who throws their hat in the ring to become president? Who the crap would want to be POTUS if not for the power? It's a crap job...

Re:Well, duh

[Mitsoid]

The issue is... Classification is commonly retro-active.

Let me pre-face by saying, I don't like Hilary. However, I do understand some of the craziness that IT folks deal with in classified documents.

I worked for a government contractor, and in several cases the government's "contract admin" for a project would change. The new Contract Admin might decide that, UNLIKE the last 5 years... you can no longer have a document with both "Contract number: C1234-56H-789" AND "Project Nighthawk" AND "NSA" on the same document, unless that document is now marked as non-public classified material. (And this is entirely subjective, up to the contract admin... a different admin might deem simply having 2 of the 3 is enough.. or perhaps you need another piece of information... like an address.. to make it classified information)

This means that 5 years of e-mails, databases, website entries, lead-generation software, EVERYTHING... may need to be updated to ensure these entities no longer exist in relation to each-other.

So, when they say her e-mail has classified information... I say: No doubt!
Now, if they say she sent information that was MARKED as classified at the time she sent it... Yes, that's bad! She should be penalized for that.

Re:Well, duh

[dpille]

Okay, I'll bite. Where's your citation to "An Act to Criminalize Not Following ISOO Directives, codified at 18 USC XXX"?

I don't have to explain anything. Your top post in this thread is in support of a post stating "actually, both are felonies." What you don't seem to grasp is that there is no law making anything she may have done illegal.

Prosecutor: "Your Honor, we charge the defendant, Hillary Clinton, with breach of contract and violation of 32 CFR 2001.41, 2001.45, and 2001.48"
Judge: "Uh, breach of contract is for civil court, not criminal. And Code of Federal Regulations what? What's the U.S. Code section criminalizing that conduct? Get out of my courtroom."

Unless you're willing to educate yourself at least a little about how law works and what it is, you are indeed spewing Talking Points delivered by I-don't-care who.

Re:Well, duh

[Aighearach]

You got some derp on your chin. Get back in the pile!

So, you wave your hands and say, "everything is the same, because Obama complained about Bush's policies."

I mean, that makes no sense. Just random words combined with hate.

Explain the exact situation you're claiming is the same, the exact statements, and then provide insightful analysis about why they are the same. Otherwise, no, Obama complained that the Bush administration outed an active intelligence operative for political reasons, and is now pointing out that not all "classified" information is of equal importance to national security.

Classified just means it has a classification, not that it is has the highest classification, and two things that might have the same classification because of operational security needs might have very very different concerns a month later. For example, the travel plans of the Secretary of State might be "classified," but are also public knowledge and low-risk after the travel has already happened.

The huge, huge gap between the different things you think are the same implies irrationally extreme bias on your part. I'm assuming it is for the most likely reason, but of course it could be for other reasons. But I'll just keep assuming it is the most common one unless you admit to a better reason.

Re:Well, duh

[Archangel Michael]

I'll bite. Take a look here: 18 U.S.C. 1924. Her Email server was not authorized location for said material. Those locations are specified.

See also 18 U.S.C. 798. and 50 U.S.C. 421. I would argue that having information meeting these U.S.C codes on her server as "disclosed" (the violation part) being maintained by someone who had all the keys and didn't have the clearance to have access to it. In addition, her lawyers (thumb Drive copy of emails) etc etc etc.

I understand how the law works, I asked you to read the document, which you didn't do, obviously. Again, Negligence is all that is needed to prove guilt. She was negligent.

Thanks

Re:Well, duh

[funwithBSD]

With Sanders/Trump, the only way to win is not to play the game.

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

That email gets raised every time a discussion of her emails happens.

It's important to realize that:

1. Her staff got her the talking points via secure channels
2. It's normal for material to be drafted on a secure system then move to a non-secure system when it's been cleaned up
3. The talking points probably weren't classified (they rarely are; after all the reason for them is to talk to the media)

So, 1, it didn't happen, 2, it was normal order of business, and 3, even if it had happened, it wouldn't be proof of wrongdoing.

Re: Well, duh

[Saanvik]

Sorry, that's incorrect. If the material isn't marked as classified, unless the information is such that you should know it's classified, it is not a crime.

It's pretty obvious why that's the way it is when you think about how things would be if the law were otherwise. For example, law enforcement could easily entrap people. Another reason is everyone would treat all communications as classified just to prevent any risk.

The should barrier is actually rather high. The classified material in her emails hasn't been release, so we can't know if that barrier has been met. It's unlikely to meet the requirement, though, because it's pretty easy to make the case that everyone knew that email address was not secure, so she would assume anything sent to her would be not be classified. That leaves only the material that originated with her.

Re:Well, duh

[Areyoukiddingme]

Treating the information as SECRET means that it may only be transported by courier or over SIPRNet. This is an unreasonable precaution to take for material that is merely sensitive.

It's fair to point out that with the proper packaging, all US mail carriers are qualified couriers to carry SECRET materials. And we're not talking a steel box with a 12 digit combination lock, either. Plain brown paper is the outer layer, for those who aren't familiar with the procedures.

Basically, nothing End-of-the-World-ish is ever classified SECRET. Nearly all of it, if disclosed, falls into the category of "gee, that's awkward." And it's still too high a classification level for 99.999% of all government paper.

Re:Well, duh

[NicBenjamin]

Very flawed understanding of Original Classification Authority: Yes she can declare anything classified by her dept as unclassified, but she has to document the declassification. Unless she can provide the declassification/downgrade records the information was not correctly declassified. She can't declassify without telling anyone because that leaves the information still classified. It must be documented so that someone else then caught with the info can then prove that the data was declassified. OCA isn't a license to do whatever you want, it still has strict procedures and requirements.

Spoken like a true Civil Service employee, with a bureaucrat's understanding of a) the architecture of the top of the Executive branch, and b) the behavior of the other branches. In this case we're talking about a criminal prosecution, so the the Judicial branch is pretty much the only one that matters.

All those classification procedures you mention are Executive Orders. To an employee of the Executive Branch they are the gospel. To everyone else, especially the Judiciary, they are simply instructions the President has given his people. Which means that, for the purposes of charging a non-Civil Service Presidential Appointee with a crime in said Judiciary you need a case that's a little stronger then "this is a violation of Executive Order X." The Courts enforce statutes (and, of course, the Constitution, but they spend a lot more time on statutes then the Constitution), and the statute does not include a requyirement that the head of an agency that classified material follow any procedure whatsoever when she declassifies the material. That particular law simply does not exist at the statute-level, and if we're talking about Court (as we are in the Clinton case) that means it does not exist at all.

In terms of statutes that exist you're gonna have trouble finding one she violated. The closest I've heard of is this one, and it's very tricky because one of the operative words is "unauthorized." As I've said, the Constitution indicates that anything Hillary Clinton does in the State Department that is not banned by statute, and is supported by the President, is by definition "authorized." Another is "knowingly." If Hillary didn't know info was classified, or she thought she was allowed to keep it on an email server secured in her basement, or both she did not break that law.

Which means to get that misdemeanor you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the info was actually classified when she mis-stored it, b) she should have known storing it on a private email server was mis-storing it despite the fact two previous Secretaries of State did the same damn thing, and c) at least one of those pieces of info was classified by somebody outside her department, etc.

Re: Well, duh

[sumdumass]

Your scenario only works if the third parties capture enough votes in enough states to get electoral college representatives. It has been a while since that has actually happened.

What is more likely is that the third parties would siphon enough votes in states that are secured or safe for a particular main party and allow the opposite party to win it.

Re:Well, duh

[KGIII]

I'd have to vote for that. I'd have to. There's just bound to be so many laughs and I doubt they'll break anything beyond repair. It might help prove a point that I've been trying to prove for years.

Re:Well, duh

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

It's very much officials' prerogative to pick and chose what information to disclose and when to disclose it, regardless of the chain of command.

Hence the old British civil service joke that the verb dealing with official secrets is: "I brief. You leak, but he/she commits a criminal offence by divulging secret information".

It's very much in practice in the eye of the beholder.

(Now, do I think that's its a good idea for government officials to use their own email servers. No, I do not. I think it's a crap idea, mostly for accountability purposes.)

Re:Well, duh

[neoritter]

lol, no. There is verbatim wording that FOUO does not protect from FOIA. That's why the government tried to push SBU (sensitive but unclassified).

Re:Well, duh

[Cederic]

Really?

All information is classified. Some of it is classified as public domain, some of it classified as "probably shouldn't share with the media", some of it is classified Top Secret and some of it probably is classified "I could tell you but then I'd have to shoot you."

It's a big fat non-issue.

Re:Well, duh

[joshki]

This is correct.

Re:Well, duh

[doccus]

Actually, ALL gov't documents are classified. I's WHAT they're classified *as*, that is the heart of the matter. Such a careless slip up of the english language is most properly attributable to a grade school education, not Yale or Harvard...

Re: Well, duh

[kaatochacha]

He lied, under oath, then pretended he didn't really mean it, with a definition only a special ed third grader would accept. I don't really care about the affair as much as the fact he lied.
You do know that's a serious crime, right?

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

Great comment, although I think we're still seeing the impact of the radical right in the House. This next election should sweep most them away, though.

Ms. Clinton is a solid conservative, in the proper use of the term. She's also a centrist. The only reason she's in a position to run is because the GOP has gone so far to the right that they pulled the Democratic Party to the center. If that hadn't happened, the Democratic Party nominee would have to be center left.

If Trump is the GOP nominee, it not only guarantees the Democratic Party continues to hold the White House, but also the Senate. The House is interesting; I doubt it will swing all the way to the Democrats, but with a Trump nomination, it's definitely possible.

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

Thanks. It's astounding how much information is made up in discussions like this and passed off as factual.

Re: Well, duh

[Darinbob]

Which only occured many years in after all the other investigations turned up nothing. Basically Starr was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

No, sorry, you're making things up, but due to your writing, it's hard to know exactly how to respond. I'll try, though.

The State Department's email system is also non-classified, and available on mobile devices. Those devices, though, must only be used for government work. So, if what you are claiming is that she wanted to use a single device for both her personal and work email, and the State Department said no, you are correct. That makes sense.

She never asked her aides to send her classified material. She did ask, in one case, to have talking points that were stored in a classified system, rewritten so they could be sent to her via a non-secure system. That's a common practice and is in no way illegal. It doesn't matter, though, because her aides were able to send the material via a secure system.

I have no idea what you are claiming she lied about. She never lied about having a private server or having an archive of her emails.

Her attorney has top secret clearance and he handled the email appropriately. When material was reclassified to be above his clearance, he turned over all copies of her email to the FBI.

I don't know what you are claiming when you said she "lied about what the emails contained". She did say that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified. So far we have no proof that was not the case.

She turned over the email the way that it's stipulated it be done, via paper copies.

We have no idea what the material in the email is; it hasn't been released publicly, and only leaked statements on the content have been released. Those leaks have been politically motivated, and must be treated as tainted information.

You are correct we don't know if the email was hacked while on her system. We do know that during the time she was Sect. of State that the State Department's email system was hacked at least twice.

