Is she correct?

[tall73]

classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.

Correct, so how is anyone including Hillary Clinton able to discern what is classified and what isn't? Clairvoyance?

She knows that SAP programs are classified. And if she doesn't she is incompetent.

 

[tall73]

That doesn't nullify the fact that you chose a tabloid-type web site as proof.

This from the guy who won't take the State Departments own website as legitimate.

 

[tall73]

That doesn't nullify the fact that you chose a tabloid-type web site as proof.

This from the guy who wouldn't accept the State department LINKED TO by the Washington post as legitimate.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Again you make no answer to why that document is on the State department site.

Maybe because it does not fit the progressive leftist agenda?...

 

[pescador]

You said "Correct"



That ends the argument right there.



Clinton had been given permission to handle SAP programs, and was expected to know how to handle them. The notion that she didn't know that an SAP program was classified is hardly believable. And there were multiple conversations in which she both received and sent information about them.




Again you make no answer to why that document is on the State department site.

I have no idea why it's on the State Department site, but what difference does that make? It's fraudulent regardless of where it is.

 

[pescador]

This from the guy who wouldn't accept the State department LINKED TO by the Washington post as legitimate.

Correct. The document has no witnesses and no government acceptance. It is not a valid document and is phony. I have more documentation for my will than that high-level government classified document permission.

 

[imind]

Of course her explanation is not accurate.

It is another lie. The headers are on the exterior packet, each page is typically marked but not with individual headers.

wrong...

Just three email chains included some sort of classification marking: At least one paragraph preceded by the marking "(C)," indicating that those paragraphs were "confidential," the lowest level of classification. But none of the three had a header, footer or cover page further signaling that the emails contained confidential information.

Even though there was a "(C)" preceding the paragraphs, this information was not properly marked confidential because it did not include the header, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 7 hearing before Congress. It’s "reasonable," he said, that Clinton may not have realized these were classified.

further more, other supposedly classified material had NO markings, correctly done or otherwise.
further further more, the state department is now saying that two of the three above weren't even classified...

But later in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman asked Comey if he knew that the State Department had said that the emails were marked classified in error. Comey replied, “No.”

Likewise, Rep. Matt Cartwright, also a Democrat, asked Comey if the emails were properly classified, and Comey said they were not. (Executive Order 13526 spells out how documents should be properly classified, including a header on the document clearly identifying the email as classified as “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret.”)

link

 

[tall73]

I have no idea why it's on the State Department site, but what difference does that make? It's fraudulent regardless of where it is.

It is on the State Department FOIA page because it was released by them as an actual document as part of a FOIA request. That is how things get there. And that is what the Newspapers linked to for that reason. Does it really surprise you that they do things in a sloppy manner? That is what the IG report highlighted again and again. But it was still presented by them as an actual document, even though it is not filled out completely.

 

[tall73]

Correct. The document has no witnesses and no government acceptance. It is not a valid document and is phony. I have more documentation for my will than that high-level government classified document permission.

And now you are getting the idea. They released Cheryl Mills and Huma's and they looked the same. Sloppy.

They were required to retain documents and email per the records act. They didn't do it. They were required to approve proper equipment like servers through IT. They didn't do it. They were supposed to safeguard classified information, but all of the hundreds of diplomats did not do it. Basically the whole department was a mess. And the one overseeing that mess was Hillary. She is responsible under the Records Act for making sure they are compliant. But she testified to the FBI that she didn't even know of the SMART system they used to retain records. She is responsible under the Information Security Act to make sure that equipment and processes are sufficient to safeguard data. And instead she led the way in setting up non-approved systems.


She was an original classification authority, but told the FBI she couldn't explain how information was classified. And she didn't distinguish different levels of classification. She depended on other people to do it.

Now, am I saying that Hillary was the only one at fault? No, literally hundreds of people were doing the wrong things here. But she was the one who was supposed to oversee it. So if she is going to run on experience, this is part of the experience.

 

[tall73]

further more, other supposedly classified material had NO markings, correctly done or otherwise.

Yes, most had no markings. And they should have. However, you are still required to handle them correctly even if not marked. And Hillary knew that the SAP programs were classified. She had an obligation to protect them as Comey referenced, marked or not. Part of the problem was not even documents but discussion of classified programs.

further further more, the state department is now saying that two of the three above weren't even classified...

Correct, and even the third the FBI did not include as part of the classified material per the FBI notes.

However, they still were aware that SAP programs were classified, and still had an obligation to protect them.

 

[tall73]

Incidentally, I have said in other threads that Clinton, Powell etc. should be brought up on Records Act charges, even though they are not that severe of penalty, to make it clear that the government is serious about retaining records and that laws should be obeyed. But notice even congress wasn't pushing for that, because this is systemic. The IG report noted that many departments did not do this correctly, and probably congress doesn't either all the time. So no one is pushing that aspect.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I have no idea why it's on the State Department site, but what difference does that make? It's fraudulent regardless of where it is.

Kool-Aid anyone?

 

[civilwarbuff]

high-level government classified document permission.

I have never heard of this document before; can you explain it?

 

[tall73]

I have never heard of this document before; can you explain it?

I think the non-disclosure form previously referenced was intended. Of course, it is pretty obvious it is from the State Dept.

 

[sdowney717]

wikileaks Assange says he has thousands of cables where Hillary, herself, signed a "c" for classified.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...d-c-classified-yet-told-fbi-didnt-know-meant/

Why anyone would defend for Clinton supporting her various lies about this, don't we have a brain?
The private email server and her saying no classified emails, is just more evidence she can not be trusted, in addition to all the other things she won't come clean on the truth, even shown the evidence. I have got to believe most people are not brainless clueless Clinton serfs.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think the non-disclosure form previously referenced was intended. Of course, it is pretty obvious it is from the State Dept.

Maybe some people believe any signed government document must have a witness to it......