Emails are just like Benghazi

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ETcallhome, Jan 31, 2016.

  1. piezoe

    piezoe

    It is true, I have no actual experience with the classification system or the handling of government documents since email was invented. All my experience, which is extensive, dates to before the invention of email. It is very likely, it seems to me, that you are correct. And that there is a requirement that all government business done via email must be done using the government email system. That sounds very much like the government I am familiar with.
     
    #61     Feb 1, 2016
    jem likes this.
  2. The government that you are familiar with has ceased to exist...You are an odd combination of senility and naivete.
     
    #62     Feb 1, 2016
  3. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    This is an example of why the emails are a problem.

    Some excerpts below:

    http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/
    BREAKING: Hillary Clinton Put Spies’ Lives at Risk


    Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage.

    At a minimum, valuable covers have been blown, careers have been ruined, and lives have been put at serious risk.


    Most controversially, Hillary and her mouthpieces have kept pushing the line that none of this information was “marked” classified when it appeared in her personal emails, despite the fact that this claim, even if true, does not mitigate any disclosure of classified information. Her defense seems to be that neither she nor anybody on her staff were able to recognize that Top Secret information was actually Top Secret, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of Hillary’s qualifications to be our next commander-in-chief.

    Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

    Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.
     
    #63     Feb 1, 2016
  4. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    If it is Hillary and Trump, Trump will bulldoze her with this. The only reason she is still running is due to her arrogance.

    Her defense is she is too stupid.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    #64     Feb 1, 2016
  5. piezoe

    piezoe

    You must surely have been some sort of government functionary working at some low level job involving the classification system, but taking it far too seriously . Maybe you were, are, the guy that gave (gives) those classification system lectures to new employees that bored us so.. I never knew anyone who was actually doing something constructive that didn't fall back on common sense. Otherwise they could have been driven batty by that stuff.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
    #65     Feb 1, 2016
  6. piezoe

    piezoe

    Possibly a touch of senility, but certainly not naivete.
     
    #66     Feb 1, 2016
  7. piezoe

    piezoe

    I make no effort at all to cast myself in any particular way. You have inferred that I am an impartial and objective observer from what I have written. I am flattered. Thank you for the compliment.
     
    #67     Feb 1, 2016
  8. piezoe

    piezoe

    Again, if you can cite but a single example where there was a conviction based on illegal disclosure of retroactively classified information I'll start paying attention. Very little you've written is germane to the Clinton email controversy.
     
    #68     Feb 1, 2016
  9. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    Again, forgot about "retroactively".

    Excerpts below.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/insp...ment-to-clear-up-hillary-email-referral-flap/

    Two government inspectors general involved in the Hillary Clinton email referral flap released a joint statement this afternoon to try and explain exactly what happened.

    Here’s the full statement from I. Charles McCullough, III and Steve Linick:

    The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
     
    #69     Feb 2, 2016
  10. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

    I will use a hypothetical situation. Say some Secretary of State just had a meeting with the Saudis. The Saudis told the Secretary they were going to bomb Iran. Then that Secretary type it in an email on a personal server and sent it. That Secretary violated the law.
     
    #70     Feb 2, 2016