[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: NYT: Second review of Hillary e-mails confirms Top Secret/compartmented info Source: HotAir URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/ ... -top-secretcompartmented-info/ Published: Sep 8, 2015 Author: Ed Morrissey Post Date: 2015-09-08 09:22:01 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 746 Comments: 6 Despite weeks of denials, a second review by the originating agencies confirms that Hillary Clinton improperly received Top Secret/compartmented information on her unsecured and unauthorized e-mail server. The New York Times’ Michael Schmidt reported late last night that both the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) agree on that point, backing up the referral from two Inspectors General a month ago to the Department of Justice: A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said. Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails, which are being released to the public, had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011. This relates to the original intel-community review of 40 sample e-mails from Hillary’s data, reviewed only after its existence came to light in the Benghazi select committee probe. Hillary received these two e-mails from an unspecified source, but as a cleared member of leadership as well as the originator of the secret system on which it got transmitted and stored, Hillary would have had responsibility to correct this “spillage” when it occurred. If the data came from NGA, which uses satellites to derive intelligence data, then the need to protect the data should have been obvious, especially to a Secretary of State. Team Hillary and State both responded with further obfuscations. Nick Merrill released a statement on behalf of the campaign citing “bureaucratic infighting among the intelligence community,” but that’s precisely the opposite of this finding. The intel community — CIA and NGA — both agree on the classification of this information. State’s John Kirby claimed classification is a partnership decision: “Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.” This also is nonsense. The State Department doesn’t develop the NGA’s satellite data, and even if it did, it would also be classified at the highest levels for the same reason. Regardless of whether State wants data declassified, that is the purview of the originating agency and its command structure, not the State Department. An Executive Order updated by Barack Obama but which dates back to at least Bill Clinton’s presidency makes that clear.  While those agencies consider information classified, State and any other agency would be bound to treat the data with its current classification until an appeal could be completed. Did State ever ask for this data to be declassified to the extent that it could get transmitted on an unsecured, non-governmental e-mail system? If the answer is no, then Kirby’s entire statement is moot. As John Schindler put it last night, State’s opinion on its classification is of no weight: There is no "inter-agency dispute". IC information (TS/SCI) has been twice determined to be so. What State & HRC think is quite irrelevant. — John Schindler (@20committee) September 8, 2015 The FBI and the Department of Justice will have to take some kind of action at this point. A federal grand jury will get them off the hook politically, at least for a short period of time, and that may be their best option under the weight of a presidential campaign. Poster Comment: Smoking gun confirmed. Hitlery hired people without security training or security clearances to run her server without outside overiew. Neither the server at her house or in Colorado could ever be authorized for classified info since neither was a SCIF classified facility. Hitlery allowed her staffers to strip classified headers off materials to email to her on her server. (A serious national security crime for which they should be prosecuted harshly.) Hitlery tried to delete the evidence and has told many public lies about her server crimes. (Basis for immediate revocation of her security clearance if not criminal charges.) Hitlery delivered to her lawyer copies of the email archive, including classified materials. This is a crime as her lawyer does not have a security clearance adequate to receive these materials which are restricted to viewing only on secure computers in Secure Classified Information Facilities. The lawyer stored the email archives (on USB sticks) in his offices, another serious security violation. Hitlery's lies that "classification is a fluid and informal standard" are exposed clearly here by the Slimes. The State Department is powerless to declassify any secret materials originating from other agencies, per EO's from Bill Clinton and Obama. Only a president is allowed to declassify anything he wants (as Obama has done, notably, with the info about Bin Laden's (alleged) killing and SEAL Team 6. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: TooConservative (#0) Information is not classified because it is labelled. It is labelled because it is classified. Hillary is just babbling. Neither the server at her house or in Colorado could ever be authorized for classified info since neither was a SCIF classified facility. A SCIF is only necessary for SCI material. The vast bulk of classified information is not maintained in a SCIF. Hillary's home brewed system did not qualify for any level of classified information. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   16:49:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: nolu chan (#1) Hillary's home brewed system did not qualify for any level of classified information. How about FOUO material? Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-09-08   16:52:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#1) (Edited) Hillary, yesterday: "I'll never apologize as I did nothing wrong." Hillary, today: "I'm sorry." There must be some brutal polls at the DNC to prompt that quick a flipflop. They've tried every lie in the book. I guess an insincere apology costs them nothing. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   17:37:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Fred Mertz (#2) How about FOUO material? FOUO (For Official Use Only) is applied to UNCLASSIFIED information whose external release has Privacy/Freedom of Information Act implications. I don't think this would cause much concern on Hillary's server. DoDM 5200.01-V3, February 24, 2012, p. 89 DoD Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information Change 2, 03/19/2013 4.b b. If an FOUO report is to be disseminated outside the Department of Defense (e.g., to another Federal agency), the face of the document shall bear an expanded marking, as specified in Enclosure 3 of Volume 4 of this Manual, stating that the information may be exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to section 552 of title 5, U.S.C. (also known as “The Freedom of Information Act” and hereinafter referred to as “FOIA” (Reference (bm))). - - - - - DoDM 5200.01-V4, February 24, 2012, p. 11 DoD Information Security Program: Controlled, Unclassified Information (CUI) 2. FOUO INFORMATION a. Description. FOUO is a dissemination control applied by the Department of Defense to unclassified