BCC said:

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 In that the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws (Article I, Section 9) one cannot be criminally prosecuted for failing to recognize that something will later be classified, or having recognized it nevertheless chooses to publish it before it is classified. In fact knowing that something may be classified in the future may be an incentive to publish it now.

Here's an analogy. When gun enthusiasts anticipate the legislative passage of laws restricting the purchase of guns they run out and buy guns.

LOST said:

BCC said:

Turley is someone I respect (although there are fewer and fewer people I can say that about),and I have no idea what you are referring to. 

You linked an article by Turley. That is what I was referring to.

BCC said:

In the middle of it is a line that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.'

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel

 

 Maybe he's on his own DNR list.

BCC said:Turley is someone I respect (although there are fewer and fewer people I can say that about),and I have no idea what you are referring to.

 I hear you brother.

LOST said:

BCC said:

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 In that the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws (Article I, Section 9) one cannot be criminally prosecuted for failing to recognize that something will later be classified, or having recognized it nevertheless chooses to publish it before it is classified. In fact knowing that something may be classified in the future may be an incentive to publish it now.


Here's an analogy. When gun enthusiasts anticipate the legislative passage of laws restricting the purchase of guns they run out and buy guns.

 Reuters disagrees with you :

'Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed

Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed

This is from 3 years ago. Has anything changed?

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:
I just think it's wonderfully ironic that Comey is getting called on releasing info that was classified after the fact.


Hillary must be having a big yuck about that one.

 
'Following his termination late Friday night, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe declared that he was “singled out” after “unrelenting” attacks by President Trump and critics. McCabe’s objections are less than credible, given the virtually unprecedented recommendation of career officials to fire the one-time acting FBI director.
However, McCabe may have rectified his “singled out” status with his long statement criticizing his termination: In the middle of it is a line that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.'
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel


After all this time you really don't know how the classification system works, do you.


I doubt HRC is having a big yock about anything.

Are you claiming that neither Comey nor Hillary was victimized by the absurd practice of classifying material after it had been published? Because they "should have known" it was classified?


What are you talking about?

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 It's still absurd, and my point remains. Amid all of your posts on classification over the past few years, have you ever remarked upon the ridiculous over classification of information which leads to these absurdities?


eta: and I find it a bit odd that you place such trust in whatever final authority it is that marks info as classified - as if their pronouncements come from god and can't be questioned.

 
Flailing around trying to cover up the fact that you were in total ignorance as to how the classification system works?
It's your comments which are absurd. and also show your total ignorance .of what I have written


I have in the past said a number of times that the system has been used by people who need CYA.


And in fact, I pointed out the overuse of classification when, as an active reserve US Navy officer I had received documents marked classified for no good reason.
A classic example was the Maneuvering Board, a way of moving ships from one position to another. Of absolutely no value to the Soviets or any one else

 wow, you're really kind of an here. How can you say that I'm in ignorance of how the classification system works when I specifically brought up how stuff was classified after the fact? Did you somehow think that I was saying that was not an official act?

Speaking of ignorance, I still think it's cute that you didn't know that state.gov email addresses are not meant for sending classified info.

Some expert you are.

to bcc,

Since you acknowledge the overclassification of data - did you ever consider that just about any employee that was subjected to the intense security audit that Hillary was subjected to would probably fair a lot worse than she did?

She had something like 100+ questionable emails, out of 30,000 (if I remember the numbers correctly.) Have you ever figured out what that percentage is? 100+ out of 30,000 is a pretty remarkable record of trying to keep within the lines of the classification system. For Comey to call it "extremely careless" (or whatever phrase he used) is ludicrous. Her actions were the exact opposite of extremely careless.

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 In that the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws (Article I, Section 9) one cannot be criminally prosecuted for failing to recognize that something will later be classified, or having recognized it nevertheless chooses to publish it before it is classified. In fact knowing that something may be classified in the future may be an incentive to publish it now.


Here's an analogy. When gun enthusiasts anticipate the legislative passage of laws restricting the purchase of guns they run out and buy guns.

 Reuters disagrees with you :

'Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed

Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed




This is from 3 years ago. Has anything changed?

 I don't understand. All I see is a headline. I was referencing the Constitution.

I'm just gonna post this.

But I highly recommend everyone read this post to understand how the Hillary email trouble started, why it started, and why it was the NYT to blame.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/...

    p.s. the linked post is written by someone who actually understands how the highly arcane world of classified information works, unlike me, bcc, and, apparently, the entire staff of the NYT.

    On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails:  “Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

    Republicans immediately pounced on this statement to accuse Secretary Clinton of lying when she stated previously that she did not send or receive any information marked classified.

    At today’s Oversight Committee hearing, Director Comey provided significant new information about these emails that debunked this Republican conspiracy theory.

    First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.

    Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals.  They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification.  Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.

    Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.  Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:

    Rep. Cartwright:  Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented?  Were they properly marked according to the manual?

    Director Comey:  No.

    Rep. Cartwright:  According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman.  According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?

    Director Comey:  Correct.

    Rep. Cartwright:  Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?

    Director Comey:  No, there were three e-mails.  The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

    Rep. Cartwright:  So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified.  Am I correct in that?

    Director Comey:  That would be a reasonable inference.

    In addition, the State Department spokesperson made clear yesterday that these emails, which discussed call information for the Secretary, included these “c”s by mistake, and the information was not in fact classified:

    “Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the Secretary of State.  Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level – prior to a decision by the Secretary that he or she will make that call.  Oftentimes, once it is clear that the Secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call.  The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the Secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. … Those markings were a human error.  They didn’t need to be there.”

LOST said:

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 In that the Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws (Article I, Section 9) one cannot be criminally prosecuted for failing to recognize that something will later be classified, or having recognized it nevertheless chooses to publish it before it is classified. In fact knowing that something may be classified in the future may be an incentive to publish it now.


Here's an analogy. When gun enthusiasts anticipate the legislative passage of laws restricting the purchase of guns they run out and buy guns.

 Reuters disagrees with you :

'Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed

Born classified': Hillary Clinton's best argument in the email scandal just got destroyed




This is from 3 years ago. Has anything changed?

Dozens of Hillary Clinton Emails Were 'Born Classified,' Analysis Finds

http://www.businessinsider.com...

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:
I just think it's wonderfully ironic that Comey is getting called on releasing info that was classified after the fact.


Hillary must be having a big yuck about that one.

 
'Following his termination late Friday night, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe declared that he was “singled out” after “unrelenting” attacks by President Trump and critics. McCabe’s objections are less than credible, given the virtually unprecedented recommendation of career officials to fire the one-time acting FBI director.
However, McCabe may have rectified his “singled out” status with his long statement criticizing his termination: In the middle of it is a line that could be viewed as incriminating fired FBI director James Comey, not just in leaking sensitive information but also in lying to Congress.'
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel


After all this time you really don't know how the classification system works, do you.


I doubt HRC is having a big yock about anything.

Are you claiming that neither Comey nor Hillary was victimized by the absurd practice of classifying material after it had been published? Because they "should have known" it was classified?


What are you talking about?

 You finally got it.
Yes, they are supposed to recognize anything which is going to be classified. That's what 'Born Classified' means.

 It's still absurd, and my point remains. Amid all of your posts on classification over the past few years, have you ever remarked upon the ridiculous over classification of information which leads to these absurdities?


eta: and I find it a bit odd that you place such trust in whatever final authority it is that marks info as classified - as if their pronouncements come from god and can't be questioned.

 
Flailing around trying to cover up the fact that you were in total ignorance as to how the classification system works?
It's your comments which are absurd. and also show your total ignorance .of what I have written


I have in the past said a number of times that the system has been used by people who need CYA.


And in fact, I pointed out the overuse of classification when, as an active reserve US Navy officer I had received documents marked classified for no good reason.
A classic example was the Maneuvering Board, a way of moving ships from one position to another. Of absolutely no value to the Soviets or any one else

 wow, you're really kind of an here. How can you say that I'm in ignorance of how the classification system works when I specifically brought up how stuff was classified after the fact? Did you somehow think that I was saying that was not an official act?



Speaking of ignorance, I still think it's cute that you didn't know that state.gov email addresses are not meant for sending classified info.


Some expert you are.

We are not talking about the State we are talking about the Federal Government e-mails and Hillary's handling of same

You still don't get it. E-mails are classified by their content not by being marked. That's why they are called 'Born Classified' It means they are classified when written, not when they marked.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html

drummerboy said:
to bcc,
Since you acknowledge the overclassification of data - did you ever consider that just about any employee that was subjected to the intense security audit that Hillary was subjected to would probably fair a lot worse than she did?


She had something like 100+ questionable emails, out of 30,000 (if I remember the numbers correctly.) Have you ever figured out what that percentage is? 100+ out of 30,000 is a pretty remarkable record of trying to keep within the lines of the classification system. For Comey to call it "extremely careless" (or whatever phrase he used) is ludicrous. Her actions were the exact opposite of extremely careless.

What We Know About the Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server

By ALICIA PARLAPIANO UPDATED OCT. 28, 2016

On Oct. 28, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that the bureau had recently uncovered new emails potentially related to the investigation into the private email server. The latest emails were found after the bureau seized at least one electronic device once shared by Anthony D. Weiner and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, an aide to Mrs. Clinton. Related Article

30,000 initially turned over by Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers, deemed work-related, returned to the State Department in December 2014.

▪ 8 chains included “top secret” information

▪ 36 chains included “secret” information

▪ 8 chains included “confidential” information, the lowest level of classification

▪ 2,000 emails have since been classified “confidential”

▪ The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that a very small number of emails had classified markings when they were sent.

My comment

They were returned 2 years after she left office, at the very least a violation of rules and at worst a felony.

BCC said:

You still don't get it. E-mails are classified by their content not by being marked. That's why they are called 'Born Classified' It means they are classified when written, not when they marked.

 I assume you mean that the e-mails contain classified material not that the e-mails themselves are classified.

Comey determined that Clinton had been negligent or "sloppy" but that "intent" to publish classified material could not be proven. That conclusion seems to have merit and I guess it was Comey's call as head of the FBI.

In any event since Hillary Clinton lost the election I am not sure why any of this is still relevant.

Additionally I still do not understand "born classified". To me it's an oxymoron. "Classified" is a noun denoting that something has been put into a class. I think what we are dealing with is information that by its nature is "private" and, therefore, obviously not to be made public. To judge whether there was criminal behavior by either Clinton or Comey I would have to read the statute.

I found this helpful.

http://progressive.org/dispatc...

LOST said:

BCC said:

You still don't get it. E-mails are classified by their content not by being marked. That's why they are called 'Born Classified' It means they are classified when written, not when they marked.

 I assume you mean that the e-mails contain classified material not that the e-mails themselves are classified.


Comey determined that Clinton had been negligent or "sloppy" but that "intent" to publish classified material could not be proven. That conclusion seems to have merit and I guess it was Comey's call as head of the FBI.


In any event since Hillary Clinton lost the election I am not sure why any of this is still relevant.


Additionally I still do not understand "born classified". To me it's an oxymoron. "Classified" is a noun denoting that something has been put into a class. I think what we are dealing with is information that by its nature is "private" and, therefore, obviously not to be made public. To judge whether there was criminal behavior by either Clinton or Comey I would have to read the statute.

 It is relevant because just this morning there is news about Comey, MCCabe, and Strzok and Page.

We will find out about criminal behavior when the IG posts his report.

This is the only news I found on the internet for Comey this morning.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/patrick-fitzgerald-comey-legal-team-550176

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/james-comeys-a-higher-loyalty-has-huge-opening-week-of-sales-2018-04-25

 To what are you referring?

Here is an article on what the IG must determine.

http://thehill.com/opinion/whi...

LOST said:
This is the only news I found on the internet for Comey this morning.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/patrick-fitzgerald-comey-legal-team-550176
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/james-comeys-a-higher-loyalty-has-huge-opening-week-of-sales-2018-04-25
 To what are you referring?

 The "Epoch Times" has a story with all the names in it within the last 24 hours.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion-secretnoform-marking-did-not-stop-comeys-leaks_2503008.html

Other than that, I can't explain why it was brought up.

LOST said:
This is the only news I found on the internet for Comey this morning.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/patrick-fitzgerald-comey-legal-team-550176
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/james-comeys-a-higher-loyalty-has-huge-opening-week-of-sales-2018-04-25
 To what are you referring?

