4 ms·

No. I am no fan of the NSA, but the handling and sending/receiving of what was clearly classified info was clearly done. http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-h

No. I am no fan of the NSA, but the handling and sending/receiving of what was clearly classified info was clearly done. http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/ (I am speaking to the wider issue, not the specific issue of 1 guy's email archive, as you also seem to be.)

bduerst 10y ago
That's not clear at all. The information that was emailed to Clinton was sensitive but only supposedly from a classified source. There is no proof that it was, just accusations.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  So explain to me how a non-classified source would get information from a meeting of Sudanese generals that occurred 24-48 hours prior, in such quantity that it needed Blumenthal to summarize it in a lengthy email.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Supposedly from Tyler Drumheller in the NSA, but nobody knows and it could have come from anywhere. Did you even read the article? That's not clear at all.
    - patrickg_zill 10y ago
      My point was exactly that: there is no source, whether NSA or spy or someone paid off, that wouldn't be classified.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Lack of evidence != evidence. I know what you're trying to get at, but it's not as clear as you think it is. Clinton didn't know the source either.
GVIrish 10y ago
That's an interesting article but it doesn't really point to wrongdoing by Clinton. * Blumenthal somehow got his hands on classified info from NSA * He pulled some of that information into an email to Clinton's public email address * Clinton at that point could have classified the email herself, or not. The information was not labeled as classified in that email. The question there is how did Blumenthal get his hands on that information? That means there was some unauthorized disclosure on the NSA's end. The only way Clinton would be on the hook for that is if she solicited that information or knew about Blumenthal obtaining it illegally. The argument can be made that she should've recognized that the email contained sensitive information and should be classified. But it is not a crime for someone with original classifying authority to decline to classify something that was labeled unclassified when it reached their hands.
- patrickg_zill 10y ago
  Are you basing your argument on the existing law concerning classified information, or what you think should happen? The problem with your view is that it is not based on what the law actually is. Clinton was required to report the unauthorized disclosure of classified info. But she didn't. By your argument, if someone takes a photocopy of a document but puts a blank piece of paper over whatever mark indicates it as "top secret", whoever they then hand that photocopy to is excluded from any liability. That is not how it actually works, however. BTW if the info came from NSA, they are the agency that determines its classification. Not Clinton.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    > Clinton was required to report the unauthorized disclosure of classified info. But she didn't. If she knew the origin of the information, yes. It seems like no one is saying she knew where the information came or that it was classified. The argument can be made that she should have known but that's a more difficult thing to prove when it comes to holding people accountable. > By your argument, if someone takes a photocopy of a document but puts a blank piece of paper over whatever mark indicates it as "top secret", whoever they then hand that photocopy to is excluded from any liability. That is not how it actually works, however. It comes down to whether you know the nature of the information should have made something classified or the origin of the information should have made it classified. Certain types of information would clearly scream "Classified!" regardless of whether it was written on a napkin. Nuclear information, identities of covert operatives, military plans, terror intel, etc. would fall under that umbrella. Other things aren't so clear cut. Information obtained from an intercept might not raise alarm bells if you didn't know the info came from an intercept. Then there are times when unclassified or sensitive information from multiple sources can combine to create a classified document. The individual pieces of info are not classified but the synthesis is. At that point one would have to rely on someone making the judgement call correctly. > BTW if the info came from NSA, they are the agency that determines its classification. Not Clinton. Yes they can classify the information upon its creation. But they could also release it as unclassified or sensitive, then down the line someone else could elevate it to Secret or Top Secret. That person could be anyone with original classifying authority like Clinton. In this case, Blumenthal somehow got a hold of information that was classified from the NSA, then he made a derivative summary of it. He and whoever leaked the info should be on the hook for that. Clinton would only be on the hook if she knew the info was classified.

bduerst 10y ago

That's not clear at all. The information that was emailed to Clinton was sensitive but only supposedly from a classified source. There is no proof that it was, just accusations.

patrickg_zill 10y ago
So explain to me how a non-classified source would get information from a meeting of Sudanese generals that occurred 24-48 hours prior, in such quantity that it needed Blumenthal to summarize it in a lengthy email.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Supposedly from Tyler Drumheller in the NSA, but nobody knows and it could have come from anywhere. Did you even read the article? That's not clear at all.
  - patrickg_zill 10y ago
    My point was exactly that: there is no source, whether NSA or spy or someone paid off, that wouldn't be classified.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Lack of evidence != evidence. I know what you're trying to get at, but it's not as clear as you think it is. Clinton didn't know the source either.

GVIrish 10y ago

That's an interesting article but it doesn't really point to wrongdoing by Clinton. * Blumenthal somehow got his hands on classified info from NSA * He pulled some of that information into an email to Clinton's public email address * Clinton at that point could have classified the email herself, or not. The information was not labeled as classified in that email. The question there is how did Blumenthal get his hands on that information? That means there was some unauthorized disclosure on the NSA's end. The only way Clinton would be on the hook for that is if she solicited that information or knew about Blumenthal obtaining it illegally. The argument can be made that she should've recognized that the email contained sensitive information and should be classified. But it is not a crime for someone with original classifying authority to decline to classify something that was labeled unclassified when it reached their hands.

patrickg_zill 10y ago
Are you basing your argument on the existing law concerning classified information, or what you think should happen? The problem with your view is that it is not based on what the law actually is. Clinton was required to report the unauthorized disclosure of classified info. But she didn't. By your argument, if someone takes a photocopy of a document but puts a blank piece of paper over whatever mark indicates it as "top secret", whoever they then hand that photocopy to is excluded from any liability. That is not how it actually works, however. BTW if the info came from NSA, they are the agency that determines its classification. Not Clinton.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  > Clinton was required to report the unauthorized disclosure of classified info. But she didn't. If she knew the origin of the information, yes. It seems like no one is saying she knew where the information came or that it was classified. The argument can be made that she should have known but that's a more difficult thing to prove when it comes to holding people accountable. > By your argument, if someone takes a photocopy of a document but puts a blank piece of paper over whatever mark indicates it as "top secret", whoever they then hand that photocopy to is excluded from any liability. That is not how it actually works, however. It comes down to whether you know the nature of the information should have made something classified or the origin of the information should have made it classified. Certain types of information would clearly scream "Classified!" regardless of whether it was written on a napkin. Nuclear information, identities of covert operatives, military plans, terror intel, etc. would fall under that umbrella. Other things aren't so clear cut. Information obtained from an intercept might not raise alarm bells if you didn't know the info came from an intercept. Then there are times when unclassified or sensitive information from multiple sources can combine to create a classified document. The individual pieces of info are not classified but the synthesis is. At that point one would have to rely on someone making the judgement call correctly. > BTW if the info came from NSA, they are the agency that determines its classification. Not Clinton. Yes they can classify the information upon its creation. But they could also release it as unclassified or sensitive, then down the line someone else could elevate it to Secret or Top Secret. That person could be anyone with original classifying authority like Clinton. In this case, Blumenthal somehow got a hold of information that was classified from the NSA, then he made a derivative summary of it. He and whoever leaked the info should be on the hook for that. Clinton would only be on the hook if she knew the info was classified.