information when disclosure to the public of that particular record, or portion thereof, would reasonably be expected to cause a foreseeable harm to an interest protected by one or more of FOIA Exemptions 2 through 9. DoDM 5200.01-V4, February 24, 2012, p. 12 b. Application (1) It is the responsibility of the document’s originator to determine at origination whether the information may qualify for FOUO status and to ensure markings are applied as required. Further details on the types of information that may qualify for the specified exemptions and FOUO status can be found in Chapter 3 of DoD 5400.7-R (Reference (p)). (2) Information that is currently and properly classified shall be withheld from mandatory release in accordance with FOIA Exemption 1. The marking “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” is applied to information that can reasonably be expected to qualify for exemption under one or more of FOIA Exemptions 2 through 9. By definition, information must be unclassified in order to be designated FOUO. This means that: (a) Information cannot be marked as classified and FOUO at the same time, because no individual element of information can be simultaneously classified and FOUO. Therefore, classified documents containing FOUO information cannot bear an overall document marking of FOUO. However, portions or pages of a classified document that contain only FOUO information will be marked in a manner that identifies the FOUO content. (b) Information that is declassified may be designated and marked as FOUO only when disclosure to the public of that particular record, or portion thereof, would reasonably be expected to cause a foreseeable harm to an interest protected by one or more of FOIA Exemptions 2 through 9. (c) FOUO is not authorized as a means of protecting information that otherwise does not merit protection as classified for national security reasons. At 16-17: d. Access to FOUO Information (1) No person may have access to information designated as FOUO unless that person has been determined to have a valid need for such access in connection with the accomplishment of a lawful and authorized Government purpose. (2) The final responsibility for determining whether an individual has a valid need for access to information designated as FOUO rests with the individual who has authorized possession, knowledge, or control of the information, not with the prospective recipient. (3) Information designated as FOUO may be disseminated within the DoD Components and between officials of DoD Components and DoD contractors, consultants, and grantees to conduct official business for the Department of Defense, provided that dissemination is consistent with any further controls imposed by a distribution statement. (See section 8 of this enclosure for information on distribution statements.) (4) Information designated as FOUO may be disseminated to representatives of foreign governments and international organizations to the extent that disclosure would further the execution of a lawful and authorized mission or purpose. Such dissemination shall be in compliance with Reference (l) and other applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. (See paragraphs 1.g and 1.h of this enclosure for general disclosure guidance.) (5) DoD holders of information designated as FOUO are authorized to disseminate such information to officials in other departments and agencies of the Executive and Judicial Branches to fulfill a Government function provided such dissemination is consistent with any further controls imposed by distribution statements or other regulations. If the information is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, disclosure is authorized only if the requirements of DoD 5400.11-R (Reference (r)) are also satisfied. Records thus transmitted shall be marked as required by paragraph 2.c of this enclosure, and the recipient shall be advised that the information may qualify for exemption from public disclosure, pursuant to the FOIA, and that special handling instructions do or do not apply. Release of official information in litigation and testimony by DoD personnel as witnesses shall be in accordance with DoDD 5405.2 (Reference (s)). (6) Release of FOUO information to Congress shall be in accordance with DoDI 5400.04 (Reference (t)). If the information is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, disclosure is authorized only if the requirements of Reference (r) are also satisfied. (7) DoDI 7650.01 (Reference (u)) governs release of FOUO information to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). If the information is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, disclosure is authorized only if the requirements of Reference (r) are also satisfied. (8) Records released outside of the Department of Defense, including to the Congress or GAO, should be reviewed to determine whether the information warrants FOUO status. If it does not, any prior FOUO markings shall be removed by lining-through or other appropriate means. If withholding criteria are met, the records shall be marked FOUO and the recipient provided an explanation for the marking. (9) FOUO information may be shared with State, local, or tribal government officials, provided a specific need to know has been established and the information is shared in furtherance of an official governmental purpose. In all cases, the recipient must agree to the stipulation that the information shall be withheld by the recipient from public release. Records thus shared shall be marked in accordance with paragraph 2.c of this enclosure, and the recipient shall be advised whether special handling instructions do or do not apply. e. Protection of FOUO Information (1) During working hours, reasonable steps shall be taken to minimize the risk of access by unauthorized personnel (e.g., not reading, discussing, or leaving FOUO information unattended where unauthorized personnel are present). After working hours, FOUO information may be stored in unlocked containers, desks, or cabinets if Government or Government-contract building security is provided. If such building security is not provided or is deemed inadequate, the information shall be stored in locked desks, file cabinets, bookcases, locked rooms, etc. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   19:58:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: TooConservative, Fred Mertz (#3) There must be some brutal polls at the DNC to prompt that quick a flipflop. They've tried every lie in the book. I guess an insincere apology costs them nothing. As far as polls, Bernie passed her in NH and drew close in IA, and the Pubbies beat her nationally, and Joe is looming. No problem. They can just relaunch her campaign and introduce her to the American people again. nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   20:02:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: nolu chan (#5) No problem. They can just relaunch her campaign and introduce her to the American people again. They've already tried that five times just in 2015 alone. Listening tours, relaunches, she has a track record as a lousy and repulsive candidate. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-08   20:26:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com