We do know the lawyer's copies were not accessible to anyone. He followed correct security procedures, including putting the material in a safe.

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

There is a standing order that all classified emails must be sent using SIPRNet. She did use it, but evidently rarely, as it's challenging to use. She predominantly used paper for classified material.

Simply using a private server is not evidence of intent to do wrong or negligence.

Re:Well, duh

[Saanvik]

You make a claim that I find interesting. You wrote, "Hillary Clinton skipped all those steps" - do you have proof that Ms. Clinton skipped proper procedure to declassify material? I certainly haven't seen such. We know the request for taking points doesn't apply, since they were sent via secure fax, not email.

Re:Well, duh

[kaatochacha]

Is self defense killing legally described as murder? I'm asking honestly, I thought it wasn't.

Re:Well, duh

[dl_sledding]

The point of whether what she did was legal or not will be moot. The DOJ, FBI, CIA, DOD, and any other 3 letter agency you can throw in here. will all be overruled by the Great and Powerful Obama and his superpower of pardon. If you don't see a Hillarity pardon coming in the near future, you're blind to reality. She will be fully exonerated one way or another.

Which, IMHO, sucks, but what can you do?

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense to crimes involving force. In some self-evident cases the state may decline to prosecute the case at all. Your question is difficult to answer as phrased, but speaking broadly, yes it is.

Re:Well, duh

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?... (pick your source)

Apparently, according to information being leaked about this, some of the emails were TOP SECRET//HCS which is a classification used for human gathered intelligence, from spies and the like. These things getting out would lead to serious problems, but Hillary and Obama apparently don't see it is a big deal.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/08/...

She even had an email that was released where she was suggesting to an underling that they remove the classification headers and send something through unsecured methods. This is scarey stuff, even if it was only the talking points, she is still encouraging the underling to commit a felony offence to make things more convenient for her.

Re: Well, duh

[Coren22]

https://www.google.com/search?...

Read up on it if you like. TOP SECRET//HCS is no joke, and could lead to people being killed.

Re: Well, duh

[Rakarra]

I'm curious if you have a reference for this. I've heard that chain of events as well, but when I did a quick search for it, the only reference I could find to the definition of sexual relations being limited to full intercourse was that it was a definition proposed by Clinton's lawyers, and that definition was explicitly rejected by the court. Maybe I missed something obvious.

Re:Well, duh

[NoWhereMan]

So, when they say her e-mail has classified information... I say: No doubt!
Now, if they say she sent information that was MARKED as classified at the time she sent it... Yes, that's bad! She should be penalized for that.

I am waiting to hear what you say when you realize that "they say" some of the classified emails were born classified.

Re:Well, duh

[AK Marc]

Receiving classified information form an unclassified source would not change whether she was using an official server or a cobbled one. There's no evidence (or even serious accusation) that the operational security would have been better had she used the official server. People talk about "theories" but in practice, the official servers are no more secure (and likely less secure) than the cobbled together personal server.

Re:Well, duh

[AK Marc]

It wasn't the contents of the classified data that causes issues, but the fact they exist. There's a difference. Classifying something that's not sensitive, like the Prime Minister's favorite toothpaste, just so nobody knows you collect and store that data is a violation of classification. Even if sharing it hurts our position with Germany because they are upset over the level of recording we have.

Re:Well, duh

[AK Marc]

So it was in a vault in a secure air-gapped system and just emailed to her? The specific examples of "breaches" have always turned out to not be. Though, they can't give examples, because of security, but she didn't break the law, according to the guy who could just pardon her if she did. If she loses the election, she'll be pardoned. If she wins, she can just pardon herself. So all of the investigation is a political witch hunt, unrelated to "justice" or other concepts incomprehensible to the Hillary haters.

Re:Well, duh

[AK Marc]

Who can authorize an email server? The laws don't get into those details, and some news articles indicate that Hillary could authorize her own server, so it's legal.

What's funny is it's a bunch of Republicans complaining that Hillary followed the poor rules written by Republicans.

Re:Well, duh

[AK Marc]

She had the power to de-classify things and approve redacted classified documents as non-classified. If she properly redacted a document, but incorrectly left the incorrect classification in the file header, it would be 100% legal for someone to clear the classification on her orders and send it as an unclassified document.

Even with the most damning "facts", there are possible legal explanations. It's just bias from both sides that prevents millions of americans from seeing the truth (both sides only like to see their own truth).

Re: Well, duh

[AK Marc]

The Starbucks order could be classified. What's worse is that you could write the order, send it with the page to the shop. They throw away the paper after the order. Then it's deemed an operational risk, and classified. The page is then guilty of mishandling classified information. And the person who finds it, if they were cleared, could be in trouble. A non-cleared person who finds improperly handled classified data is mostly ok, but someone cleared who stumbles across it should somehow know that mislabeled data is classified and treat it as such.

The real issue is that classification is broken, and nobody wants to fix it.

Re:Well, duh

[stealth_finger]

Classified just means not for you

Re:Well, duh

[CrimsonAvenger]

There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.

News articles I'm seeing mention that some of the classified emails being discussed were written by Hillary.

So, no, I don't think they were retroactively classified in every case.

Re:Well, duh

[guardian-ct]

You can''t win. You can't break even. You can't stop playing the game.

Re:Well, duh

[Metal Cutter]

I am amazed that no one here seems to get that Obama should have no comment at all here. The fact that he reveals anything by commenting is wrong. He has influenced the investigation just by opening his mouth. It makes him the worst kind of hypocrite. He is obviously not neutral. DUH!

Re:Well, duh

[joshki]

She absolutely could not authorize any private internet facing server to process the information under discussion.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the...

Note especially Section 3, part c.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

History

[kqc7011]

As Orwell said "but some animals are more equal than others".

Re:History

[CaptainLard]

Perhaps, but classified info is not an animal or a metaphor for communism for that matter. First of all, there are 3 basic levels of classification and then all sorts of compartmentalization and every holder or generator of said classified info gets to decide how it gets handled. It is indeed illegal to mishandle classified info but being charged with a crime for it requires intent. Anything unintentional gets a stern talking to and possibly temporary or permanent revocation of clearance. Everyone gets a second chance unless you sell something to the russians.

In summary, some classified info is indeed more important than the rest so I don't see how Orwell has anything to do with it. Unless you're making the argument that or lives are over because the gov has secrets...which would mean the USA failed somewhere in the mid 1700's.

not surprising

[ganjadude]

that there is a different set of rules for the leaders in the democrat party than there are for the rest of us

Re:not surprising

[bkr1_2k]

It's not just the Democrat party, it's the whole government. I've had a clearance for 25 years and, in many cases, things I was required by law to mark Top Secret with code words could be found in open source information readily. It's almost always about the source of the information when talking "classified" versus "unclassified" not the actual information itself.

The rules haven't changed. The public understanding of the rules needs to change.

Does that mean Clinton doesn't deserve any consequences? No. She most certainly should be held to at least the same standard as every other government employee. Is that going to happen? Not likely.

Re:not surprising

[quantaman]

The irony is for the rest of us it would be an epic screw up but there's never be a discussion of actual charges.

At least according to common practice:

Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.

“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.

Step back and apply a bit of common sense, she wasn't trying to sell the secrets, leak them to the press as part of a hatchet job, or anything else evil. She was trying to do her job and took some bad short cuts.

This was so uncontroversial that she did it completely in the open as was obvious to everyone she exchanged emails with and no one even thought it was an issue for years!!

Ordinary people get reprimanded for screw ups like that, they don't go to jail.

Mildly Orwellian

[fsagx]

Some pigs are more equal than you.

Ummm....

[Anonymous Coward]

"she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country"

She is running for the presidency, isn't she?

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make this a partisan issue when it isn't one. I'm sure every administration back to Washington considered it their prerogative to manage secrets any way they want. Nothing surprising here at all.

Re:Hilary for Jail 2016!

[ATMAvatar]

Why stop at Hilary? Nearly everyone in DC would serve the country better from a jail cell, be they Democrat or Republican.

He's a goof, but still better than...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified

The guy's a goof, but he's still one step less slimy than the couple that brought you "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

If you like your rule of law, you can keep your rule of law, right?

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[the_skywise]

Ironically (or not) that would be the couple he's protecting... :/

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[Nidi62]

>> Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified

Well in a way he's right. The government classifies so much that virtually everything has some level of classification. At the lowest levels, it's pretty much all information that you will see in newspapers maybe a few days or weeks later, if not information you can easily find/see for yourself to being with(say the President is flying to London: his exact scheduled arrival time might officially be classified, but if you know what time he took off you can pretty much figure it out). People see "classified" and immediately assume high-level stuff like Delta/DEVGRU's plans to take out ISIS's command structure in Raqqa.

Now, is most of the classified material on Hillary's server lower level stuff? Most likely. But to use a car analogy: there's no "superleaker" laws like there are "superspeeder" ones. All levels of classification are supposed be treated the same way, ie if it's not supposed to be there or you shouldn't have it you don't mess with it.

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[amiga3D]

I'd bet money, big money, that Hillary has never blown anyone.

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no real "Classified" just like there is no real "Intellectual Property"

Intellectual Property, as we all know is a blanket term to cover Trademark, Copyright, Patent, and occasionally Trade Secret.

Classified, covers (in the USA) Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, and occasionally stuff that isn't formally protected by law, but shouldn't be distributed.

The government has has TONS of problems with over classifying, stretching back more than forty years. There are routine leaks of information, to venues like the New York Times. Snowden is a hero to some for leaking tons of documents, a few which are really damaging, but most of which, when you read through them, are about as sensitive as my high school term papers.

We applaud Snowden for his leaks, and some ask for immunity. Hillary has managed to keep her classified material out of the public domain, and some ask for prosecution.

Think about it for a moment. If Hillary has upheld the spirit of the law by ensuring classified information was not released to the public, then what are these people fighting over? Courts can only remedy damages, and if no damage is done, exactly what are they to remedy? Perhaps the whole exercise is nothing more than minute mud slinging by a group that cannot get a candidate elected, and have chosen a crop of stinkers better at home on a reality TV show than in a Presidental debate?

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[Rockoon]

Well in a way he's right. The government classifies so much that virtually everything has some level of classification.

In what way exactly is he right? In the rule of law way, or the protect Hillary because democrat way?

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the

[Joe_Dragon]

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the rules. Now he needs to pardon his friend Blago.

Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[mi]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Sure. We know very well, that "Classified" may mean any of the restriction levels, most of which are not "super duper".

But it was still illegal (felonious) for Hillary Clinton to mishandle such material — and she knew it. She needs to be charged with the crime and convicted of it. President Obama can then show leniency and pardon her, if he wishes.

And if that costs Democrats the election, so be it — their own fault for giving the nation a choice between a Russia-manipulated crypto-Communist and a this spy-magnet.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[jsepeta]

Obama won't prosecute Hillary, and he won't prosecute W. Basically, he's the man. And not in a good way.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[matbury]

The decision whether to prosecute or not shouldn't be left up to Hillary's colleagues. They need an independent judiciary, free from reprisal for prosecuting the rich and powerful. Isn't that supposed to be in the constitution or something?

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[chill]

Not only is that incorrect, in that it quite possibly could be misdemeanor, that is wholly inconsistent with historical precedent on these types of cases.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

Obama is acknowledging what is common knowledge and the subject of numerous news articles -- the government grossly overclassifies documents and frequently does it with the sole purpose of saving some politician from embarrassment, which has nothing to do with National Security. Overclassification was named as an issue in the 9/11 Report.

The lesson of the Pentagon Papers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-classified-information/2015/09/18/a164c1a4-5d72-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

NY Times Op-Ed in 2001: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/national-security-and-americas-unnecessary-secrets.html

President signs law in 2010 to reduce overclassification: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/president-signs-hr-553-reducing-over-classification-act

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[tsqr]

Don't you watch Fox News? Their lawyer guests agreed Clinton didn't break any laws. They said that last month on a program, and to a viewing audience, that is not supportive of the Clinton campaign.

So keep huffing and puffing, maybe something besides gas and poo will eventually come out of there.

Oh, well! If a group of TV pundits say it's OK, that should put the matter to rest.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. And it's illegal to drink in many parks. It's illegal to speed. It's illegal to jaywalk.

But yet people break these laws every day, in full knowledge of the police. Why? Because the law is always selectively enforced. Do you really want to live in a world where EVERYONE is prosecuted for every law they break?

Sodomy was illegal in many states until the 1990s when it was declared unconstitutional, and in many jurisdictions this included oral sex, woman on man. Did you really want the police to bust you for getting a blowjob?

Now, you can argue whether what Hillary did was bad enough to be prosecuted. But that's not what you're currently doing. You're pushing the "if it's illegal, you should be prosecuted" angle. Which isn't true, and has never been true.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[fustakrakich]

You're in the wrong place again. In the U.S. people are allowed to vote for who they want. There are various alternatives to Clinton, Sanders, Trump, and Cruz. The voters ignore their records to their own detriment. But nobody is forcing them.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[fustakrakich]

The "lesson" of the Pentagon Papers is that nobody learned a damn thing. It was all forgotten when Reagan was elected. Forgive and forget was even part of his campaign... Eh, kinda similar to Obama's treatment of Bush. "Heal" the country by "looking forward". Blech!

He's talking about this now because Graham is making such a stink about the 28 pages. Which probably won't matter. If the Saudi king was one of the pilots, the U.S. would still be all chummy with them in the ongoing game of empires against Russia.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[mi]

In the U.S. people are allowed to vote for who they want.

Sure. And a large number of them are going to be rather put off by seeing one of the contenders during Presidential Debates wearing a tracking device, don't you think?..

If elected despite all this, Madame President may pose a number of interesting questions. Can she pardon herself, for example? If not, can she execute her duties from prison? Who is to guard the prison — will the Warden surrender his facility to the Secret Service (temporarily)? Will the visitors be subject to the facility's ordinary schedule — and the usual scrutiny?

Fun, I tell you...

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[scamper_22]

This is it right here.

While I can't relate too well with government level secrecy, as a developer, I have been on numerous 'classified' projects where an NDA applies. Basically... don't talk to anyone outside the project about it.

And I'm sure just like the government, there are different levels of classified.
Heck, I've been on classified projects where someone from marketting already leaked the project and it's public... but we still can't talk about it. Some are secret projects against competitors. Some are to hide a relationship with a vendor.

The sad reality is this. People at my place of work probably take more care with all of our nuanced classified than Clinton took on hers. We would never use a private email server for classified stuff. We would avoid any potential 'shortcuts' we might do for regular projects...

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[im_thatoneguy]

The sad reality is this. People at my place of work probably take more care with all of our nuanced classified than Clinton took on hers.

Except that your head of marketing and your CEO can talk and decide to "leak" information in "violation of the NDA".

Ultimately the higher up you get the more discretion you get in violating NDAs because the NDAs serve a business purpose and if a greater business interest supercedes that NDA then someone has to have the flexibility to override it. The government is the same. The president can go on the nightly news and reveal Top Secret restricted access intelligence because at some point someone has to have the flexibility to act. However if you're a private you don't get to make that decision.

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Can you corroborate your claim that Senator Sanders is being or has been manipulated by Russia?

Re:Secretary Clinton is still a felon

[Saanvik]

Exactly! People point out all these statutes, over and over again. It appears they are merely trying to overwhelm everybody, hoping people will believe she must have done something wrong just because there are so many statutes. Ask for proof of what, exactly, rose to the level of breaking which specific statute, and you get nothing but crickets. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot say whether she has or has not broken the law.

If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

By all accounts Gen. David Petraeus was a straight shooting general who helped reform for the better the counter-insurgency strategy of the US military. He then was elevated to lead the CIA. By several accounts he fell out of favor with the president for arguing against policy changes made by the White House. Then he gets investigated after a suspected cyber security incident, which leads to agents uncovering an affair with his biographer, which leads them to uncover that he gave her his memoir which was classified.

  Petraeus' biographer held a security clearance and there is no reason to believe national security was endangered. Especially not more than allowing classified documents to be sent to an email server in the Clinton's closet was. Looking at the letter of the law, what Clinton did was far more a transgression than what Petraeus did, in both quantity of classified material and the fact that electronic material was far more likely to be hacked and copied.

And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.

Obama has clearly set a double standard and with his pronouncement that national security was not harmed he is trying to influence, interfere and undermine the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Beezlebub33]

And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.

As someone with a clearance, that sounds really bad. Can you please point me at a source?

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[spauldo]

Obama has clearly set a double standard

No, he hasn't. It's the same standard that's always applied to people at that level of power.

Laws don't apply to those in power. They're tools to be used against rivals, or just a way to control those without power. It's been that way ever since laws have existed, and it exists in every form of government. If someone can't get themselves out of trouble, they don't really have power, do they?

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Can you please point me at a source?

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html

Google "clinton fax strip broken classified" for more...

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

This is informative because it shows you consider the daily mail a source.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[larkost]

General Petraeus did not give his mistress/biographer his memoir, he gave her 6 binders of Top-Secret material. Additionally, it was the FBI who first learned of the affair. They notified the Directory of National Intelligence, who advised him to resign and advised the White House of the reasons for this. General Petraeus resigned the next day. Trying to make this look like a personal grudge from the White House is not supported by the facts.

The fact that he avoided any real criminal prosecution or punishment (depute being apparently out-of-favor) is probably the most relevant part of this conversation.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[spauldo]

so, then, why did Nixon resign?

I may not know everything, but at least I know how to read and apply critical thinking.

I said:

Laws don't apply to those in power. They're tools to be used against rivals, or just a way to control those without power.

Emphasis added for the thinking impaired.

Nixon wasn't the only person with power. He still had enough to never be convicted, though.

Since you've turned this into a personal attack, log in or I'll just ignore you from now on.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Rockoon]

Laws don't apply to those in power.

They applied to Nixon..... but not any of the Clintons or Obamas... notice a pattern?

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[laird]

That's a lazy little "hit piece", but then the Daily Mail is always eager to stretch stories to create a "scandal" and sell more papers. The email exchange in question includes Clinton telling the aide to strip out the secure info to sanitize the document ("non paper"), after which it's approved to send through standard ("nonsecure") channels. Admittedly it's written in "insider" shorthand, but it's routine and legally just fine.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[spauldo]

Clinton's situation is exactly like Nixon's, except she doesn't have anything to resign from.

Think about it. Nixon was raked over the coals by the press and the Dems. Nixon was never convicted. A president let Nixon off "for the good of the country."

Clinton is being raked over the coals by the press and the GOP. Clinton won't be convicted as long as the Dems hold the White House. The current president is making excuses for Clinton.

Clinton might actually get convicted if a Republican wins the White House, although I doubt it. The Clintons have a lot of influence, even across the aisle. It'd also set a precedent, and no politician wants to face the chance of being held responsible for their actions. Honestly, I was shocked when Scooter Libby was convicted (although note who was convicted, what he was actually convicted of, and that jail was considered "too harsh" for what could be argued was a national security breach).

As far as Obama's situation - what situation are you talking about? What has Obama done that a president would fear impeachment? Any Democratic president would have the nuttier part of the Republican party screaming for impeachment, just as the nuttier part of the Democratic party was screaming for Bush's.

The entire point of political parties is to create a group of people who believe in similar things so that they can pull favors from each other and give each other a lift when they need it. There's nothing democratic about them at all - they consist entirely of back room deals and power plays. They're a necessary evil - our system of government couldn't exist without them - but don't expect justice or personal responsibility.

Viva Le Monarchy Baby!

[anvilmark]

It's good to be the King.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said

[turkeydance]

in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Re:"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said

[fredrated]

Yeah, Humpty Dumpty is probably the best you can say about this dirtbag that turned out to be the Manchurian Candidate.

Re:"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said

[fustakrakich]

the Manchurian Candidate.

Damn! I always thought that was Carter...

True but Irrelevant

[drinkypoo]

They want us to follow the letter of the law or pay the price, they can do the same. If they don't believe in it, why should we? This is further proof that The President doesn't believe in the law, as if any further were required. Why should we?

Re: True but Irrelevant

[Bartles]

Bullshit. We used to have appointments of independent counsels. People who do bad used to get fired. People used to resign. None of that has happened in the Obama administration. It has no shame.

Re:True but Irrelevant

[ChrisMaple]

The only difference between George III's Great Britain and George Washington's United States was who pocketed the taxes

<sarcasm> That's why troops are still forcibly housed in private residences in peacetime. </sarcasm>

I was threatened with jail

[Anonymous Coward]

by some rent-a-cop government functionary for the slightest transgression when I got my security clearance. I had to walk by armed guards every day subject to search for improperly handled material. And, oh yeah, my security clearance application, along with millions of others, was recently obtained by Chinese hackers when they broke into the Office of Personnel Management. Our gutless leadership never retaliated. General Petreus career was ruined by transgressions 1/1000th those of Hillary's. She belongs and jail, and would be but for our hopelessly corrupt and diseased Justice Department.

It is settled

[Anonymous Coward]

Our great Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, has spoken. The issue is settled, the debate must stop. To keep arguing would mean doubting the good faith and wisdom of our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and that would be treasonous at best. I for one accept without condition the Truth as revealed by our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and will never doubt His hallowed and wise words.

I am not and I will never be counted among the malcontents. I can assure this great country and our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, that I will be always faithful and will not hesitate to inform on any traitor expressing dissent and spreading malcontent among the populace.

That explains a lot

[johnlcallaway]

Isn't that his same take on "there's illegal, then there's illegal".

Re:That explains a lot

[serviscope_minor]

Isn't that his same take on "there's illegal, then there's illegal".

Er... yes? I mean there's illegal like running a wifi with a transmit power of 1050mW and there's illegal like murdering a bunch of people.

Re:That explains a lot

[Bing Tsher E]

And there's legal like 'completely violating the spirit of the Freedom Of Information Act' by putting your official correspondence on a private server you own so it won't make it into the National Archives and you won't be accountable to history.

Re:That explains a lot

[Cajun Hell]

Interesting that this is also a president who gets quite a bit of popularity and forgiveness by not enforcing interstate marijuana laws. Laws that Congress can't be bothered to repeal in spite of The People obviously wanting them gone.

I guess that's because another thing The People obviously want, is selective enforcement of laws. Someone doing no significant harm? Laws, schmaws. Someone piss you off? Now we have laws!

C'mon, everyone: you know this really is the American way. This isn't even something that Rs and Ds disagree about, as far as I see. Country folk and urbanites are on the same page too here, I think. Blacks and whites? Rich vs poor? We all agree.

Laws are for opponents.

Re:That explains a lot

[Rockoon]

There is evil, an then there is evil.

The lesser of two evils is usually the Republican nominee rather than the Democrat nominee, but never-the-less when you vote for evil you are still supporting evil.

The admit that I voted for McCain (R) in 2008.

They told me that if I voted for McCain (R) that we would get 4 more years of Bush (R). Well, I did vote for him and then we did get 4 more years of it after Obama (D) for elected. Thats what happens when you support evil. You always get more evil.

mandatory access control

[mbaGeek]

security wonk rule of thumb:

• "confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
• "secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed if this information leaked
• "top secret" = people could die if this information leaked

• you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...

Re:mandatory access control

[bkr1_2k]

security wonk rule of thumb:

• "confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
• "secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed or small/insignificant capabilities may be lost if this information leaked
• "top secret" = people could die or large/significant capabilities may be lost if this information leaked

• you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...

Correction added in bold. There's an important distinction here between saying "people are going to die" and "we might lose the ability to collect further intelligence". Both are bad. We don't know which applies to the secrets Clinton was emailing back and forth.

Re:mandatory access control

[ChrisMaple]

Even "confidential" material can make people dead if leaked. There are many considerations, including but not limited to duration, scope, scale, and cost of the damage caused by compromised information.

Re:Varying levels of classified documents

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> difference between Hillary being careless with confidential information and Hillary being careless with top secret information

She was both. At least 22 of her "whoopsies" involved "top secret" information. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420) In that light, Obama essentially said, "There's REAL 'top secret', and then there's BULLSHIT 'top secret' that we only use to make people feel important, and Hillary was only ever trusted with BULLSHIT 'top secret', so let's just go smoke a bowl and forget the type of incident that's ended the careers of dozens of other far more innocent people, m'kay?"

I did not have sex with that woman

[jsepeta]

But I did skull-fuck her until I blew all over her dress.

Patraeus

[bhcompy]

I'm sure Patraeus didn't want to hurt the country, either, but it didn't save him from his felony charge and subsequent plea deal.

Re:Patraeus

[oh_my_080980980]

Does understand what a Felony is?

Re:Patraeus

[Areyoukiddingme]

Top Secret is one of the levels of classified, and ... Clinton ... allowed all levels, up to Top Secret, be accessible to unauthorized persons.

Prove it.

You can't. From the look of it, the FBI can't either. So the whole thing will go away.

For that matter, "accessible to unauthorized persons" and "accessed by unauthorized persons" are treated vastly differently. If it's only the former and not the latter, again she walks.

I have no interest in seeing Hillary Clinton as president, and I voted for someone else in my state's primary, but no one is going to knock her out of the race with her email server. It's just not happening.

Re:Patraeus

[bhcompy]

Err, we already know what she pushed through her servers, what classification level it was, what classification level it should have been, and her telling people to strip the classification before sending emails and faxes(see her conversations with her staffer Jake Sullivan).

Regardless, the problem is that people who work for their clearance would not be allowed to work in government ever again at best if they were caught doing what she was doing, and charged with a felony/set of felonies at worst, as happened to Patraeus(who still got off easy). As someone who went through the process and jumps through every goddamned hoop required to keep seemingly innocuous data marked as sensitive or higher secure, this upsets me, and this upsets a lot of people that work in similar capacities. While the Congressional shitshow has been partisan, the real issue is not partisan at all. If there are no consequences for her actions, there are disturbing double standards set for people like me who would likely be jailed for doing the exact same thing.

It is DNC problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a single party issue.
Nixon - Resigned for suggesting using IRS to target political opponents.
(D) Obama - Actually USED the IRS to target political opponents, no issue.

Bernie Madoff - Investment scam making people lose millions, in jail for life.
(D) John Corzine - Lost $600 million, to this day he can't explain where it went, no punishment.

You - Don't pay taxes and IRS will make your life hell.
(D) Geitner, Rangle, Daschle, Clinton - Failed to pay taxes, on purpose, and no punishment.

It is a one party issue on this. Not that the Rs are doing any one any favors, but the outright blatant corruption without any kind of repercussions is from a single party. Hell, Bill Clinton sold missile secrets to China for donations to the DNC, it even went public and was in a Gore presidential debate and nothing happened (illegal sale of classified info, illegal foreign political donations, and on and on)

Yea, it is a single party issue.

Re:It is DNC problem

[amiga3D]

Nixon is a perfect example of someone who thinks he's above the law. I'm almost, not quite but almost certain that Hillary is another. Considering that the elite in both parties seem to be conspiring to make her our next President I guess we'll get to find out.

Re:It is DNC problem

[fustakrakich]

Yea, it is a single party issue.

Well, yeah! We are under a single party. Yes, with all the factional bickering, but it is monolithic in protecting its power. How many independents are there in congress? How many people are even aware of the independent candidates on their ballots? I would say the party is doing a good job of directing attention, and lucky for them there is virtually no resistance. This year they use the *Fear Factor* to keep the ratings up. Trump and Sanders are the best acts in a long time. "The whole world's watching". And speaking of machine politics, take a gander at how Humphrey won the '68 nomination with only 161,143 votes to the other guy's 2,914,933.

I really wonder if people stop to think that they are electing and reelecting real live crooks into high office. I guess they are so convinced there is no alternative that they just don't give it a second thought. That and they're looking to get a tiny piece of the action themselves, with some juicy contract or tax break.

Really, let's not blame the party for peoples' own bad choices. That's just scapegoating.

Re:It is DNC problem

[Tablizer]

Obama - Actually USED the IRS to target political opponents, no issue.

I'll give you $200 if you can provide solid proof. $200, Dude.

Don't pay taxes and IRS will make your life hell.

The tax rules are subject to interpretation, like any written rules, and long disputes over the rules and interpretation are typical. The difference between "them" and us is that they can afford top tax attorneys to drag things out long enough for new IRS staff to come along with a diff interpretation while we can't. If you don't like inequality like that, then tax the rich.

Re:It is DNC problem

[Shatrat]

Politics isn't supposed to be a for-profit exercise. Also, do you think Hillary is paying taxes on all the money she's getting from Wall Street, China, Saudi Arabia et cetera?

Re:It is DNC problem

[larkost]

I don't think you are looking at things objectively, and your first example is a goo place to start with some facts:
1. Nixon's resignation was after revelations that he had used all sorts of illegal intimidation and attempts to sabotage the Democratic party. To try and tag his resignation to using the IRS is a willful disregarding of the facts.
2. There is no reason to think that President Obama was in any way involved in the decision by one office (in Cincinnati) of the IRS to use a keyword list to give additional scrutiny to organizations claiming tax exemption. Why would something organized by President Obama only be happening in one office?
3. The list in question involved keywords used in both liberal and conservative groups. In fact organizations on both sides of that political line were investigated, and the ONLY time one was actually denied the exemption it was for a LIBERAL group.
4. The tax exemption in question specifically did not apply to political organizations, but many of the organizations applying were very political in nature (hence the making of the list)
5. The FBI investigated, but found no criminal wrongdoing. The same result in the DOJ investigation.
6. The Senate report concluded that the main problem was that what constituted "political advocacy organizations" was ill-defined, and there had been an inadequate reposes from the higher-ups in the IRS when this issue came up.
7. Despite a lot of attempts to somehow rope in the White House in any capacity, not evidence has ever turned up linking them to this at all.

So... you seem to have made a complete hash of your first bit, so I will not continue. Please get better sources of information in the future.

Re:It is DNC problem

[Saanvik]

You do know lying doesn't help make your case, right? Ms. Lerner did not erase her hard drive; it had a physical failure. She did not destroy any of her emails. The tapes they were archived on were re-used because the IRS had insufficient funding (despite asking for years) to put in place a long term email archiving program. Ms. Lerner resigned when she was informed that she was about to be fired.

My interpretation

[MeNeXT]

she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

she would never do anything to endanger those in power.

If there was an interest to protect the country all he would have to do is respect the US constitution. Now the US has kangaroo courts, secret lists of accused, police asset seizure without court sanctioned warrant, and so on....

The US is just like Russia and China. Whatever is needed to keep those in power in power.

Re:My interpretation

[tsqr]

she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

she would never do anything to endanger those in power.

To these people, those are the same thing.

Re:My interpretation

[Rockoon]

police asset seizure without court sanctioned warrant

Indeed, it was this administrations U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, that declared that its only "done pursuant to supervision by a court, it is done pursuant to court order, and I believe the protections are there" while her office literally held onto peoples assets for multiple years without any judge anywhere knowing anything about it.

There is evil, and then there is evil.

Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

Prosecutorial discretion is a legal principle that predates the Constitution, and exists for many good reasons, not least of which is preventing the needless use of state resources. Similarly, we give discretion to police in their exercise of power, and we give discretion to juries in deciding whether to convict. It may be convenient for your current political agenda to have things be otherwise, but you should probably understand that if there were to be language in the Constitution regarding this subject, it would far more likely preserve this principle than dispose of it. I honestly don't have any idea how this will play out, personally; I'm just here for the show.

Re:Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

And prosecutorial discretion is and has been abused since long before the Constitution was written. Just because it is SOP doesn't make it good. When laws are very, very irregularly enforced, it makes a mockery of the judicial system itself. Of course there should be some leeway, but that doesn't mean that rich and powerful people should get off while poor and working people get hit with the maximum sentence. It also doesn't mean that corporate CEOs should only be fined, while small, non-violent offenders get years in jail, for example for a small drug charge. Laws have always been unevenly enforced to the detriment or regular people, and the benefit of the wealthy. We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling. When laws are applied that unevenly, it is clear the law is being used as a targeted weapon, rather than a rule applied to all of society.

Re:Discretion

[Anonymous Coward]

On my road they lowered the speed limit to 25. Then they set up personalized speed traps for people they're after. They pull over and set up the trap as the person nears, then only point the gun at that one car. As soon as its gone, the cop drives away. Seen it 4 times in the last month and a half (they're after flagged "dangerous drivers" that they track with the states license plate scanners).

Re:Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

There are certainly many problems with the justice system. I'm sure we could spend many happy hours describing and delineating them — you have a good list going already. However, I'm far more interested in your proposal to fix this situation. It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State. Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good. We agree that corruption in all its forms is antithetical to a democracy. I would like to believe that a solution is possible; perhaps you can do me the favor of articulating one.

Re:Discretion

[DarkOx]

It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest

Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good.

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

If the rules governing what classified materials have to be handled what way and when are to complex for follow and so frequently not important enough to peruse violators of the answer is have fewer rules. We should be able to define simple understandable rules for identify documents that MUST be protected as state secrets and what to do with them. Maybe the answer is for the rest is tell people "use your judgment" bad judgment as perceived by your superiors might get you fired but it isn't a crime.

Its just possible we have to many laws.

Re:Discretion

[rickb928]

Several legal principles predate our Constitution, not limited to regal powers and the concept of literal ownership of people.

Which of these should we also tolerate?

Re:Discretion

[ultranova]

It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State.

"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion? Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.

Re:Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

First off, reduce the number of laws that pertain to non-violent and victim-less crimes. That would include drug laws, which should be health issues, not legal issues. How many laws are on the books? Obviously too many, and a significant percentage are for behaviors that don't affect society or other citizens. Meanwhile, other activities that severely hurt society are not even against the law (e.g., off-shoring billions of dollars to avoid taxes, increasing the tax burden on everyone else). Further, we have a for-profit prison system that needs to fill beds to make a profit. Right there you clearly have a conflict of interest. So you could also get rid of all for-profit prisons. The are a number of changes that could be made that would reduce the number of people charged, while appling the law much more evenly across society.

Re:Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion?

Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.

Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure by what mechanism this would work. It seems like that's the purpose of jury nullification, but I suspect that you intended something else.

Re:Discretion

[Roger Wilcox]

Amen. See Frederic Bastiat's "The Law:" http://bastiat.org/en/the_law....

Written in 1850, it details from a philosophical perspective the rise of law, its presumed purpose, and some strong arguments for indicators that the law has gone bad. Chronic, uneven application of the law is one of the perversions of law he discusses.

Re:Discretion

[phantomfive]

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

For that to happen (and for it to be a good thing), our skill in making precise laws that cover every situation will need to improve significantly. Right now we don't know how to write really good laws, so we make an approximation (at best), and depend on judges and the legal system to do the rest.

Because the weight of the penal system is heavy and powerful, it has severe limitations on what it can do, to prevent people from being convicted wrongly. The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person.

Re:Discretion

[T.E.D.]

We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling

That's the main thing here. Having held a clearance myself, yes those huge legal penalties are a possibility. However, most incidents of mishandling involve a slap on the wrist and a very annoyed security officer who has to do a ton of paperwork. In extreme cases, you might see your clearance revoked, but I've never even seen it come to that. They just have the draconian penalties there so that in cases of true malice, its possible to come down on the miscreant like a ton of bricks. But that's almost never actually done, unless there's an actual case of espionage, or it somehow gets political.

So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician, its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures.

Re:Discretion

[buck-yar]

If the cops can watch people violate a crime, then pick a few people out and enforce the law against those people... then its not really about the issue the law was designed to deter, is it?

Then we arrived at the conclusion that its not about the law at all, and only about an excuse to prosecute selected people

(posted anonymously out of fear of police retaliation)

Re:Discretion

[buck-yar]

Err forgot to click the box. Guess I should pepper my angus

Re:Discretion

[ShanghaiBill]

Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.

Those centuries have included many oppressive governments, which have used "prosecutorial discretion" to a far greater extent than democracies. They prosecute their opponents, while giving their cronies a pass. That is what is happening in China today, as the opponents of Xi Jinping are arrested in the "corruption crackdown". When his brother-in-law was caught in the Panama Papers scandal, hiding billions in overseas accounts, it was not him, but the people trying to raise awareness of the issue that have been arrested or intimidated.

In America, blacks and other minorities are prosecuted for crimes while white people committing near identical crimes are let off with a warning.

Rather than "prosecutorial discretion", we should have clearly written laws, and a minimal number of them. If a crime is not prosecuted, then the decision and the reasoning should be made public, to ensure that the same standard is applied to others.

Re:Discretion

[cayenne8]

Those centuries have included many oppressive governments, which have used "prosecutorial discretion" to a far greater extent than democracies. They prosecute their opponents, while giving their cronies a pass. That is what is happening in China today, as the opponents of Xi Jinping are arrested in the "corruption crackdown". When his brother-in-law was caught in the Panama Papers scandal, hiding billions in overseas accounts, it was not him

Seems to be this is exactly what is happening here in the Hillary email scandal....anyone else pulling this same exact thing, would have been indicted already.....and likely convicted.

But maybe there is salvation for rule of law n the US if they at least take it to court, and let it play out.

Re: Discretion

[johnsmithperson123]

I'd say mandatory rehab is probably a better option than prison, considering drug use levels inside prison. Drug dealers, on the other hand still need to be prosecuted. And offshore money is just a reflection of our absurd corporate taxes. If we want companies to come back to the US kill off corporate taxes. It's only 11% or so of our taxes anyway.

Re:Discretion

[ScentCone]

So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician

Mostly what we're hearing is calls for the person who was the top security official at State and fourth in line to the presidency to not get off completely unharmed for passing around SAP-level material on a computer she set up in her house in order to avoid FOIA compliance. And if there's some urge to go easy on her because we don't yet have evidence of the Russians or the Chinese plowing around in her mailbox, keep in mind that instead of doing her job and turning over all of her material as she left office, she dragged her feet for YEARS, and had to be subpoenaed. And she destroyed tens of thousands of records without anyone at State being allowed to weigh in on whether or to what degree that included more of the SAP-type stuff that's already been found there.

If Patreus was guilty enough to be criminally convicted, Clinton is far more so. Doesn't have to mean life in prison. But it has to be commensurate with having handled SAP-level stuff on a non-secure home computer, making it available to non-cleared staff, making copies of it on thumb drives for her lawyer to keep in HIS non-secure office, and then serially lying and playing dumb about the whole thing for years to try to make it all go away.

its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures

Exactly. Her entire stay as SoS involved her deliberately - for future political reasons - avoiding normal security procedures, even as she trafficked in some of the most compartmented information that exists.

Re:Discretion

[firewrought]

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

Without discretion, you get things like the Mike's Hard Lemonade case, people being branded as sex offenders just for peeing in the woods, numerous VERY YOUNG children punished for pointing their finger like a gun (or drawing a gun, or writing a story that involves murder, etc., etc.,), and numerous other forms of zero-tolerance bullshit.

I get that discretion is sometimes a band-aide fix for serious problems (such as vague laws and malicious prosecution), but there's no legislator who can write perfect, high-quality laws, even if that skill was valued by voters. The law is not a computer program; we are not gears in the machine.

In addition, it would be wise to consider the failure of centralized control across a number of human endeavors... see Communism and work-to-rule as examples.

Re:Discretion

[ShanghaiBill]

Seems to be this is exactly what is happening here in the Hillary email scandal....anyone else pulling this same exact thing, would have been indicted already.....and likely convicted.

No, this is not true. Violations of confidential material are daily occurrences, and while they sometimes result in a reprimand, they very rarely result in criminal charges. Criminal charges are usually filed only when the violations are repeated, or result in actual leaks of important information.

I served in the military, and had a secret clearance. I also worked a few years for a defense contractor. We should have occasional security sweeps, and they always found violations. Yet there were never any charges.

I am no fan of Hillary, but Servergate is way overblown.

   

Re:Discretion

[tburkhol]

Seems to be this is exactly what is happening here in the Hillary email scandal....anyone else pulling this same exact thing, would have been indicted already.....and likely convicted.

Exactly. It's why all of GWB's paintings have prison bars.

Re:Discretion

[cayenne8]

No, this is not true. Violations of confidential material are daily occurrences, and while they sometimes result in a reprimand, they very rarely result in criminal charges. Criminal charges are usually filed only when the violations are repeated, or result in actual leaks of important information.

I served in the military, and had a secret clearance. I also worked a few years for a defense contractor. We should have occasional security sweeps, and they always found violations. Yet there were never any charges.

I've had extensive experience working DoD and other Federal programs myself.

If "I" had been caught sending the level of and sensitivity of, the same information it has been found Clinton sent...through or to my own email server at home, or a gmail account, etc.....I do fear I'd have been charged.

IF as you say, a reprimand....if I'd done that, my reprimand/punishment would have been being terminated, and likely classified as not being able to work for the Feds again.

You are never supposed to have classified networks crossing with unclassified ones, doing that accidentally somehow...might get you a reprimand. But I've been trained and signed away my life in the past, that if I'd sent the type of classified info she did on an insecure network, the consequences would have been much more than a slap on the hand for a first time error in judgement like that.

Re:Discretion

[zeugma-amp]

+1 to your comment about Bastiat.

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government covers much the same ground for similar reasons.

Re: Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

Corporations need to pay much higher taxes. It is a crime that working people have to pay them, and corporations can get away with offshoring and you know it. It is the primary organized crime in the world and it is an international syndicate. You know it, and the corporations know it. Police raided Mossack Fonseca in Panama today, and it is hopefully the start of an international crackdown on tax evasion by corporations and rich hypocrites. I can't evade taxes, and unless you are a large corporation, you can't either. It is time for corporations to do their patriotic duty and pay their fair share. Our crumbling infrastructure and deteriorating social safety net are testaments to their greed and malfeasance.

Re:Discretion

[Areyoukiddingme]

Err forgot to click the box. Guess I should pepper my angus

A good steak doesn't need any pepper.

Re: Discretion

[kqs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Petraeus knowingly gave classified information to his mistress. As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise. Why do these cases seem similar to you? They seem worlds apart to me.

Can you name someone who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information where they did not try to give the information to someone unauthorized? Anyone? I'll wait for you to Google it.

Re: Discretion

[ScentCone]

As far as we can tell, Clinton did not give classified information to any unauthorized persons, knowingly or otherwise.

What? You don't think that the Secretary of State would understand that satellite imagery of North Korea is born classified? That compartmented SAP-level information about human intelligence programs is born classified? You don't think she knows that allowing her un-cleared staff to wade through 60,000 of her emails to help her delete stuff before allowing investigators to see it means that her un-cleared private staff would be seeing ... the very stuff she puts in front of them? You don't think that AFTER multiple agencies made it very clear that her email contained classified information, that her burning copies of it to thumb drives to give to her no-clearance-having lawyer to store in his non-secured office means exposing (again!) classified information to parties not allowed to see it?

How are you defining "did not give" when it the actions you're describing involve her giving it to unauthorized persons?

Re:Discretion

[sumdumass]

Sometimes a law is not prosecuted because the amount of legally qualified evidence isn't as potent as the evidence or opinions of the evidence people outside the legal system believes. For instance Sally says Bob said X can greatly influence my opinion that John should be prosecuted but Bob is not able to testify and Sally's claims are hearsay making them inadmissible in the trial even though they can direct the investigation.

But I do not disagree with you. I just recognize that what people think may not match what can legally be proven in a court of criminal law. So there will always be outliers giving this impression.

Re:Discretion

[Saanvik]

Interesting claim.

Please tell me how you know what information Ms. Clinton sent that would have resulted in you being terminated; after all, it hasn't been released to the public.

