State dept. spokesman: none of the 37 email pages was classified when sent.

[pnwmom]

The issue is whether any should be retroactively deemed to contain information that should be classified NOW.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-top-secret/79530396/

Seven email chains are being withheld in their entirety from a release scheduled later Friday for including "top secret" information.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

SNIP


White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest defended the delay in releasing all of Clinton’s emails on Friday.

“I can tell you with full confidence that there is — has been no political interference in this process,” he said. “I think the extraordinary request that Secretary Clinton put forward to actually release her emails is something that, I'm not sure has a precedent, at least for federal office holders.” . . .

“In the context of a presidential campaign, people are going to have a whole bunch of reasons to criticize any of the candidates,” he said. “So it's not surprising to me that there are certain political opponents of Secretary Clinton that are looking for a way to use this situation to criticize her. That is part of the process. And she and her team, I'm confident, will muster a robust defense.”

[Iliyah]

1. Ya know the GOP need to make the most of this bullshit

Iowa is coming up and ya know they are extremely worried. Corporate media will run with this non story and so will some on the left.

[tk2kewl]

2. And why were they not?

Isn't that the logical next question?

[pnwmom]

4. I'm not sure what you're asking. It takes a while for individual human beings

to carefully read 55,000 documents. So that's why some haven't been released yet, but the vast majority have.

And these 37 pages are being held back to decide if they need retroactive classification.

[tk2kewl]

5. Would the SOS not be expected to know what information should be considered top secret?

[pnwmom]

9. No. Different agencies and different individuals within agencies make

different decisions. It is a subjective process. The head of the national archives says that, in his opinion, more than half of the documents he archives shouldn't have been classified at all. And yet they were.

As the head of State, she had the authority to deem any State document classified or not. Now, in response to the FOIA request, some non-state reviewers are going through all the documents and second-guessing her decision. Some of them they may decide to withhold from the FOAI request. But that doesn't mean that Hillary did anything wrong when she exercised her proper discretion to classify or not classify a State document.

Only the President has greater authority than the head of a Federal agency, with respect to classification authority. And the President has been strongly supporting Hillary.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

[tk2kewl]

10. So the SOS has no responsibility for ensuring that potentially sensitive national security info

Is secured until told so by someone else?

[jeff47]

30. And the first one to classify wins. Everyone else is required to follow their decision.

If Clinton felt something was over-classified, there is a process to dispute the classification. She didn't do that.

[questionseverything]

8. from your op

That is part of the process. And she and her team, I'm confident, will muster a robust defense.”

/////////////////////

now the wh is saying she needs to muster a robust defense?

when is the last time the democratic party had a nominee that had an on going fbi investigation?

generally even the hint of investigation and the candidate backs out for the good of the party

[morningfog]

3. Doesn't matter. The information was sensitive whether "marked" or not.

But I really don't think this is what will ultimately sink Hillary. It wil be the FBI investigation.

[pnwmom]

6. No, it is possible for information to not be sensitive at the time,

and years later to be deemed sensitive. That is how it is possible for public information to be taken off a public website and years later, be deemed classified.

And Hillary, as the head of the State department, had the authority to classify or declassify any state department document.

[tk2kewl]

11. So are you suggesting that SOS thought it was not sensitive at the time but is now being overruled?

[pnwmom]

14. Yes. That is what is happening. Different people make different judgments

about whether a document should be classified or not. It's often a subjective process. That's why the head of the National Archives, the man who must keep all this classified info secure, says that in his opinion, the majority of documents he sees don't actually need to be classified.

The reason all this is happening is because the Rethugs on the Benghazi committee were demanding to see her emails. So she volunteered to release all 55,000 of them -- which has to follow FOIA procedure. So now they are having people reread all of those emails, and those people are second-guessing Hillary whether they should be released for this freedom of information act request.

But it was entirely within Hillary's discretion, when she was Agency Head, to decide whether a state dept. document should be classified or not. So even if someone at State makes a different decision NOW, that doesn't mean she was wrong then. It just means someone else has a different opinion NOW and she is no longer the Secretary.

[tk2kewl]

18. So is the archivist's judgement wrong now, or was SOS's judgement wrong then?

Or is there a way that they're somehow both right?

[pnwmom]

19. Neither. It's a subjective process and a decision made at one point in time

can be changed in the future.

But she was on solid ground, as the agency head, for deeming any State dept doc as being classified or not.

