Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you referring to this specific comment?

If the emails contained information that was created and owned by the Clinton Foundation, it would not adhere to the second criteria of the Original Classification clause and would not meet "all" of the requirements to be classified.

If so, I stand by that. in the information was created and owned by the CF, the 2nd criteria still would not apply, because it was not "owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government".

Again, what part of my comment hinged on the typo?

a reply to: introvert

But it does fall "under the control of the United States Government" section of the EO. I even provided you with an example wherein something that was not "owned by, produced by or for" the United States Government was classified after it came under government control.

CF and State Department information was kept on the server located at Hillary's residence while she was SoS. This brings everything on the server "under the control of the United States Government."

a reply to: introvert

Clearly it's been redacted. PDF

It's safe to assume the info was "for" or "under the control" of the U.S. government even if it originated with the CF. Why would the U.S. government redact info it has no authority to redact?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
This brings everything on the server "under the control of the United States Government."

Yep.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If everything on the server was under the control of the government, then why didn't they just go and take the server when they wanted it?

They asked Hillary and the tech company that serviced the server to hand it over and they did so knowing that the US government would just subpoena the server anyway.

Why would the US government need to subpoena something if it was under their control?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

Clearly it's been redacted. PDF

It's safe to assume the info was "for" or "under the control" of the U.S. government even if it originated with the CF. Why would the U.S. government redact info it has no authority to redact?

So are you backing-off from the assertion that my typo was on purpose in order to prop-up my argument?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

Clearly it's been redacted. PDF

It's safe to assume the info was "for" or "under the control" of the U.S. government even if it originated with the CF. Why would the U.S. government redact info it has no authority to redact?

So are you backing-off from the assertion that my typo was on purpose in order to prop-up my argument?

Not at all. Clearly, the redacted email information was FOR the U.S. government -- at the very least -- if it was redacted.

What would give the U.S. government the authority to assign a declassification date to information created for the Clinton Foundation alone?

a reply to: Masterjaden

The amount of time it will be classified is most directly related to it's source.

That has been a point I've been trying to have answered.

Is the declassification date tied to the date something was deemed classified, or when something was "created", such as the date the emails were sent?

If so, does that mean we cannot conclude that declassification dates are an indicator of when the govern actually deems something classified?

The official date of classification would be as indicated in the OP:

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

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If everything on the server was under the control of the government, then why didn't they just go and take the server when they wanted it?

They asked Hillary and the tech company that serviced the server to hand it over and they did so knowing that the US government would just subpoena the server anyway.

Why would the US government need to subpoena something if it was under their control?

Hillary wasn't the SOS when the rest of the world found out that the server existed.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

Clearly it's been redacted. PDF

It's safe to assume the info was "for" or "under the control" of the U.S. government even if it originated with the CF. Why would the U.S. government redact info it has no authority to redact?

So are you backing-off from the assertion that my typo was on purpose in order to prop-up my argument?

Not at all. Clearly, the redacted email information was FOR the U.S. government -- at the very least -- if it was redacted.

What would give the U.S. government the authority to assign a declassification date to information created for the Clinton Foundation alone?

It appears you are backing away from it because you have not shown where I used that typo to prop-up my argument. I did not use the word "and" in any way that changed my assertion.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If everything on the server was under the control of the government, then why didn't they just go and take the server when they wanted it?

They asked Hillary and the tech company that serviced the server to hand it over and they did so knowing that the US government would just subpoena the server anyway.

Why would the US government need to subpoena something if it was under their control?

Hillary wasn't the SOS when the rest of the world found out that the server existed.

So it wasn't under government control?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

Clearly it's been redacted. PDF

It's safe to assume the info was "for" or "under the control" of the U.S. government even if it originated with the CF. Why would the U.S. government redact info it has no authority to redact?

So are you backing-off from the assertion that my typo was on purpose in order to prop-up my argument?

Not at all. Clearly, the redacted email information was FOR the U.S. government -- at the very least -- if it was redacted.

What would give the U.S. government the authority to assign a declassification date to information created for the Clinton Foundation alone?

It appears you are backing away from it because you have not shown where I used that typo to prop-up my argument. I did not use the word "and" in any way that changed my assertion.

You wrote that ALL of the conditions must be met. And you paired two conditions that were not intended to be paired by swapping out "or" with "and." Therefore, that pair of conditions did not have to be met. One OR the other condition (or a couple of others) had to be met.

And, face it, the U.S. Government does not have the authority to declassify/set a declassification date for information only intended for and/or for the purposes of the Clinton Foundation. Whether or not the CF's info is made public would be up to the CF, not the U.S. government.

Clearly, the U.S. government has authority over the information, not the Clinton Foundation.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If everything on the server was under the control of the government, then why didn't they just go and take the server when they wanted it?

They asked Hillary and the tech company that serviced the server to hand it over and they did so knowing that the US government would just subpoena the server anyway.

Why would the US government need to subpoena something if it was under their control?

Hillary wasn't the SOS when the rest of the world found out that the server existed.

So it wasn't under government control?

:
It was when the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was emailing classified information on it.
But it was secret then.
Guccifer helped us all out and broke her secret.

a reply to: introvert

Simple.

They didn't know where it was at first.

But they could smell it.

a reply to: introvert

You've read the EO...correct?

Does it not state clearly that there are qualifications for information to be classified, to whit:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.

All of the above categories of information are deemed to be born classified... they are considered restricted data, have been for decades. Nothing new here. Heck she signed a contract acknowledging that she willfully accepted the fact that for purposes of the contract, restricted data is considered "classified information". Restricted data is considered born classified.

There is no way out for her.

That is your answer.... the data was considered classified when it was created... not when the stamp gets put on it, hence the declassification date.

You do understand that in the eyes of the government, any classified data that has not been properly marked by an original classification authority is still legally considered unmarked classified data in every since of the word... you fail to understand this simple point of the process.

Question 23: Are Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data, classified under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, included in the definition for "classified information," as used in the SF 312?

Answer: Yes.

She accepted that condition as a prerequisite for being granted access to classified information,,,,,everybody does.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If everything on the server was under the control of the government, then why didn't they just go and take the server when they wanted it?

They asked Hillary and the tech company that serviced the server to hand it over and they did so knowing that the US government would just subpoena the server anyway.

Why would the US government need to subpoena something if it was under their control?

Hillary wasn't the SOS when the rest of the world found out that the server existed.

So it wasn't under government control?

Not psychically, legally

a reply to: MotherMayEye

not intended to be paired by swapping out "or" with "and."

Exactly. It was a mistake and I did not intend to do so. I apologized and in the interest of honesty, did not go back and edit, which I could have easily done.

If you want to continue to say I did it to prop-up my argument, that's fine.

I will not continue to argue with someone that cannot see that I was trying to be open and honest about a simple mistake.

Guess some people have to take advantage of it when it happens. Oh well.

a reply to: introvert

No reason to continue arguing the point when you've said my point is "fine."

Now moving on to my other point:

"And, face it, the U.S. Government does not have the authority to declassify/set a declassification date for information only intended for and/or for the purposes of the Clinton Foundation. Whether or not the CF's info is made public would be up to the CF, not the U.S. government.

Clearly, the U.S. government has authority over the information, not the Clinton Foundation."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No reason to continue arguing the point when you've said my point is "fine."

Childish.

Clearly, the U.S. government has authority over the information, not the Clinton Foundation.

When they got their hands on the server, I would agree...for the purposes of the investigation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are correct... he fails to see that by the very fact that Hillary Clinton, as an OCA, in her official capacity, was forwarding emails to the State Department for action made them property of the government that were classified when she got them.



He wants you to believe that the email path goes:

CF Employee - CF employee - State Department

As opposed to:


CF Employee - Secretary Of State - State Department.