There's a reason this matters - it appears to me that you are making a judgement call based on politically motivated allegations. You can, of course, believe those allegations are true, but I think it makes more sense to wait for the investigation to finish then to depend on information from tainted sources. The tainted sources could be right; they could also, as we saw in the Benghazi committee "leaks", be false because only the most inflammatory information was release. Once the full record was released, it was very different then the politically motivated allegations.

To conclude, you could be absolutely right, but it depends on information we don't have yet, so your certainty is unwarranted.

Re: Discretion

[Saanvik]

There's a lot of what you wrote that's conjecture (for example, we have no proof that her emails contained any of the material you claim; all we have are politically motivated allegations). That's fine, it's fun to use conjecture in discussions, and hey, they could be true. But I do have to point out a couple of things you wrote that are false.

Ms. Clinton gave her attorney the thumb drive container her email before it was released to the government, not afterwards. Therefore your claim that she gave them to her attorney after being told there was classified information in her email is false.

Her attorney does have a security clearance and followed correct protocol in handling the thumb drive. When the review of the emails led some to be classified beyond his clearance, he turned over the drive to the FBI.

Again, as has been written by many others, there is no comparison between this and what Mr. Patraeus did. Pretending there is just weakens your points.

Re: Discretion

[ScentCone]

Multiple statements from career inspectors within the intel community have asserted (and done so more vigorously when asked, and in writing) that there was classified material present on her unapproved, non-secure private mail server. Mishandling of such material is one of the rare places where intent has no bearing - merely being sloppy with it is a crime, period.

Re:Discretion

[dl_sledding]

This!!! There could be a "game show" type television program designed around this (maybe Morgan Freeman as the host?), so that the public can watch the "sentencing" happen LIVE ON AIR!

It may sound like I am being facetious, but I am serious. I think this would be a great idea (even though it's almost something out of "Idiocracy") simply for the deterrence factor.

Re:Discretion

[NotAPK]

"The scale is heavily weighted towards letting guilty people go free, over convicting an innocent person."

Are you sure about that?

Re:Discretion

[Saanvik]

There were no policies against having a private email server, and your claim of personal gain is unfounded, as is your claim that she cut out basic security procedures.

Re: Discretion

[Saanvik]

I'm not claiming that we don't have inspectors saying the email contained classified material; that'd be stupid. What I'm asking about are your claims of the actual content in those emails, like your repeated claims of satellite imagery.

Can you share those sources for people that have actually reviewed the classified material that there were, as you claim, classified satellite imagery of North Korea in the email? All I've seen is conjecture and anonymous sources.

Consider that some of the Snowden Documents

[wiredog]

that were classified are still classified. It's illegal for some people to talk about those documents outside of SCIFs, since the documents are classified TS/SCI/SI. They've been published on the front page of the Washington Post, but are still classified.

And then there's the lovely practice of retroactive classification. Sometimes a document can be classified after it's been publicly disseminated.

Good for the goose

[kilfarsnar]

President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

A similar thing happened to me recently. I got a little careless in managing my speed on the highway, but I would never intentionally do anything to endanger other drivers. So citing the President's logic I will not be paying the fine I received. Is that how it works now?

Re:Good for the goose

[david_thornley]

If you were a police officer, I doubt you would have gotten a ticket. If you were a police officer with the lights on, you certainly wouldn't, because you'd be doing it in the course of your official duties. The Secretary of State is at a sufficiently high level to bend the rules in the course of her official duties, because the duties are more important than the rules.

Re:Good for the goose

[fustakrakich]

Is that how it works now?

Whaddya mean "now"?

Re:Good for the goose

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Seems like Obama is trying to wash his hands from Hillary? That she would not "intentionally endanger the country" is a non-info from her boss -- and not a great compliment either -- but him saying that Hillary was careless with doing a part of her job is quite an accusation.

This weekend he said Libya and lack of planning was his "worst mistake" in the same article where the most credit for pushing for the war was given to Hillary.

Re:Good for the goose

[kilfarsnar]

If you were a police officer, I doubt you would have gotten a ticket. If you were a police officer with the lights on, you certainly wouldn't, because you'd be doing it in the course of your official duties. The Secretary of State is at a sufficiently high level to bend the rules in the course of her official duties, because the duties are more important than the rules.

The duties are more important than the rules? Is that like the ends justifying the means? It seems that if the rules are not to be enforced at that level, then they shouldn't be the rules. As the AC below me asked, where does this stop? Who decides which rules can be bent, and how far? Does the President decide which breaches of security warrant a response and which don't? I guess Nixon was right when he said that something is not illegal if the President does it.

Look, I know this is how the world works. But the examples you gave of having different rules for officials acting in their official capacity don't reflect the same dynamic. It is codified in law that police are allowed to drive over the speed limit when responding to an emergency. That's why they get the fancy lights and siren. What we have in the case of Sec. Clinton is more like a cop being pulled over for speeding when off duty, and being let go by the other officer because they're both cops and what's the big deal. Sorry, but that's corruption. It's low level corruption, but it's still corruption. Those in positions of power should be held to a higher standard because of their position, not given special dispensation when they end up on the wrong side of the law. But again, I know how the world works. I don't have to agree with it and will continue to point out the double standard that separates the powerful from the rest of us.

Re:Good for the goose

[kilfarsnar]

Let's hope so! My hearing is tomorrow.

Re:He touched the main issue

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy"

Obama is quite the wordsmith in his own right. That quote is the nicest way I've ever heard anyone say either, "she's so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if she put America in jeopardy," and/or "she's so focused on her own wealth and power that putting America in jeopardy isn't even on her radar when she makes decisions."

Why Would The President Do This?

[Anonymous Coward]

3 possibilities for the Presidents words seem possible
1. An FBI report is coming which will call for legal action against Hillary and he is floating a trial balloon to see if he can get away with no action on his part.
or
2. The President misspoke.
or
3. The President is very undecided about Hillary and her fate.

Need any more proof?

[DNS-and-BIND]

If it were one of us who set up our own email server to send our work-related classified emails to, in order to ensure our own privacy and evade public records requests, we would be on year 3 of a federal prison term.

Classified, shmassified. Any classification of emails whatsoever would have been grounds for immediate revocation of security clearance, firing from your federal job, and prosecution by a hardass prosecutor who would not budge an inch because he knows he has you cold.

Humpty nailed it

[Notorious G]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Re:Hilary for Jail 2016!

[Bing Tsher E]

I can't wait for the waves of huge surplus office equipment and furniture auctions after large buildings in DC are emptied.

No, that won't be happening. But I'm a dreamer, and I'm not the only one.

Re:Hilary for Jail 2016!

[ChrisMaple]

Antigun laws tend to be passed at the local and state level, usually by Democrats or left-leaning Republicans. Occasionally those laws are overthrown in court.

Sad leadership

[Virtucon]

It's pathetic when we see the President skirting laws and circumventing the other branches of government, now he's coming up with his own definitions of the classification of documents. This will still go down as the worst 8 years in US history. Republican or Democrat you have to wince when this fucking moron speaks.

Re:Sad leadership

[oh_my_080980980]

Umm Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Seriously, stop the hyperbole. Yes I think he is being a total douche bag when it comes to covering up for Hillary but if Trump or Cruz doesn't make you wince more, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Re:Sad leadership

[Virtucon]

seriously stop nutswinging on otard. I vote Libertarian and won't be voting for any Republicans.

Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

If I create a grocery list from the weekly flyer, and the CIA comes along to classify my grocery list, does my grocery list contain classified information?

This was what the CIA did when they classified several Hillary emails about the not-so-secret drone program in Afghanistan that was based on public information in the media.

Re:Here we go again...

[Notorious G]

If I create a grocery list from the weekly flyer, and the CIA comes along to classify my grocery list, does my grocery list contain classified information?

Yes, it does. The products you selected or did not select from the flyer, the order of items in your list, if you plan to buy one of a particular item or several, the very fact that you relied on that particular flier (and any other information it contained) all tells us something about you and what you're doing. Sure, your list alone may not be much but intelligence works by bringing together a large number of pieces of data to create a full picture. Maybe comparing your list to the list of others that I showed the same flyer, for example.

This was what the CIA did when they classified several Hillary emails about the not-so-secret drone program in Afghanistan that was based on public information in the media.

That it's an "open secret" does not mean it's not classified and anyone with a child's understanding of how the classification system works knows this. We all know about Area 51, does not mean emails about it are not classified? Of course not.

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

Sure, your list alone may not be much but intelligence works by bringing together a large number of pieces of data to create a full picture.

A marketing intern could do that job better. After all, the source information is not classified.

We all know about Area 51, does not mean emails about it are not classified? Of course not.

In Hillary's case, the State Department staffers sent emails discussing the situation in Afghanistan based on published news articles. The CIA saw the words "Afghanistan" and "drone" in the emails, and retroactively classified them as classified. That's a knee-jerk reaction to non-classified information. Nothing new for the CIA.

Re:Here we go again...

[Notorious G]

Sure, your list alone may not be much but intelligence works by bringing together a large number of pieces of data to create a full picture.

A marketing intern could do that job better. After all, the source information is not classified.

It does not matter that the source material is not classified. Once it's classified, that's it. I realize you're being intentionally obtuse, I think defenders of this are pretty much left with nothing more than that. Let me give you another example that a marketing intern may not do as well at ... suppose your grocery list includes a pregnancy test. I happen to know from a ObamaCare hack that your wife had a hysterectomy and has zero need for a pregnancy test. That's interesting. Now I look at you a little closer and discover that your 15 year old daughter has a 18 year old boyfriend in a state where age of consent laws apply that could make for statutory rape. Is that something? Could she be the reason for the test?

We all know about Area 51, does not mean emails about it are not classified? Of course not.

In Hillary's case, the State Department staffers sent emails discussing the situation in Afghanistan based on published news articles. The CIA saw the words "Afghanistan" and "drone" in the emails, and retroactively classified them as classified. That's a knee-jerk reaction to non-classified information. Nothing new for the CIA.

So what? If you're saying the emails only had those 2 words in them, then maybe it means something but it's likely there was a discussion around it and those discussions are certainly classified.

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

I realize you're being intentionally obtuse, I think defenders of this are pretty much left with nothing more than that.

I'm not being "intentionally obtuse," I just think classification without context is stupid. If the intelligence agencies had their way, all information would be classified and any discussion of the government would be a felony.

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

News article: Drone wipes out Afghanistan wedding party.
Hillary Clinton, in email: Damn those desk jockeys at the CIA!

FTFY

Re:Here we go again...

[__aaclcg7560]

But the man above was not Secretary of State and Washington insider for 30+ years.

The rules are different for political appointees than civil workers and non-governmental civilians.

yeah right

[JustNiz]

>> she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country ...but she did. Or has "I didn't intentionally mean to..." now become a valid excuse for every illegal activity?

I can't believe that we're still expected to vote for Hilary, I mean since she is clueless enough to do this, do we REALLY want her making key decisions around running the whole country? Hell no.

Re:yeah right

[Maritz]

You hit rock bottom with Bush. Hillary might be more dangerous but that'd be because she's smarter than him, not dumber. Bush could barely fucking speak.

Re:yeah right

[Notorious G]

You hit rock bottom with Bush. Hillary might be more dangerous but that'd be because she's smarter than him, not dumber. Bush could barely fucking speak.

So you say, but I bet he can figure out how to get through a subway turnstile. Even the dumbest New Yorker can use them, it was like rocket surgery to her, completely dumbfounded. She may be brain damaged.

Re:yeah right

[JustNiz]

Its because she's never had to live like "common people" or do anything for herself, even drive.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi...

Actually, the general categories are:

[Salgak1]

Top Secret - data, that, if released, would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security
Secret - same thing, but "serious" damage
Confidential - damage to national security.
For Official Use Only - not classified, but not for public release.

Additionally, there are "caveats" that restrict distribution to certain groups, and Special Access / Compartments (aka SCI) that one needs to be specifically approved for, and briefed into. . .

Re:Actually, the general categories are:

[cfalcon]

Only if you believe that "0 is a quantity" is an oxymoron.

See how this works?

[wkwilley2]

"There's classified, and then there's classified"

There's rape, and then there's rape.

Circular Definition

[spoot]

No amount of vocal inflection can change the fact that "There's classified, and then there's classified" is a circular definition, autologic and rhetoric. Unless, of course there is "super classified," "super-duper classified" and possibly "hyper-uber-super-double-secret-probation-classified." Tautologically speaking, classified is pretty much classified, unless you reclassify it.

Re:Circular Definition

[EndlessNameless]

Unless, of course there is "super classified," "super-duper classified" and possibly "hyper-uber-super-double-secret-probation-classified." Tautologically speaking, classified is pretty much classified, unless you reclassify it.

And, what do you know?

There are: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret level, along with SCI/SAP silos.

Re:Varying levels of classified documents

[PPH]

Some information is only shared on a need to know basis

That's a property of the clearance of the people using the material. I might be able to view top secret information. But only for the program for which I am cleared.

Sir Humphrey Had It Right...

[Stormy Dragon]

"The Official Secrets Act is not there to protect Secrets, it is there to protect Officials."

Blumenthal

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton's buddy Blumenthal had top secret classified information from the CIA, in the same wording they used, that he sent Clinton within 15 minutes of them publishing the report to people with clearance. It was CIA material, not State Department, with classified headings when it was released, sent to her server within 15 minutes of it being released.

To this day no one has publically told how Blumenthal, with zero security clearance, got ahold of CIA top secret documents that quickly. Clinton failed to report getting the information on her non-classified servers.

Oh, my!

[Taco Cowboy]

... I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now ...

When I arrived here (in the US) it was *Heaven*

It was so different from the place I was from

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Couple of decades on, I, an immigrant, starting to feel something wasn't right

I did not know if it was me or if it was the world, but something was not right

More and more I noticed that laws were not followed, more and more I noticed people got off scot free, just because they could (by rank, by money, by connection, or all of the above)

And then we have Obama --- the ultimate antithesis of what America is all about (at least to me)

Law is not law, Constitution is shit, Privacy is a joke, Bill of Rights? Fuck it!

(shaking my head)

I dunno man ... the time I escaped China the laws turned into shit. Everything was fucked up, cars had to stop on green light and proceed on red light because "Red is our color"

I have that feeling - when I went back to China for business trips - that China has been improving - not everything is upside down in China

But when I came back to America ... more things are getting upside down --- culminating in Obama's latest 'words of wisdom'

The other day Obama told us to let Big Brother in if we want online protection (see my submit at
https://slashdot.org/submissio... which Slashdot decides not to publish), and now ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"

What the fuck is that, man?

Is this still the United States of America which I used to know? Or has the US gone total bonker?

Re: Oh, my!

[johnsmithperson123]

Don't worry, America agrees with you. They just can't decide on what the right solution is. http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Re:Oh, my!

[LynnwoodRooster]

We're slouching towards the China of the 1970s. Meanwhile, they're heading towards the US of the 60s...

Re:Oh, my!

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you for your thoughts, your perspective mirrors mine. In 1974 President Nixon resigned, because he got caught lying. In 1998, President Clinton got caught lying and everyone told me to forget about it. Yes, the USA is no longer the country it used to be. And I think it is (in some ways) worse for it. Hopefully our racism is less today... though my black fiancée and I (white guy) get stares and angry looks every where we go. Hopefully our tolerance of homosexuals is more, though I used to live in a place where homosexuals are a large part of the population and a 16 year old lesbian got beaten to death by her classmates in a local shopping mall... Hopefully we are still better than we were in 1974 in some ways. But I see the other changes, the ones where a sitting President tells law enforcement officials NOT TO PROSECUTE people who break laws he does not like... and I am discouraged.

I shall be dead soon, so my opinions die with me, apparently our new generations of Americans prefer this level of corruption.

Re:Oh, my!

[tburkhol]

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Well, not really. Nixon resigned before he was impeached (ie, he avoided Senate trial), and Ford pardoned him so there never would be a criminal trial. Sure, Nixon lost his job, suffers some disgrace, but he was never prosecuted, let alone convicted. For serious crimes that almost certainly were committed and in which Nixon was almost certainly complicit.

How about the Keating Five, in 1989, who took money from S&L captain Keating to shut down a federal investigation of his bank? Keating got to go to jail for fraud, but those senators? One of them ran for President in 2008.

My point is, let's not pretend that politicians doing whatever the fuck they like, without consequence, is anything particularly new. If you're upset that Obama managed to push through the barely constitutional AHCA, you should be equally upset that Bush managed to push through the barely constitutional PATRIOT act.

If you think this is new, it's either because you've just started paying attention or because the brainwashing is just kicking in

Re: Oh, my!

[Type44Q]

though my black fiancée and I (white guy) get stares and angry looks every where we go.

Sounds like a hell of an exercise in self control; if I were dating a black chick and still living down South, I suspect I'd be having to shatter a lot of inbred jawbones...

Re:Oh, my!

[thrich81]

Third sentence is wrong. Nixon didn't get prosecuted for anything. But he did get a pardon for "for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974".

Re:Oh, my!

[Rakarra]

and now ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"

You know he's right, and it's not some horrible scandal or perversion of justice?
There have always been different levels of "classified." It's pointless to say "oh yes, this stuff is totally open to the public, this other stuff must only ever be shown to the President or members of Congress," and have nothing in between. Some Classified stuff is not that secure, yet not public. Other classified stuff.... well, people have been executed for sharing it with other countries. Who determines what level of classification it gets? The people who know what it means, of course. And the level of classification can be changed, yes even by fiat, over time. What the hell is wrong with that?

It's worth listening to the original words, and not to the submitted headline or the submitter, who twisted the meaning of the words because he has a hate-boner for Obama and a political axe to grind.

Re:Oh, my!

[Espectr0]

It's all relative. I wonder why in the US people kill each other without reason (meaning, someone will go to a school, theater, etc and just shoot people)

However, from my point of view, they still have laws, they have separation of powers, low inflation, powerful economy and salaries that (mostly) allow you to live a good life. Not no mention access to basic goods, education, health care, water, electricity and power. None of which we have here in Venezuela.

Meaning, i would still like to move there if i could, in comparison to what we have here.

Re:Oh, my!

[Aighearach]

I hear lots of hand-waving, and accusations of illegal actions on the part of the President. Just this one President. I have to say, your story is a load of horseshit.

You don't actually know what crime you think was committed, but you've already got a suspect. Hmmmmmm.....

And you claim Obama said something... really far from what he said. What he said was a basic truism; it isn't even possible to argue against it. Not all "classified" information is of the same importance. That's just a "duh" type of obvious statement, it doesn't translate to "blah blah Big Brother."

You're just another racist making up fake stories.

Re:Oh, my!

[Aighearach]

Here is the formula:

(Democrats + Voting Rights Act) = (Republicans + Watergate)

If his theory was different, I'd invite him to give a clear explanation. But the above explains over 50% of the statements in modern politics that include references to Nixon.

Re:Oh, my!

[Aighearach]

And there is even stuff like the travel plans of the Secretary of State that are very secret this week, but are in the news next week. That is such a routine situation, it is even in the news a lot lately...

Re:Oh, my!

[Aighearach]

I've heard that a number of times, but the thing that seems to have changed at that time is air travel, and the introduction of invasive security theater in airports.

None of other issues that are being debated in American society and politics got their start then.

All the controversial stuff that Cheney got started had been being discussed and debated in various circles since at least the Reagan administration.

Re:Oh, my!

[sumdumass]

You are correct. Nixon lied to the people where Clinton lied to the people and a court of law in which he was the defendant. Those situations obviously are not equal.

Re:Oh, my!

[Livius]

Is this still the United States of America which I used to know?

No.

It's just that simple.

Sorry.

Re:Oh, my!

[Mr.CRC]

Many of the Chinese I hung with in college went back to China.

Re: Oh, my!

[nanoflower]

You would be wrong. Sure, you will encounter racism but it's nothing like it might have been 50 years ago. I see bi-racial couples on a daily basis even though I live in the Deep South and no one says a thing. Some people might be thinking it's awful but they don't say anything publicly.

Re:Oh, my!

[houghi]

The mistake you make is calling out Obama by name. As if any other would have been any different. Politicians are politicians.
Surely but slowly people have let companies take over to fight for us. We are delighted when companies block state laws that we find are just. We are delighted when companies refuse things that we think are just.
And then we are surprised the politicians are not interested in us.

Re:Oh, my!

[richieb]

When I arrived here (in the US) it was *Heaven*

If you really thought that you were young and naive. Read some history and you will see that things are a lot better today than even 40 years ago.

Read about what went on in America at the start of the 20th century...

Re:Oh, my!

[NoWhereMan]

he has a hate-boner for Obama and a political axe to grind

The fact that this is what you take away from the article speaks volumes about you.

For those who actually work with classified data, it does not matter what classification is used. Call it Secret, Top Secret, or any other term but the obligation to protect it is universal. There is no RED vs BLUE political discussion when it comes to protecting classified data. Any professional working with a clearance understands that.

And to address the point that Aighearach makes, sometimes there is a time sensitivity to classified data. It does not relieve you of your obligation to protect that data just because you know it will become unclassified in the future.

Re:Oh, my!

[mpercy]

"Pushed through"????!!!!!

PATRIOT Act was passed int the Senate 98-1 and 357-66 in the House. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act, and the yeas included Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Joe Leiberman, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Chuck Schumer. House Democrats voted for it 145-66.

89 U.S. senators who voted in favor of reauthorization in 2006, and the list includes almost all of the above again. 66 House Democrats were still on board to reauthorize in 2006, which passed with a final House vote of 280-138.

Both were/are horrible laws, but to compare the passage of ACA (which received *zero* Republican Senate votes, and *zero* Republican House votes [219-212]) with PATRIOT (nearly unanimous Senate vote, overwhelming bipartisan House vote) is just wrong.

Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[Tablizer]

That's why the investigation is taking so long: the rules for "classified" are vague, arbitrary, inconsistent, poorly documented, and basically fscked up.