More about retroactive classification:


https://www.pennlawreview.com/print/?id=472

Now you see it. Now you don�t.

This is not a magician�s incantation. It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.

The executive branch has used retroactive classification to startling effect. The Department of Justice, for example, declassified and released a report on National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping only to declare, years later, that the report was once again classified. The journalist who had received the report was threatened with prosecution if he did not return it. Retroactive classification has also targeted government documents revealing corruption in Iraq, violence in Afghanistan, and mismanagement of the national missile defense program. In each of these cases, the government released a document in an unclassified form through official channels�not through a leak�and then turned around to classify it.

This practice would be troubling enough if it actually removed the document from the public domain. But in the Internet Age, once a document is released to the public, it is often impossible for the government to retrieve it. While retroactive classification does not remove the document from the public domain, where our enemies can access it, retroactive classification does remove the document from the public discourse, prohibiting members of Congress, government auditors, and law-abiding members of the public from openly discussing it.

In the ongoing debate about the balance between secrecy and transparency in government affairs, retroactive classification tests the limits of the government�s ability to control information in the public domain. The questions raised by retroactive classification go far beyond those raised by the WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden disclosures. In those cases, the information remained classified even though it was widely available in the public domain. A similar situation occurs with retroactive classification when information in the public domain becomes classified. The difference is that in retroactive classification, the government initially released this information in a non-classified form and only later decided to classify it. This difference makes retroactive classification much more complicated from a legal standpoint because it involves the government�s going back on its initial classification decision. Retroactive classification thus forces us to ask what limits, if any, exist on the government�s authority to control information. Can the government reach into the public domain to make a secret out of something it has already disclosed? Are we obligated to go along with retroactive classification decisions? What are the implications beyond national security law? This Article takes up these pressing questions.

[tk2kewl]

24. Sounds kind of arbitrary to me

[HDSam]

26. So

we're sure every single document in question is a state department document? Or is it possible some of those documents are from other departments, such as the Department of Defense or Homeland Security?

[leveymg]

34. NBC reported the classified docs on her server were from an "intelligence agency" not DOS

She has no legal power to declassify them and she broke the law by hosting TS information on her unsecure server. Worse, she instructed at least one subordinate to strip out information from classified documents and email the contents to her.

[HDSam]

43. That

was what I was thinking. Someone on the defense in this thread wants all the documents to be State Department generated, otherwise the defense falls apart.

[Jarqui]

16. What she or they didn't have the authority to do that the FBI seem to suspect happened

was to cut and paste material that was already classified into an unclassified email and send it through and unclassified network.

Clinton is being deceptive stating that they never sent or received an email designated as classified while overlooking that parts of the email could have been classified material that was supposed to be sent via a classified system.

It's another Clinton word game with a very narrow literal meaning.

[Bjorn Against]

7. If you are dealing with information that could become classified it should be secure

Sorry but Clinton should have known that the information she was dealing with could be classified at a later date. When you are dealing with something that could later be classified it should be dealt with as if it were already classified because if it were to leak any future attempt to classify it would be useless.

[pnwmom]

12. Almost ANY information could at some point in the future be deemed classified.

This is a huge First Amendment issue. They have actually removed historical information that has been on government websites, available to the public, for years -- and then retroactively classified it.

Following your reasoning, every state department employee should send every document ever produced through the classified system -- but they don't. They use the .gov account for all non-classified info. But this wasn't required when Hillary was in State.

[Bjorn Against]

13. No, most people have never sent an e-mail that could become classified

People who work for the State Department however are dealing with much more sensitive information than the common citizen, so yes they should use a secure server.

This is not a free speech issue at all, the first amendment does not protect the right of a government official to send information related to national security through an insecure server.

[pnwmom]

15. The way retroactive classification is being misused now is a HUGE free speech issue.

You could have something right now in your computer, a document that you downloaded from a government website 5 years ago, that could get you charged.

https://www.pennlawreview.com/print/?id=472

Now you see it. Now you don�t.

This is not a magician�s incantation. It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.

The executive branch has used retroactive classification to startling effect. The Department of Justice, for example, declassified and released a report on National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping only to declare, years later, that the report was once again classified. The journalist who had received the report was threatened with prosecution if he did not return it. Retroactive classification has also targeted government documents revealing corruption in Iraq, violence in Afghanistan, and mismanagement of the national missile defense program. In each of these cases, the government released a document in an unclassified form through official channels�not through a leak�and then turned around to classify it.

