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

To: Toadman

A few thoughts here:

“...she probably had delegated OCA authority but never bothered to remove the classification markings.”

Without the security investigation and the teaching of the system itself as there were no documents indicating anything concerning computer access and none showing a clearance to enter compartmental information in her PIF, she shouldn’t have had the opportunity to use a government computer or access to one. To my knowledge her office was designated a SCIF. But by the definition of a SCIF personal electronic devices—your cellphone, your Blackberry—can never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence agencies worldwide. And she took it a step further by using her personal computer in her private area. So she had no CAC clearance documentation, no SCIF, and compromised sensitive material in her personal computer. And by her transferring information from her computers, she opened it up to hackers everywhere.

In the final statement by Comey in July 2016:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

“President Trump ordered that material going with him be declassified.”

Even the president or vice can’t blanket declassify documents verbal. And according to information I have read he did it verbally by saying anything he took out of the white house was declassified. That’s not even close to how it is supposed to be done. So that is an administrative problem. But it is not a security breach to the point of espionage because there is no0 evidence of it nor is it a criminal offence.

I think he screwed up by misusing the use of declassification especially of compartmental documents. But near as bad as Hilary as she had been hacked in 2009.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

DOJ and FBI should have never been involved.”

They had to. They are the hands and feet of the security forces besides Homeland Security. But their report should have been handled by another source so as to wave away appearance to conflict of interest. And that’s where the person that they wanted, after the fact, to bring in to decide the situation, should have already been in place.

As for Hilary, goose/gander.

wy69


53 posted on 08/30/2022 2:39:20 PM PDT by whitney69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: whitney69

I don’t disagree with your points, with the exception of DOJ political corruption. I don’t know who classified the information on Hillary’s personal servers, but if the SAPs were created by DoS, then she has/had to authority to declassify. She was just too stupid to do it. Someone had to either use removable media, or printed, then scanned the classified emails that were on her private personal server.

If she wasn’t the classification authority for the docs found on her personal systems, then you’re spot on. If you or I did the same thing, we’d end up breaking big rocks into little rocks.

As for how the President (as the OCA) goes about declassifying something, I’m not sure how the administrative process works. All I remember from my training is it is emphasized that the Chief Executive is the ultimate classification authority and has the power to declassify anything (if it’s unwise to do so).

With regards to the National Archives and DOJ. This is the second time they’ve used CI squads instead of criminal squads. CI protects against discovery utilizing the umbrella of “protecting sources and methods.” There were numerous ways DOJ could have asserted more pressure, but the swamp wanted a show so they went full tilt (IMHO).


54 posted on 08/31/2022 5:02:37 AM PDT by Toadman (To anger a Conservative, tell a lie. To anger a liberal, tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | 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