Posted on 08/20/2015 10:57:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In her latest attempt to address questions about the presence of classified information on her private, unsecured email system, Hillary Clinton is attempting to cast doubt on the methods the entire U.S. government uses to handle its secrets.
Whether the material in her emails that has been flagged as classified is in fact classified is open to debate, Clinton told reporters in Las Vegas Tuesday. "That is not in any way agreed upon," she said. "The State Department disagrees. That happens all the time in these efforts to say what can go out and what can't go out. That is a part of the ordinary process."
Moreover, Clinton said, investigations like the one currently taking place with her emails are nothing new. "Everybody is acting like this is the first time it's ever happened," she said. "It happens all the time. And I can only tell you that the State Department has said over and over again, we disagree [that the material is classified]. So, that's what they're sorting out and that's what happens a lot of the times."
"What you're seeing now is a disagreement between agencies saying, you know what? They should have, and the other saying no, they shouldn't," Clinton concluded. "That has nothing to do with me."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Hillary’s intent, apparently, is to muddy the waters so that it is not clear to anyone whether there even was any classified information on her secret email server. And if there was no classified information in the first place, then what is all the fuss about?
To paraphrase Bill:
“IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF ‘CLASSIFIED’ IS”.
This is really grasping at straws. I can guarantee you any one of the 17 ICs are cussing at her right now, regardless of their personal political affiliations.
This is just beyond horseshit, frankly.
There is simply no ambiguity with respect to the requirements for generating, sourcing and disposition of officially classified material. None.
I think the definition of what is ‘classified’ is pretty well defined.
What a c**ze.
What difference does it make?
1. There was indeed no classified information on your server, despite the analysis of the intelligence community to the contrary.
2. There was classified information on your server.
Exactly one of the above must be true. The known fact is that you had no other email address for almost your entire time as Secretary of State. Therefore, if 1 is true, then you did absolutely nothing as Secretary of State. If 2 is true, then you violated the law and probably committed many felonies, each of which is punishable by years in prison. Which is it, Hillary?
Hillary, my dear, either it is or it isn’t. Like daytime or nighttime.
Disingenuous and Incompetent! what a combination!!
“What is the classification of classified?”
I would love to see that shrew dragged off to prison, but it won’t happen. Royalty is not held to the same standards as normal people.
So this has nothing to do with her. But her emails are the subject of the investigation.
Does she really enjoy insulting everyone’s intelligence??
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
The key here is that it is not up to Hillary or her minions what the meaning is.
Someone took the labels off from the information. Who took it off, when, and at who’s direction.
My guess is that some Administrative assistant was told to take the classified markings off under the false impression that without the markings, no one would recognize what they were if they were intercepted.
What a bunch of morons.
...depends on how you classify classified...
People have little understanding of the government “information security” system related to classified information.
Some government peons (civil servants and military) and government contractor peons need to work with information that is “classified.” In relation to the Defense Department, this is generally about protecting advanced technology and operational techniques. I assume that the State Department also has some protection for privaleged communications about diplomacy.
People who work with classified information must have a clearance equal to or higher than the classification of the information they will handle. They are required to actually need the info to do their job, to sign for the classified documents they receive, to follow specified practices to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure, and to return the documents or have them properly destroyed.
The classified information they receive will already have been marked with a classification. This classification will have been established by people and a security bureaurocracy based on rules. (This system is abused some to hide information from the public only to avoid embarrassment.)
In contrast, a few people in government are involved in initial acquisition or development of information that should be classified. Management exercises some control to try to ensure that such information gets properly classified. The criteria are complex and ambiguous. Departments have security bureaurocracies to try to get it done right. I expect that they all have some rules in place to try to keep their department heads and staffs from fouling things up since the political appointees are going to be ignorant on information security matters.
Hillary probably knew so little about information security that she looked at it like a peon if she ever had a thought about it. To her, the info wasn’t marked as classified so it wasn’t classified. A Secretary of State who actually did her job would no doubt have some communications that should not be publicly released. One who had been in the bureaurocracy would likely have an inkling that some information she originated or received should be considered sensitive, and therefore be “classified” BY HER. She never worked in a federal department. Her deficiency in this case was that she knew so little about managing a federal department that she had security views like a worker peon rather than a high-level manager.
For that matter, Mrs. Clinton, what is “personal”?
For example, if two foreign countries could be about to go to war and one sees the American Sec of State meeting with the other sides ambassadors and military generals, followed by meetings with our military followed by a meeting with the President, the country could conclude that the US is about to attack on behalf of their enemy and thus execute a preemptive strike.
This is not just a hypothetical scenario
In fact, a very similar situation with diplomatic intercepts between Russia and Egypt is what forced Israel to launch the Six Day War in 1967.
The damage Hillary has done to national security will probably never be known because Hillary has tried to destroy the evidence to protect her self from prosecution
Period
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.