This practice would be troubling enough if it actually removed the document from the public domain. But in the Internet Age, once a document is released to the public, it is often impossible for the government to retrieve it. While retroactive classification does not remove the document from the public domain, where our enemies can access it, retroactive classification does remove the document from the public discourse, prohibiting members of Congress, government auditors, and law-abiding members of the public from openly discussing it.

In the ongoing debate about the balance between secrecy and transparency in government affairs, retroactive classification tests the limits of the government�s ability to control information in the public domain. The questions raised by retroactive classification go far beyond those raised by the WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden disclosures. In those cases, the information remained classified even though it was widely available in the public domain. A similar situation occurs with retroactive classification when information in the public domain becomes classified. The difference is that in retroactive classification, the government initially released this information in a non-classified form and only later decided to classify it. This difference makes retroactive classification much more complicated from a legal standpoint because it involves the government�s going back on its initial classification decision. Retroactive classification thus forces us to ask what limits, if any, exist on the government�s authority to control information. Can the government reach into the public domain to make a secret out of something it has already disclosed? Are we obligated to go along with retroactive classification decisions? What are the implications beyond national security law? This Article takes up these pressing questions.

[Bjorn Against]

22. What that article describes is very different from what is happening to Hilliary

Hillary was a public official who knew she was in a position in which she would be involved in sensitive communications, she is not just some random person who got documents from the internet.

[pnwmom]

32. No, it is exactly what is happening to her. They are using the process

of retroactive classification to decide that some of her documents should be NOW classified.

But she had the authority, as the agency head, to decide that any state dept document should be classified or not classified.

It is only because of retroactive reclassificatios that her decisions can now be second-guessed and someone else's subjective judgment be substituted for hers.

[Bjorn Against]

36. Your own words show exactly why it is different

Most people don't have the power to decide whether something should be classified or not, the people described in the article you posted certainly don't have that power.

Anyone who does have that power should be second guessed, the idea that any one single person should be able to make those decisions all on their own with no questioning is just asking for trouble.

[2pooped2pop]

17. Even so the whole idea was incredibly stupid especially for someone with her "superior experience"

Her foreign policy going to be to give secrets away because she doesn't want to play by the rules? It occurs to me that that the real purpose of her private server was to keep certain things private from her government? It's probably hard to give favors when your emails are subject to govt scrutiny. And yes she has been accuse of a little pay to play.

[pnwmom]

21. What whole idea are you referring to? n/t

[2pooped2pop]

23. Using her home private server.

How could she not see that it was going to be a problem?

[pnwmom]

33. The previous administration had run everything through the private server

belonging to the Republican party. Where was the furor about that?

[2pooped2pop]

74. they ran everything through Hillary's

Private server too? I am glad that you can see the similarities to the republicans too. However, I think Powell said that he had a private server that he used for private email but he used the protected server for non private email.

[pnwmom]

75. Dozens of Bush administration officials ran their email through

the Republican party server and millions of emails were lost as a result.

Hillary archived all her emails so they were available as soon as they were requested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/251592-democrat-gop-showing-double-standard-in-demand-for-clinton


Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) on Thursday said Republicans are treating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unfairly by calling for her personal email server.

Her GOP predecessors at State never turned over their private electronic correspondences despite calls for greater transparency, Lynch added.

“I haven’t heard a word about Colin Powell,” he said on Boston Herald Radio. “I haven’t heard a word about Condoleezza Rice.”

“Colin Powell did not have a goddamn email available for us,” Lynch said. “Zero, zero.”

“It was the same thing with Condoleezza Rice,” he added. “There was not a goddamn email that was useful to the committee.”

Lynch argued the GOP-led Congress is hounding Clinton because she is a prominent Democrat and presidential candidate.

“So why is it OK that Colin Powell, you know, in launching a war in Iraq, to not have a single available email, it’s OK for that, but Hillary Clinton, you know, she turns over 30,000 of them and you know that’s not enough, we want more information?” he asked.

“We have clandestine information that is now in the hands of the Chinese,” he said, citing a recent data breach at the Office of Personnel Management. “Her information now is the only information that hasn’t been hacked.”

[2pooped2pop]

77. ok so they did it too is her defense

This week. I never believed any of those emails were lost a d no one seemed to want to prosecute the Bush cabal for anything-"off the table" and "moving forward" and all.