They really need a working group to study and clean up the rules and procedures, not a criminal investigation. It's hard to bust somebody for vaguing the fuzz.

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[CaptnCrud]

I think most peoples problem is the vaguery of the term classified, it's that if this was anyone else of low regard they would have just thrown the book at them. At the very least they would be losing their job, if not fines and prison time.

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[CaptnCrud]

sorry, meant "isn't"

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[Tablizer]

Rich people have better lawyers to find, articulate, and emphasize the vagueness & inconsistency, yes.

Welcome to Inequality.

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[CaptnCrud]

Just because something is the status quo does not make it right.

Re:Focus on fixing rather than blaming

[Tablizer]

I made no value judgement either way there. I only stated the facts of the current situation.

Classified as in sex

[thunderclees]

Wow, Deja vu all over again, (sorry Yogi). The check must have cleared or big "O" is just trying to keep up his end of the contract as he attempts to redifine classified in a manner similar to the way Slick Willy attempted to legally redefine "sex" in a desperate attempt to dodge the consequences of his quid pro quo sex for promotion agenda. Remember kiddies, it was not about a sitting US President having sex with a women his daughters age. It was about President Clinton extorting sexual favors as a condition for a promotion.

Correction.

[CaptnCrud]

There is classified, then there is "might be a grey area".....should you be too important to get in trouble for it.

Translation

[AnalogDiehard]

President Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified"

Translation: "I'm altering the bargain. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Oh...."secret", like sloppy.

[argStyopa]

You mean like when Sandy Berger was stuffing "secret" Clinton docs down his pants to smuggle them out of the National Archive? THAT kind of secret?

http://www.spectacle.org/0804/...

"...Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had "made a mistake," and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he "lost" some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn't yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been "sloppy...."

Humpty Dumpty

[QuestorTapes]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Humpty Dumpty

[darkob]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

The fix is now officially in

[erp_consultant]

Obama has now declared that he is willing to bend (or break) as many laws as necessary to make sure that Clinton is the nominee. Much like Trump is for the Republicans, Bernie Sanders is the Democrats worst nightmare. Obama loves to talk about "change" but everything just stays the same. The same corruption, consultants and political hacks. Nothing changes at all.

If either Trump or Sanders get elected President the entire Washington apple cart gets turned on its ear. The establishment Democrats don't want that and neither do the Republicans. Because all those cushy lobbyist jobs will disappear, or at least get reigned in. The legalized bribery as we know it will come to an end. Good for Americans...not so good for sleazy lobbyists.

Obama is basically telling the FBI Director, in political-eze, to sweep the Clinton investigation under the rug. Nothing to see here. Clear the path for more business as usual. It's a fucking outrage is what it is.

Re:The fix is now officially in

[sabbede]

Obama hates Hillary. Making her Secretary of State was the price he paid to get her out of the way, and she still caused more trouble than it was worth. The DoJ has not been doing her any favors, and Biden is supporting Sanders as Obama's proxy.

But Obama is the head of the Party, and he wants his successor to be a Democrat, so he can't completely throw her under the bus.

Any one seen Shooter (2007)?

[Darth Twon]

As I recall, near the end of the movie, the antagonist senator is making fun of Mark Wahlberg's character because the senator got away with illegal activity and he says:

"The truth is what I say it is!"

Classification is an activity

[KenHansen]

Classified describes an I them that has gone through the classification process. State department has two email systems, one public, one secure - material that has gone through the classification process and is now classified ('confidential', 'secret' or 'top secret') can only me shared via secured means. Hillary Clinton *never* touched the secure email system in her four years at State, she exclusively used her own private, insecure email server. At various times she received emails that contained emails from her staff that contained previously classified material her staff had 'cut and pasted' from the secure email system to the insecure one so they could send the classified material to Secretary Clinton - this happened over 1,000 times. At least one time that we know of, because Secretary Clinton turned over an email with this exchange in it, Secretary Clinton directed her subordinate to print out information from the secure email system then scan it into an insecure email system to send it to her. There is material which by it's very nature is 'classified' without ever going through a classification process - for example, spy satellite imagery, as I recall there were a couple instances of spy satellite imagery in her insecure email account which she turned over to State department for review. Hillary Clinton, first as a Senator, later as Secretary of State had training in the proper handling of classified information, and she agreed to protect all classified material she came in contact with, marked or not. Finally, out of her interest in simplifying her daily routines, Hillary chose to hire an individual, pay him a monthly stipend out of her own pocket, AND secure for him a full-time political appointment job in the IT department at State, rather than simply use the government email system... An interesting choice, since the guy she choose to run her email server was even on the payroll in the State IT department!

Hillary Clinton's conspiracy to migrate info

[steveha]

It sure looks like Hillary Clinton engaged in a conspiracy to migrate classified information off of the secure network and onto her insecure email server. She instructed subordinates to summarize information and send it as new emails, which of course were not marked as classified.

She's not dumb and she's a lawyer, so she knew what she was doing was illegal.

In the first e-mail, Clinton curtly instructs Sullivan, "It's a public statement. Just email it." Minutes later, Sullivan responds, "Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it."

"ops" means the "operations" group in the State Department, where apparently Hillary Clinton had people reading emails on the secure system and then sending a summary to her insecure server. "converting" to the unclassified email system.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423417/hillary-staffer-wary-sending-classified-info-just-email-it-andrew-c-mccarthy

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

Some of the emails were "SAP" classified. Some were "HCS-O".

http://bigstory.ap.org/e19abf78b6fe43e7b7719f059901630d

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413033/Hillary-s-emails-contained-classified-information-HUMAN-SPYING-State-Department-says-won-t-meet-deadline-publish-emails.html

If that last story is correct, Hillary Clinton's personal email server could have lead to disastrous consequences or death for real human beings. We're way, way beyond anything excusable.

Re:Hillary Clinton's conspiracy to migrate info

[neoritter]

It should be noted that just because something is, "a public statement," or even out in the publicly available, doesn't automatically change the information to being unclassified. Just because a spy or idiot committing spillage manages to get that information just out the door doesn't mean that information isn't protected anymore.

So far, no one has alleged

[AutodidactLabrat]

that Hillary ever sent email known by her to be classified.
So much for indictment.
No "Intent"

Judge for Yourself

[buckbanzaii]

Sec. Clinton's released e-mails are searchable on line from the State Dept. at https://foia.state.gov/Search/... There are e-mails that are marked classified. One example: search for "hrc memo israel ideas" It's marked confidential. There are many others.

Judge for Yourself

[buckbanzaii]

Here's one document, marked classified (confidential) that she received. Yes, she read and then forwarded many such messages. https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

Standard practice? Not really

[Rujiel]

The part you're missing that's unique to tye Obama admin is this: previous administrations have not resorted to entirely secret interpretations of the law like this one has, like their interpretation of the patriot act that has allowed for the modern surveillance state.

Sorry that you are offended by what everyone alrea

[Rujiel]

the summary is absolutely right in that silly classifications muck with accountability. silly classifications have been the name of the game since the Bush administration, unless you consider keeping people in Guantanamo over classified newspaper clippings--literally--to be the height of accountability

Re:Not a Bush family fan, but...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Bush43 had degrees from BOTH Harvard and Yale...

Bush41 paid good money for those degrees, so Junior was damn well going to get them, whether he did any meaningful coursework or not. Junior was not at Harvard or Yale to learn anything academic. He was there to meet the children of the rich and powerful. Poor people's kids who make it into Harvard and Yale have to study hard. Rich people's kids who buy into Harvard and Yale have to party hard. That's why they're there.

This garbage you right-leaners continually toss around about Bush Jr. being an academic whiz kid just shows how naïve you really are.

Re:Not a Bush family fan, but...

[JustNiz]

It doesn't matter how academically clever they are or not, they have many expert advisors for that sort of thing.
What matters in a president is the strength of their moral compass and ability to get things done.
Hiliary is so privileged, so fake, so divisive, so egotistical and so out of touch with real life, and worst, so lacking in moral fibre that her moral compass is clearly just a non-functional vestigal appendage. The only real skill she has, because its the only one shes ever had to develop, is a very large ability in being able to market and promote herself.
Because of that she would make absolutely the worst president for the USA in a VERY long time, and being the first female president and also making an inevitably massive cock-up of it would also set the womens equality movement in the US back decades.
Its more than time that the US had a female president, but she is exactly the wrong female to be it.

Re:Not a Bush family fan, but...

[Areyoukiddingme]

The only real skill she has, because its the only one shes ever had to develop, is a very large ability in being able to market and promote herself.

Does she even have that skill? I have a hard time seeing it, because I actively dislike her. She thinks she can lie as much as her husband, but Slick Willie is much slipperier than she'll ever be. I voted for someone else in my state's primary. (Which I would have done even if I liked her. No dynasties.)

Re:Not a Bush family fan, but...

[JustNiz]

>> Does she even have that skill? I have a hard time seeing it

I have a hard time seeing it too, or more accurately, I have a very easy time of seeing exactly how fake she is, but I guess she must be able to fool at least stupid people easily, since a lot of them voted for her in the primaries.

He doesn't like Hillary.

[sabbede]

Never has. Especially after the '08 campaign and the mess she made for him as Sec. State. He'd much rather have Sanders replace him, but can't completely throw Hillary under the bus because as much as he dislikes her, he does want the next President to be a Democrat. Still, the DoJ hasn't been doing her any favors.

Re:He touched the main issue

[sabbede]

How about, "She's a crook, but a smart enough crook not to kill the golden goose."

Even classified changes

[WillAffleckUW]

I used to declassify about 2/3 of all the documents that subordinates had over-classified, back in the day.

It's all a moving target. Your allies of one year (Saudi Arabia) may be your prime sponsors of global terrorism and instability the next (Saudi Arabia).

Infuriated

[LarryAdams]

This is so Clintonesque of Obama. Is guess it depends on what you mean by the word IS.... The Washington oligarchy here in the US needs to be drop kicked back to Kansas!

Criminal minds

[sleibson]

Teaching others how psychopaths work in society. Fucking criminal

Rule of Man

[brunnegd]

0bama's remarks are a good example of what is meant by 'rule of man', not law.

Classified = Feudalism

[NewYork]

They knew this trick back in the time of Roman Empire.
Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them with circuses whilst the rulers do whatever they want.

An "affair"? By Democrat legal standards

[mpercy]

Clinton's "relationship" with "that woman" was a clear case of sexual harassment--even if she was 100% on board with it. According to many Democrat feminists, it was rape plain and simple.

According to Democrats, a man in the workplace who is in a position of authority over a woman (such as Pres. Clinton had over Ms. Lewinsky) cannot have sex with such a woman without it being a blatant abuse of that authority. There is an inherent threat of retaliation if the "affair" goes south. Indeed, since there is an inherent threat of retaliation if the woman refuses it would be tantamount to forcing her to have sex, ergo, rape.

Further, he can lie to his wife about an affair, but what Clinton did was perjury. As a sitting President, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury about something as stupid as his "affair".

Nothing excuses Nixon's actions. But to downplay Clinton's actions as telling a little fib about getting blown in the Oval Office is disingenuous.