Is she correct?

[civilwarbuff]

Why don't you show the complete document? I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery. Do you really think that a document like this would have no witnesses and be signed with "H R Clinton", not her full name?

A link to the complete document is posted on this thread. The rest of your comment belongs on the conspiracy theory forum......

 

[civilwarbuff]

I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery.

Are you an expert at detecting forgeries?

 

[pescador]

Comey in his statement regarding the investigation:

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


Comey during his testimony addressed this again. It is around the 1:30 mark:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41231...tifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&start=5447

Rep John Duncan: You said in your press conference, but even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail, particularly participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. Do you feel that Secretary Clinton knew or should have known that she was obligated to protect classified information?

Comey: Yes

Obviously she knew that she was obligated to protect classified information. That is entirely different than saying the material was classified. Obviously, anyone with a security clearance knows that classified information is private. Duh!

So Comey said, "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." So was Hillary Clinton supposed to be a clairvoyant, deciding that unmarked e-mails were classified?

You're just fishing, like so many other Clinton-haters. She wasn't guilty found guilty of any crime. Case closed!

 

[civilwarbuff]

Obviously, anyone with a security clearance knows that classified information is private. Duh!

It is not private; it can only be viewed by those with the appropriate clearance and a general "need to know".

 

[tall73]

So the document supposedly shows that she acknowledges that she has received security indoctrination... And she has been supposedly advised that unauthorized disclosure, etc. could be harmful to the US. So what; even if it was valid that is just normal procedural language.

It shows that classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.

Did you miss that part? It was highlighted.

Why don't you show the complete document?

I linked to the full document. You quoted the link.

I looked at it and there are no witness signatures so it's probably a forgery.

Do you want to explain why this "forgery" is residing on the servers of the US State department?

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

 

[tall73]

Obviously she knew that she was obligated to protect classified information. That is entirely different than saying the material was classified. Obviously, anyone with a security clearance knows that classified information is private. Duh!

Did you miss the part where it said in his statement, and in the testimony that it need not be marked? It matches the signed non-disclosure agreement.

So Comey said, "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." So was Hillary Clinton supposed to be a clairvoyant, deciding that unmarked e-mails were classified?

Comey also said:

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

She is not supposed to be clairvoyant. She is supposed to be trained in recognizing classified material, not just by headers.

You're just fishing, like so many other Clinton-haters. She wasn't guilty found guilty of any crime. Case closed!

She was said to be negligent, and careless. And you seem to have misunderstood the assertion in this thread. The question was whether classified information must have a header. The answer is no. You have gotten that from the FBI director, and you have gotten it from the document on the State department website.

 

[tall73]

Obviously she knew that she was obligated to protect classified information. That is entirely different than saying the material was classified.

And it was determined to be so by the owning agencies.

From Comey's statement:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.

and

In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

 

[pescador]

It shows that classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.

Did you miss that part? It was highlighted.


I linked to the full document. You quoted the link.



Do you want to explain why this "forgery" is residing on the servers of the US State department?

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

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?

Do you really think that the US State Department publishes an authentic document that is a) crude, b) highlighted in yellow (even though the linked document doesn't show that), c) has no witness signatures, and d) doesn't require the full name of the signer? Really? You fall for that obvious forgery?

For example why is the date of the document 12-31-0000?

 

[civilwarbuff]

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?

Do you really think that the US State Department publishes an authentic document that is a) crude, b) highlighted in yellow (even though the linked document doesn't show that), c) has no witness signatures, and d) doesn't require the full name of the signer? Really? You fall for that obvious forgery?

For example why is the date of the document 12-31-0000?

I got some more Kool-Aid if you are thirsty.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

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

If you can't do that you should not be SoS.....or POTUS either.....

 

[kingskid]

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/

 

[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?

If you admit that is correct then you undercut her statement that it must have a header.

Do you really think that the US State Department publishes an authentic document that is a) crude, b) highlighted in yellow (even though the linked document doesn't show that), c) has no witness signatures, and d) doesn't require the full name of the signer? Really? You fall for that obvious forgery?

I see you completely dodged the question of why it is on the State Department website. And of course it had no yellow highlighting, that was to point out the part you eventually got, that classified material can be either marked or unmarked.

Apparently this "forgery" fooled the Washington Post as well. It links to the same document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ret-emails-end-up-on-hillary-clintons-server/

So how did it wind up on the state department page?

For example why is the date of the document 12-31-0000?

It indicates unclassified on 11/5/15 and was dated January 22, 2009. The date on the foia doc info is something you can ask the State Department about.

 

[Pommer]

Of course. Hillary spends hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars to keep her communication private. Even the FBI can not seem to tap her conversations.

Well the FBI would need probable cause, obtain a warrant, you know that pesky "rule of law" and "Constitutional" stuff that always seems to get in the way of a good hatchet job!

 

[pescador]

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/

You consider thegatewaypundit.com to be a reliable, neutral source of information? You're joking. They totally support Trump and twist the truth, just as he does.

 

[pescador]

If you admit that is correct then you undercut her statement that it must have a header.

I see you completely dodged the question of why it is on the State Department website. And of course it had no yellow highlighting, that was to point out the part you eventually got, that classified material can be either marked or unmarked.

Apparently this "forgery" fooled the Washington Post as well. It links to the same document.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ret-emails-end-up-on-hillary-clintons-server/

So how did it wind up on the state department page?

It indicates unclassified on 11/5/15 and was dated January 22, 2009. The date on the foia doc info is something you can ask the State Department about.

No, you said that. I pointed out the absurdity of saying someone violated secrecy rules by their own judgment of what is classified and what isn't. If something is classified it plainly says so.

Again, I place no trust in a fuzzy copy of a document that has no witnesses, no government acceptance, and a dubious signature. No government document of any importance looks like the document that you reference. For one thing, there are no witnesses to the signature. Isn't that odd? No witnesses! Even the date is in an incorrect format. "H R Clinton" dated the document "22-01-2009" then it's written below in the same handwriting "01-22-2009" next to the blank witness signature and the acceptance by the US government is totally blank.

 

[kingskid]

You consider thegatewaypundit.com to be a reliable, neutral source of information? You're joking. They totally support Trump and twist the truth, just as he does.

Well find the same thing on another link. The video where Wikileaks is showing the documents with Hillary's "c" is all over the internet, not just that link.

 

[pescador]

Well find the same thing on another link. The video where Wikileaks is showing the documents with Hillary's "c" is all over the internet, not just that link.

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

 

[kingskid]

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

What difference would it make? I will admit I dislike Hillary more than Trump, but it makes no difference in the information how I might feel. Like I said the video is all over the internet.

 

[pescador]

What difference would it make? I will admit I dislike Hillary more than Trump, but it makes no difference in the information how I might feel. Like I said the video is all over the internet.

Oh well that certainly makes it valid -- not.

 

[tall73]

No, you said that.

You said "Correct"

classified material can be marked, unmarked and even oral.

Correct......

That ends the argument right there.

I pointed out the absurdity of saying someone violated secrecy rules by their own judgment of what is classified and what isn't. If something is classified it plainly says so.

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, I place no trust in a fuzzy copy of a document that has no witnesses, no government acceptance, and a dubious signature.

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