Still not a defense for Hillary and the republicans will take her down with it. If she is the nom., we all will suffer.

[pnwmom]

78. And using her own email account wasn't illegal. The head of the National archives

testified about that to Congress. (The law was changed after she left State.) The only requirement -- which she met, in contrast with the officials of the Bush administration -- was that she preserve the emails. Which she did.

[SidDithers]

20. DU rec...nt

Sid

[askew]

25. Bzzz. Wrong again.

State Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus are investigating if any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of Clinton's defense of her email practices.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-29-14-48-31

State Officials are investigating whether or not this was classified at time of email sent.

Keep spinning but that isn't going to make bad news go away for Hillary.

She is in a mess of her own making.

[uponit7771]

28. zzzzzzzzz boring, like Bhengazi etc etc

[pnwmom]

35. "are investigating" does not mean "have discovered." They are following

up on questions raised by the Rethugs on the Benghazi committee.

The State Department's spokesman's statement supports her strongly.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

[jeff47]

27. Yet again, not being marked as classified is not the same as not being classified.

There are many people on this board who are deliberately trying to conflate the two. Also known as lying.

Since I've explained this to you at least 4 times, you are one of them.

Information is classified, whether or not it is properly marked. This is drilled into every person who is granted access to classified information, so it is unreasonable to believe Clinton did not know this.

The information was classified at the time. It was not marked classified in the emails. What the law required Clinton to do was notify security officials of the breach, assist in any investigation, and properly delete the emails, ensuring they could not be recovered later. She did none of this.

Finally, "It wasn't marked!!" was Karl Rove's defense when he outed Plame. Should we go apologize to him and Scooter Libby?

[uponit7771]

29. more pretzel logic

[jeff47]

31. Yes, in the OP. Should we apologize to Rove and Libby? (nt)

[BlueMTexpat]

80. You are comparing the public outing of a

CIA agent to including material that was not classified at the time in a private email?

There is simply NO comparison. That is evident even to laypersons.

But if you just want to continue trumpeting GOPer memes against a Democratic candidate on a Democratic website, you will. Helping the GOP to slime Dems generally and Dem candidates (except for the one who only became a Dem for this Pres election cycle) certainly seems to be a primary tactic of too many on DU these days. For shame.

[jeff47]

81. It was classified at the time. It was not marked classified at the time

Again, the claim of lack of markings was Libby and Rove's defense. We ridiculed it here. Now we have tons of people lining up to back the same defense.

[BlueMTexpat]

82. Please continue with your circular reasoning.

But do it without me.

Valerie Plame was a CIA operative - the fact that she was was classified and they KNEW it. Period.

Buh-bye!

[joshcryer]

37. I read "designated" differently than "marked."

Where are you getting that implication.

[jeff47]

38. They're literally called designations in the relevant classification EOs.

Marked is a colloquialism.

[joshcryer]

66. Yes, but they say they weren't designated, period.

Not that they were lacking a marking.

[jeff47]

68. Doesn't matter if they weren't designated. The information is classified

whether or not it is properly designated.

How could she know? Well, it's not that uncommon to be off by a "level" when there are no markings. You hear something that's actually SECRET, but it sounds innocuous and you think it's unclassified. Or something is TS, but you thought it was TS/SCI.

It is incredibly rare to be off by more than one "level". And assuming Clinton didn't think these were classified, she had to be off by many levels.

If we had the same classification system in the 1940s, the D-Day invasion plans would be TS/SCI. The Manhattan Project would be a SAP. If you stumbled across something talking about inventing truly enormous bombs, or surveys of landing sites in France, wouldn't you think it should be classified at some level? You might not get the right level, but you'd think it should be classified somehow even without markings.

[joshcryer]

73. I'm not sure we agree on designations here.

It seems you think that the text was super secret sounding but just lacked any sort of signifier that it was supposed to be secret. Basically, you should be able to delve it's secret without the classifier (or what you call designation).

I'm saying it wasn't designated classified at any level at all, but was communication that, in retrospect, was made classified after the fact. Stuff doesn't "become" classified until it exists. If the communication originated with the SoS office (and Clinton's email) she may not have deemed it secret during the communication aspect. If it was some outside originator of the material, it could have easily gone under the radar.

Here's how you know nothing is there. If there was something there Richard Burr would have immediately convened a closed, top level SSCI hearing on the matter, and indictments would be going. They would not be dilly dallying about. These "top secret" emails were known about well over a week ago and the SSCI already looked over it.

McCullough is pushing Burr to make something out of these emails. The reason Burr can't do anything is because Feinstein, Wyden, and Mikulski are also on the committee, and it would not take much for the truth to be let out.

My guess is that the emails mentioned Benghazi CIA operatives or something, by name, and Clinton may not have even known at the time. Remember, Clinton was looking at the Benghazi situation closely and had to evacuate dozens and dozens of people. The two operatives that were killed (and named publicly) weren't the only ones there.

McCullough knows this, Gowdy knows this, everyone knows that the Benghazi op was CIA, and even during the 11 hour grilling of Clinton they failed to crack that. The right is extremely good at keeping fake scandals alive. And they a chronic obsession with the Clinton's, to the point if there was a "there" there then it would've come out. That's why Earnest was so dismissive of any kind of "indictments" or anything of that nature. If it was going to happen, it would've happened already.

[pnwmom]

41. It was up to Hillary, as agency head, to determine whether

any State document was classified or not.

She is not just any employee. She was the one with the authority -- not the CIA, the FBI, or any other co-equal agency.

The only one with more authority than the SoS was the President.


http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

[jeff47]

42. Wrong.

It was up to the original classification authority. If the information originated in the State department, then Clinton would have been the original classification authority.

The information originated in the intelligence agencies. Therefore, the original classification authority was the DNI.

If Clinton felt the DNI overclassified something, she could have challenged the classification. There's even a nice formal mechanism to do so. But she was required to follow the DNI's decision until that process reduced the classification level. She could not arbitrarily overrule the DNI.

[pnwmom]

44. There never has been any evidence that any classified info was ever

sent by another agency to her personal account , instead of through the classified server the other agency should have sent it on.

And there has never been any evidence that she used her email account to send out classified info belonging to another agency.

[jeff47]

45. It doesn't have to be sent by another agency.

Since the actual information is classified, we have no idea what it really is. But a concrete example helps explain it.

So let's pretend the information was Gaddafi's travel schedule, given to a CIA agent from a member of Gaddafi's government (back when it existed).

The original classification authority for this information is the DNI. Because an entity under him (the CIA) brought the information into the government. So the DNI's rules for what to classify, and at what level, apply to the travel schedule. Since this information came from a human spy, it's going to be TS/SCI/HUMINT (Top Secret, Special Compartmentalized Information, Human Intelligence).

At this point, Clinton is required to treat the information as TS/SCI/HUMINT. Even if Blumenthal emails her a copy of the schedule that he got from his own sources.

And even if Clinton was unaware of what the CIA had obtained when she got Blumenthal's email, it's really fucking obvious that Gaddafi's travel schedule, and our knowledge of it, needs to be classified at some level. Which means she should be aware that her unclassified server now has classified information on it.

If she isn't aware, then she is utterly unqualified to access classified information, much less be president.

And there has never been any evidence that she used her email account to send out classified info belonging to another agency.

It doesn't matter. She caused classified information to be stored in an unclassified environment - her server. Actually sending an email would be worse, but she still has a problem just receiving the information.

If you happen to know anyone who has a clearance and want to give them a really bad time, email them a copy of something Snowden or Manning leaked. They'll get to spend the next week or more cleaning up after it.

[pnwmom]

46. And your example is pure fantasy -- which should be weighed against the State

Department's spokesman's statement, just today, that none of the emails in question were classified at the time -- the issue is whether they should be classified NOW.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-top-secret/79530396/

Seven email chains are being withheld in their entirety from a release scheduled later Friday for including "top secret" information.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

[jeff47]

49. Try reading his actual statement.

"Designated" means marked. The EOs covering classification markings literally call them "designations". "Marked" is a colloquialism.

Also, the sentence you failed to bold is critical. He is confirming that the messages contain classified information, not that there is an inter-agency depute as to whether or not the information was classified at the time.

[pnwmom]

56. I don't think you have.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

He is NOT confirming that the messages contained classified info AT THAT TIME. He says they are being "upgraded." He said that they weren't designated when they were SENT.

[jeff47]

59. Oh hey! You're back to this subthread now!

He is NOT confirming that the messages contained classified info AT THAT TIME

That's what this means: "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information"

He said that they weren't designated when they were SENT.

As explained above, designation means markings. Not whether or not the information was classified.

