Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rktman

There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me.


Hillary always said nothing “marked” classified was sent or received. I think this sounds like lawyer talk splitting hairs; I think her attorneys told her to always say nothing “marked” as classified was involved.

I’ve heard conflicting stories as to whether or not all emails among people involved with national security or secret matters are “marked” at all.

Given the nature of her position, I think we can assume that the vast majority of communications with the Secretary of State involve some confidential or secret matters.

Which means it would be handled based on the nature of the information, not as to whether someone “marked” it as classified.

Does Hillary really think she can just insult all of our intelligence with this BS???


13 posted on 05/09/2016 8:40:49 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert San Diego
Which means it would be handled based on the nature of the information, not as to whether someone “marked” it as classified.

This is correct. The content determines the classification, not the markings. The markings are simply a reminder.

Everyone with a clearance has the responsibility to recognize information that should be classified and handle it accordingly: if it's not marked and it should be -- it's their responsibility to "make it so".

Clinton received information from Sid Blumenthal that originated somewhere in the national intelligence agencies, and was instantly recognizable as the most sensitive information of all: something that can reveal methods of gathering intelligence. That's considered SCI, or "sensitive compartmented information". She should have immediately reported it to the FBI, or relevant agency.

But, she instead REPLIED to the email, sending it via unsecured means to an unsecured destination, exposing it to further compromise.

This was apparently only one instance of many. Setting aside the apparent intent to evade the FOIA, one or two instances is an oversight. Repeating it over and over, is gross negligence... especially when you consider that with her other attempts to evade Dept. of State communications security.

33 posted on 05/09/2016 8:58:24 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Documents are marked “confidential”,”secret” or “top secret”. Documents are never marked “classified”. If a Clinton would argue the meaning of “is”, one has to be doubly care with the simplest words.


60 posted on 05/09/2016 9:27:47 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson