Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

EO 12958 is outdated and has been replaced by EO 13526.

The quote was from Hillary's Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement, which she signed on 22 January 2009 when the referenced EO was in effect. EO 13526 did not come into effect until 29 December 2009.

(above link goes directly to .pdf)

Besides, if the "duration of classification" is defined as including the document's origination date, I don't see how you don't comprehend that it remained as "unmarked classified information," until such a time as being marked.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

J. William Leonard

All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.

Oh good lord. You don't like what the qualified source says so he's not good enough. Wikipedia says that "usually" only info concerning the operation of nuclear weapons is "born classified" so Leonard must have-ta be so wrong saying that the term applies to Hillary, too.

Your argument is worthless opinion, Introvert. Don't conflate it to anything more. It's a nothing argument.

Name another court case in which the "born classified" argument was used. I don't care about your personal attacks.

Prove it.

Ah, I see your point is now that Hillary may have committed a crime unprecedented in the courts, but a crime the law recognizes none-the-less.

Cool. That's a unique way of defending her.

Hear what I say...Hillary Clinton was an OCA

Hear what I say...Hillary Clinton was an OCA.

Her emails were unmarked classified information...simply because she failed to mark it...couple of thousand times.


And for the record, All EO's incorporate any previous versions of that EO.... It really hasn't changed much for several decades and Presidents for that matter...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

J. William Leonard

All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.

Oh good lord. You don't like what the qualified source says so he's not good enough. Wikipedia says that "usually" only info concerning the operation of nuclear weapons is "born classified" so Leonard must have-ta be so wrong saying that the term applies to Hillary, too.

Your argument is worthless opinion, Introvert. Don't conflate it to anything more. It's a nothing argument.

Name another court case in which the "born classified" argument was used. I don't care about your personal attacks.

Prove it.

Ah, I see your point is now that Hillary may have committed a crime unprecedented in the courts, but a crime the law recognizes none-the-less.

Cool. That's a unique way of defending her.

I'm not defending her. What I am saying is that the born classified crap has no legal precedence in court.

How can we depend on a born classified argument when no other case in history, including matters similar to Hillary's case, has never used "born classified" in their prosecution?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

J. William Leonard

All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.

Oh good lord. You don't like what the qualified source says so he's not good enough. Wikipedia says that "usually" only info concerning the operation of nuclear weapons is "born classified" so Leonard must have-ta be so wrong saying that the term applies to Hillary, too.

Your argument is worthless opinion, Introvert. Don't conflate it to anything more. It's a nothing argument.

Name another court case in which the "born classified" argument was used. I don't care about your personal attacks.

Prove it.

Ah, I see your point is now that Hillary may have committed a crime unprecedented in the courts, but a crime the law recognizes none-the-less.

Cool. That's a unique way of defending her.

I'm not defending her. What I am saying is that the born classified crap has no legal precedence in court.

How can we depend on a born classified argument when no other case in history, including matters similar to Hillary's case, has never used "born classified" in their prosecution?

Are you comprehending the fact that original decision and born classified are the exact same thing? The term original decision is what will be used in court..not born classified.

The governments position will be that all data that falls under the EO guidelines of 1.4 (a)-(g) is classified at origination. Been like that long before Hillary ever came on the radar.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The quote was from Hillary's Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement, which she signed on 22 January 2009 when the referenced EO was in effect. EO 13526 did not come into effect until 29 December 2009.

Point taken. But she will be held to the standards under the new EO, regardless of when she signed it.

Besides, if the "duration of classification" is defined as including the document's origination date, I don't see how you don't comprehend that it remained as "unmarked classified information," until such a time as being marked.

That's not what I said.

What I said is the OP's assertion, "100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date", is not necessarily true.

All the OP has proven is that the declassification procedures use the date of origination of the documents and are not indicative of when the government will consider them to have been classified. That could be different for each individual document, we don't know. It all depends on the chain of custody of each email and what it contained.

Remember, there is specific criteria that has to be met for something to be classified. Two parts that cast doubt on when or if the documents are classified:

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

and

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.

If an email that contained private Clinton Foundation information was sent in a chain that made it's round to a few people and ended up in Hillary's inbox, the information would not have been classified at origination because it was not information "owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government".

And Hillary could simply claim there was doubt because of that fact. When in doubt, don't classify.

But what that shows is that it would not be classified at origination, but under classification standards, the declassification date would be set based on it's origination, not when it was classified.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The quote was from Hillary's Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement, which she signed on 22 January 2009 when the referenced EO was in effect. EO 13526 did not come into effect until 29 December 2009.

Point taken. But she will be held to the standards under the new EO, regardless of when she signed it.

Besides, if the "duration of classification" is defined as including the document's origination date, I don't see how you don't comprehend that it remained as "unmarked classified information," until such a time as being marked.

That's not what I said.

What I said is the OP's assertion, "100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date", is not necessarily true.

All the OP has proven is that the declassification procedures use the date of origination of the documents and are not indicative of when the government will consider them to have been classified. That could be different for each individual document, we don't know. It all depends on the chain of custody of each email and what it contained.

Remember, there is specific criteria that has to be met for something to be classified. Two parts that cast doubt on when or if the documents :

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

and

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.

If an email that contained private Clinton Foundation information was sent in a chain that made it's round to a few people and ended up in Hillary's inbox, the information would not have been classified at origination because it was not information "owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government".

And Hillary could simply claim there was doubt because of that fact. When in doubt, don't classify.

But what that shows is that it would not be classified at origination, but under classification standards, the declassification date would be set based on it's origination, not when it was classified.

You said all that just to say I forgot Hillary Clinton was the first Original Classification Authority to see these emails before any other classification official.

Could have saved yourself a lot of time typing.

As in the title of this thread.... Hillarys emails were classified went sent.

a reply to: RickinVa

Are you comprehending the fact that original decision and born classified are the exact same thing? The term original decision is what will be used in court..not born classified.

Born classified does not apply and it never has. Show me a case where "born classified" has been used in the prosecution of someone.

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

Is that not the date of original decision?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Are you comprehending the fact that original decision and born classified are the exact same thing? The term original decision is what will be used in court..not born classified.

Born classified does not apply and it never has. Show me a case where "born classified" has been used in the prosecution of someone.

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

Is that not the date of original decision?

No sir... the date of the original decision would be when that information was originated/created...in this case, the date of the emails...

Why do you think the declassification dates are based on the date of the original emails and not the date of the stamp?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Are you comprehending the fact that original decision and born classified are the exact same thing? The term original decision is what will be used in court..not born classified.

Born classified does not apply and it never has. Show me a case where "born classified" has been used in the prosecution of someone.

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

Is that not the date of original decision?

Attempting to Google "original decision" in the context of classified information court cases is quite difficult. I would like this answered as well by Rick or someone who knows what's up.

How can one find court cases where "original decision" comes into play and where can I better learn what "original decision" really means in this context?

Thanks in advance for any assistance provided here.

ETA: I see Rick's post above. Thanks Rick!

Where can I read more about "original decision" in this context?

a reply to: RickinVa

No sir... the date of the original decision would be when that information was originated...in this case, the date of the emails...

It doesn't say that in the EO.

PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Section 1.1. Classification Standards.
(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Why do you think the declassification dates are based on the date of the original emails and not the date of the stamp?

Because that is what is required under the declassification section, particularly part C.

It's how it is worded in the EO.

It's complicated, but much easier if you just try to understand how the idea of classified information started and evolved to present day....

If you actually researched the history of classification it may make more sense.

The governments stance is that information that meets the criteria in the EO is classified at origination.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

No sir... the date of the original decision would be when that information was originated...in this case, the date of the emails...

It doesn't say that in the EO.

PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Section 1.1. Classification Standards.
(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Intro, I apologize if I missed the full EO having been posted but does it reference the "original decision" terminology anywhere in the EO at all? Or is it, to your knowledge, supposed to be synonymous with some other term?

Again, my apologies if I missed this explanation. I am just trying to get as firm a grip on possible on what this whole born classified/original decision concept really entails.

Thanks again in advance for anybody shedding any light on these questions. ^_^

a reply to: introvert

You disagree with the fact that the government considers information to be classified at origination...

we get it.

Virtually everybody else disagrees with your assessment.

originally posted by: RickinVa
It's how it is worded in the EO.

It's complicated, but much easier if you just try to understand how the idea of classified information started and evolved to present day....

If you actually researched the history of classification it may make more sense.

The governments stance is that information that meets the criteria in the EO is classified at origination.

Not sure if this was directed at me or in general but I appreciate the info nonetheless.

I will take your suggestion and spend some time looking into how we got to where we are now in this country with classified info, starting from the beginning.

Another way to look at it is that the function an OCA has is to determine when an item is to be declassified since it is always classified until it is determined not to be.

Maybe that will help clear the confusion.

a reply to: atomish

Intro, I apologize if I missed the full EO having been posted but does it reference the "original decision" terminology anywhere in the EO at all? Or is it, to your knowledge, supposed to be synonymous with some other term?

It mentions "original decision" in the section that deal with declassification.

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification.
(a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall establish a specific date or event for declassification based on the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. Except for information that should clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source or key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction, the date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.

As we can see in the OP, the dates for declassification do not match the dates in which the original decision was made by an OCA. They match the dates when the emails were created, per section C.

(ff) "Original classification" means an initial determination that information requires, in the interest of the national security, protection against unauthorized disclosure.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Like I said..that's the date it gets stamped... not the date the information itself was considered classified. Two totally different things... apples and oranges.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

You disagree with the fact that the government considers information to be classified at origination...

we get it.

Virtually everybody else disagrees with your assessment.

I don't care what everyone thinks. I want proof and so far no one can provide that. So we have to assume, logically, that original decision is represented by the dates you provided in the OP and the declassification of those documents is based on the date of creation. That does not mean the government considered those documents to have been classified at birth.

You cannot provide any legal precedence to prove "born classified" is relevant and applicable in this case and I have also provided proof that the classifications are considered "retroactive".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: atomish

Intro, I apologize if I missed the full EO having been posted but does it reference the "original decision" terminology anywhere in the EO at all? Or is it, to your knowledge, supposed to be synonymous with some other term?

It mentions "original decision" in the section that deal with declassification.

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification.
(a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall establish a specific date or event for declassification based on the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. Except for information that should clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source or key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction, the date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.

As we can see in the OP, the dates for declassification do not match the dates in which the original decision was made by an OCA. They match the dates when the emails were created, per section C.

Thank you! It's interesting to see it used how it is in this context. When taken at face value in plain English, it seems to imply one thing. But the intelligence community jargon surrounding it muddies the water for those of us uninitiated in such things, at least for me personally.

I can see how someone could follow your line of reasoning but I'm not sure if that argument stems from a solid understanding of the terms in play or a lack thereof. This is not a dig at you, just my opinion as a good deal of this stuff seems clear cut on the surface to me, but as I dig I see that is not necessarily the case.

Regardless, I appreciate the response and I obviously need to read the full text of the EO to better understand the situation at hand. Thanks again.