If your claim was correct and Clinton got to decide that these were not classified, why were they "upgraded"? Why is he talking about seeking declassification in the future? ("focusing on whether they need to be classified today&quot

If you were correct, they'd already be declassified. There would be no upgrading. There would be no need to declassify in the future, because they'd already be declassified.

[pnwmom]

60. They are being upgraded because the intelligence community asked for that.

It is still an open question whether they really need the classification. The intelligence community is well known for classifying documents as secret that really don't need that classification.

If your claim was correct and Clinton got to decide that these were not classified, why were they "upgraded"? Why is he talking about seeking declassification in the future? ("focusing on whether they need to be classified today&quot

They are being upgraded today because the intelligence community, which often disagrees with other agencies about classification issues, has requested it. And now they are focusing on whether they really need to be classified today -- even though they weren't before.

They could always decide that the "upgraded" materials really didn't need to be upgraded, after further consideration. So the upgrade granted as a result of the request from the intelligence community is provisional and may or may not become permanent.

[jeff47]

64. You claimed Clinton got to make the decision on whether or not they were classified.

So if your claims are true, how is the DNI overruling her decision? Clinton already decided they were not classified, and can only be overruled by the President, according to you.

(How it really works is the DNI was the entry point for the information into the government, and he got to decide it was classified before it showed up in Clinton's email)

The intelligence community is well known for classifying documents as secret that really don't need that classification

Secret is quite a bit different than TS/SCI and SAP.

If we had used the same classification system in the 1940s, the D-Day invasion plans would be TS/SCI, and the Manhattan Project would be a SAP.

You don't get to slap those levels on something without a lot of justification paperwork.

The only "at the time" statements from Clinton, her spokespeople and State spokespeople are "they were not marked at the time". Not "they were not classified at the time". Then they rely on lazy media to confuse marking information classified with the information being classified.

[pnwmom]

69. Because Hillary is no longer the Secretary, and the law provides for retroactive classification

whenever the current authorities choose to do it.

Hillary, when she was SOS, could both decide to designate a State department document as SAP and to declassify the same document. She had the authority to make either decision.

The question is whether, in 2016, the Department wants to retroactively change a document's classification. She had the authority to make the determination when she was SoS. Now Kerry has the ultimate authority, and Obama.

[jeff47]

70. Except the DNI is making the decision.

Look, you can try to construct a massive edifice of how you'd like the classification system to work in order to protect Clinton. But your edifice has nothing to do with how the system actually works.

As I keep explaining to you, and as the EOs you love to quote explain, the original classification authority is the one who controls the department where the information first entered the government. This information entered via the intelligence agencies, so the DNI gets to decide. Clinton can not overrule him. Just like the DNI can not overrule Clinton if the information enters the government via the State department.

[pnwmom]

48. I've explained this to you at least as many times.

Hillary was the person in charge of deciding whether State Department emails were classified or not. No one had authority over her except for the President.

And there has been no evidence ever made public that classified information was sent to her unclassified email address.

Just a bunch of rumors. They were also rumors that she killed Vince Foster. They belong in the same category.

[jeff47]

50. Did you think starting a new sub-thread made the old one disappear or something?

Hillary was the person in charge of deciding whether State Department emails were classified or not. No one had authority over her except for the President.

Wrong, as explained in the other sub-thread.

And there has been no evidence ever made public that classified information was sent to her unclassified email address.

Wrong, the State Department spokesman you quote in the other subthread says there was. If there wasn't, then he would be lying in the first sentence you quoted.

Just a bunch of rumors. They were also rumors that she killed Vince Foster. They belong in the same category.

Would you like to apologize to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby? They claimed Plame's identity wasn't marked. Was it wrong when the government pursued them over leaking Plame's name?

[pnwmom]

51. You were wrong in the other thread and you're wrong now.

Only the President had authority for classifying or not classifying that was higher than hers, as head of the agency.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

And the State Department spokesperson today said that the messages were NOT secret when they were sent, though they may need to be classified today.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-top-secret/79530396/

Seven email chains are being withheld in their entirety from a release scheduled later Friday for including "top secret" information.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

[jeff47]

54. So you apparently do think creating a new sub-thread makes the old one disappear.

As explained in the other subthread, the classification decision is made by the agency head under which the information enters the government.

Clinton got to make the decision when the information entered the government through the State department. The DNI gets to make the decision when the information enters the government through the intelligence agencies (ie CIA).

An agency head can not overrule another agency head. So if the information enters the government in the CIA, Clinton can not overrule the DNI's decision.

The information in question entered the government through the intelligence agencies. That's why the State Department's spokesman now says the emails are classified Top Secret and they're looking at reducing their classification in the future. Not "never were classified".

[pnwmom]

55. Except all you are doing is making claims. No one knows anything about

"the information in question" except the people who are examining it now. You can say it involves THE CIA or the DNI till you are blue in the face, but you have nothing to base that on except speculation.

[jeff47]

57. No, I'm actually pointing to EOs and how it works.

Again, agency heads can not overrule other agency heads. If the DNI says some information is classified, Clinton does not get to overrule him and say it is unclassified.

Heck, take a moment to think about the logic of your argument that Clinton got to decide the classification. That means the DNI can overrule her just as much as she can overrule the DNI. How, exactly, do you think that would work in the real world?

I'm also pointing to the State Department spokesman you keep quoting. You just keep ignoring that he says the emails contained information that is classified and was classified at the time, just not marked. If Clinton could really decide it wasn't classified, then the State Department spokesman wouldn't be talking about declassifying it in the future - it would already be declassified!!

Clinton fucked up. It's going to hurt in the election. Republicans have a fantastic attack ad about Clinton "leaking secrets" that they can overlay with scary video of ISIS fighters. We'll see just how badly it ends up hurting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

61. Actually, nothing is classified until a peson with authority marks it as such...

Once classified, it is reported at the level it was given, unless a higher authority increases that level or decreases that level.

Clinton was not sending information that was considered classified at the time. This is not the same as saying it wasn't marked.

Because some group within the government now determines it should be classified, does not retroactively change the classification at the time it was sent.

[jeff47]

62. Nope

Clinton was not sending information that was considered classified at the time.

This is false. It was classified. Otherwise, the DNI IG would have no reason to call the FBI.

You'll also note that Clinton, her spokespeople, and the spokespeople at State are very careful to say the information was not marked at the time. Not that the information was not classified at the time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

63. Actually, you are 100% wrong, along with Repulbicans who hope to hype this story. nt

[jeff47]

65. Go ahead and link a spokesperson actually saying

the information was not classified at the time. And not saying the information was not marked/designated classified at the time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. ""The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,"

They were upgraded because, at the time, they were not classified.

If they had been classified, they would not need to be upgraded.

Republicans will continue to hype the story.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. But they never should have been sent to a private server in the first place.

If Hillary is so damned smart and experienced then how could she not consider the possibility that she would be emailed sensitive material?


Conflate this issue all you want. The point is that her judgement sucks.

[pnwmom]

40. The Bush administration was routing everything through the Republican party

server.

Where was all the furor then?

[Motown_Johnny]

72. Great, we will have a nominee just as competent as Bush.

What an excellent argument you make.

[pnwmom]

47. No proof has ever shown that her private server contained any information

that was classified at the time. Just today the State Department spokesman said -- again -- that the emails being considered were NOT classified then, but might be classified now.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-top-secret/79530396/

Seven email chains are being withheld in their entirety from a release scheduled later Friday for including "top secret" information.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community, because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby said. He added, though, that the messages had not been designated as top secret when they were sent, though the department "is focusing on whether they need to be classified today."

[Motown_Johnny]

71. I didn't say classified at the time.

It still never have gone to a private server.

[workinclasszero]

52. Of course all this is right wing BS

You would think people would see that this garbage failed the republican party. Its sickening to see Koch bros/fox news/rush limbaugh lies used by democrats against democrats.

But even Bernie Sanders himself cannot control the bros and it's costing him the nomination.

I wish they attacked republicans with half the viciousness they use on Hillary and the democratic party.

I guess it shows how scared they are that Hillary will have the nomination locked up after super tuesday or earlier.

Hey, maybe the beginning of the end of the "revolution" will happen on a snowy Monday night in Iowa?

[applegrove]

53. And apparently they were in a chain of emails sent to Hillary.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. I'm not buying this any longer. The LEAST that could be alleged is carelessness.

I'm sorry.

[ZombieHorde]

76. If that is true

then this will hopefully become a non issue for most who pay attention to US politics. However, even if one was demonstrated to be classified at the time, then I would understand, to some extent, this becoming a big issue.

[Travis_0004]

79. Of course it wasnt

If she was tryping up something, its not like somebody is standing over her shoulder to classify it while she is typing.

Its not a stretch to assume that things the SOS type up would later be classified.