The news about Comey was that he gave the memos destined for the NYT to someone who was working pro bono for the FBI and who could be classified as his attorney, thereby claiming Lawyer-client privilege.

MCCabe supposedly  was not looking to probe Hillary's misdeeds but to undermine those investigations.could be undermined.

Thousands of new e-mails released on Strzok and Page may create problems for them.

This is an ongoing story, so take it for what it's worth, which may end up a big deal --  or not

Where  did you see that news?

LOST said:
Where  did you see that news?

 Here?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?

Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?

It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.

Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

LOST said:
Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?
Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?


It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.
Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

Them most likely place it will be found is when the IGs full report is published.

Was MCCabe's firing criminalizing politics ?

Is questioning the conduct of Comey with regard to leaking the memos criminalizing politics?

LOST said:
Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?
Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?


It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.
Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

 Ken Starr was totally trashed by Clinton and his allies

LOST said:

Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

The rich irony of Starr is how he lost his job--though only after a lot of public pressure--as chancellor of Baylor University for covering up rape by football players.

Apparently Trump just admitted that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels issue. Previously, Cohen claimed that he handled it entirely on his own. Trump pretty much admitted to breaking federal election laws.

BCC said:

LOST said:
Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?
Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?


It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.
Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

 Ken Starr was totally trashed by Clinton and his allies

 And let me add, so were all the women who came forward and accused Clinton of sexual assault

dave23 said:
Apparently Trump just admitted that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels issue. Previously, Cohen claimed that he handled it entirely on his own. Trump pretty much admitted to breaking federal election laws.

 Dayum.

Happy birthday, Melania.

ridski said:

dave23 said:
Apparently Trump just admitted that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels issue. Previously, Cohen claimed that he handled it entirely on his own. Trump pretty much admitted to breaking federal election laws.

 Dayum.
Happy birthday, Melania.

It's pretty remarkable, even for him. They practically hung up on him. ("We know you've got a busy day...")

Too much dragon energy, I guess.

dave23 said:

ridski said:

dave23 said:
Apparently Trump just admitted that Cohen represented him in the Stormy Daniels issue. Previously, Cohen claimed that he handled it entirely on his own. Trump pretty much admitted to breaking federal election laws.

 Dayum.
Happy birthday, Melania.

It's pretty remarkable, even for him. They practically hung up on him. ("We know you've got a busy day...")
Too much dragon energy, I guess.

 Drinking it by the can these days.

BCC said:

LOST said:
Where is the line between facts and conspiracy theories?
Where is the line between legitimate criminal investigations and the "criminalization of politics"?


It appears to me that since certain allies of Trump are being investigated for possible crimes supporters of Trump are pushing possible the idea of criminal conduct by Trump critics. The best defense is a good offense.
Bill Clinton probably wishes he had thought of that. Who knows what crimes Ken Starr could have been accused of?

 Ken Starr was totally trashed by Clinton and his allies

 Of course, but they never accused him of criminal conduct or suggested that the Attorney General investigate him.

BCC said:

Them most likely place it will be found is when the IGs full report is published.
Was MCCabe's firing criminalizing politics ?
Is questioning the conduct of Comey with regard to leaking the memos criminalizing politics?

 If the IG reports no criminal activity the Right will go after the IG and suggest that he is guilty of crimes.

Firing McCabe was not, in and of itself criminalizing. In fact it may have had nothing to do with politics.

Comey is a different matter. Trump had every right to fire Comey. Comey had every right to write his book and criticize Trump. Going after Comey with the idea that he is a criminal is rather far-fetched and I think represents the criminalization of politics. Here are my reasons:

At the Republican National Convention and during the campaign the Trumpites chanted "Lock her up". It's been a theme of the extreme Right that Hillary is a criminal. That is the "criminalization of politics". I do not recall a previous Presidential campaign where one side suggested that the opponent was a criminal. 

Now, Comey, more than anyone else was responsible for Hillary's loss and Trump's election by his announcement shortly before the Election that he was re-opening the investigation of Hillary's e-mails. But here is the rub. Comey declined to seek an indictment of Hillary.

To the Trumpites it is so apparent that Hillary is guilty of crimes that Comey's not seeking her indictment must be the result of criminal activity.