Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Go back to post 3065 in this thread. I explained this at length.
|
Actually, you didn't---at least not whether the underlying "facts," at this point in time, are classified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This all boils down to a data classification issue and when something had a classification label applied to it.
|
No, it doesn't. It "all boils down to" the desire for someone (for reasons that, I suppose, one can only speculate) to not be transparent and not follow the law.
The "data classification" issue is a sideshow. Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order to be classified. Anyone in government with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
The fact that Hillary specifically requested one of her underlings to, essentially, sidestep the restrictions on handling sensitive data, remove a classified marking on a document, and send the document over an unsecured line* speaks directly to her failures of judgment, honesty, integrity, and leadership.
This is no simple "data classification" issue.
Nor is this, as you suggested in post 3065, a simple case of where the " information did not have a classification standard at the time," but has later "become sensitive and had been classified as such."
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
If there were problems we would have seen something by now.
|
We have seen "something" by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
The Feds act pretty quickly on anything considered a breach.
|
Only when the public becomes aware of the breach and/or when someone's current job is on the line.
* Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ommon-practice)