The New American Politics thread

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is so much bull#### it is beyond belief.

Yawn. I see that you have, once again, failed to address the actual question being asked.

Nor, for that matter, do you refute a specific example given that contradicts your earlier assertions.

Originally Posted by New Era

"Information does not need to be classified as being classified in order for it to be classified" may be one of the dumbest things I have read in my life.

Many soldiers and government employees are instructed that anything that they learn that common sense would suggest that might be classified should be treated as if it were classified until informed otherwise by competent authority.

Additionally, consider that, quite often, information that may later be classified is often first learned or created by someone who has no authority to officially classify the information as classified. Yet the person who first learns or creates the information must keep that information secret, unless otherwise instructed by a competent authority.

If you work in the US government (and I have no idea if you do, nor do I really care), then presumably you would already be aware of this commentary and extensions of it.

Or perhaps you don't, and you just get your information from the "kindercare that is Wikipedia."

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by ernie

In the batch released last week several top secret/sensitive e-mails were held back but it was explicitly stated they were not marked or considered such at the time they were sent/received.

You mean the data classification is real? This is something us gubbment people actually have to understand and comply with? The mandate of open government really means that all government information isn't classified like some people think?

https://opensource.com/resources/open-government

https://m.whitehouse.gov/open/docume...ment-directive

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ty-information

Yeah, data classification is just something I dreamed up and pulled out of my ass.

[Itse]

Would it be possible to split the everlasting discussion over Clintons email kerfuffle to another thread? Or better yet, take it to PM.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Yawn. I see that you have, once again, failed to address the actual question being asked.

Nor, for that matter, do you refute a specific example given that contradicts your earlier assertions.



Many soldiers and government employees are instructed that anything that they learn that common sense would suggest that might be classified should be treated as if it were classified until informed otherwise by competent authority.

Additionally, consider that, quite often, information that may later be classified is often first learned or created by someone who has no authority to officially classify the information as classified. Yet the person who first learns or creates the information must keep that information secret, unless otherwise instructed by a competent authority.

If you work in the US government (and I have no idea if you do, nor do I really care), then presumably you would already be aware of this commentary and extensions of it.

Or perhaps you don't, and you just get your information from the "kindercare that is Wikipedia."

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Please, for your own sake, read the last link in my response to Ernie. It is an executive order that restates what all public servants are required to understand about information and information handling.

I'll try and make this really really easy for you to understand. Because government employees are public servants all the things they do are subject to public oversight. That is ALL departments of government, even the military, CIA and NSA. All information generated is considered unclassified until a classification label is attached to the document by an appropriate classification authority. For Top Secret, Those authorities are normally agency heads. That is how difficult it is to have a document classified at that level. Many times people that were involved in certain incidents may not even know information that passed across their desk has been assigned a sensitivity label unless they remain active in working that event. This isn't something the government goes and advertises.

Your employee example is specious. Soldiers, government employees of all types, and contractors are made well aware of the open nature of government work and told that they have no right to privacy because of the open government mandate. They receive this information at their employee orientation or induction and then hear it again during regular security training, where they sign an acknowledgement of all appropriate policies, including data classification and handing standards. This is a directive affecting all departments because of the open government mandate. Most people may handle information on a daily basis that could become classified at a later date, depending on circumstances.

Here is an example of this process in action. A particular hacker group is well known and a dossier is developed by a particular department. This dossier is likely to filled with mails and information about actors involved. This information, especially the emails, does not have a data classification because of the open government mandate. While investigating the group it is discovered that some of these actors may be involved in a plot to attack key infrastructure systems. At that point it is highly likely a data classification wi be assigned to the dossier, especially if there are details in there about the actions being taken against them. Prior to the discovery of this information, and the assignment of the label, this data is unclassified and available via a FOI submission (possible redaction for certain details). After the label is applied different rules apply and the information available through the FOI is limited. Depending on the label the request to release that information may be refused altogether. Data that was once available for release then becomes unreleasable because of the change in sensitivity label and handling requirements. This is something that all department have to deal with and many of them are now employing compliance officers in some capacity.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Again, you say nothing of substance on this subject in this post. You do nothing but regurgitate the same tired opinions of what people thinktranspired, by the same partisans, based on very limited information in the mass media. How about a discussion about the actual facts? How about you actually say where, what and how there was wrong doing? I've already gone through this with an eye on the compliance side of things. If there were wrong doing she would have been brought up on charges already. If there were something there the Republicans would have presented it during the Fugazi, er Benghazi Committee Hearings. It's time to move on from this. The Republicans can try and use this as an attack ad or to obfuscate issues on the campaign trail, but to the real world there just hasn't been anything there to make an issue of.

What nonsense. The FBI has assigned 150 agents to the case. Let's wait and see. You can keep pretending though.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Itse

Would it be possible to split the everlasting discussion over Clintons email kerfuffle to another thread? Or better yet, take it to PM.

or move it to a subforum and appoint Nobama and Peter12 as mods.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Goddamn it.

https://www.thefire.org/georgetown-l...s-off-in-iowa/

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

What nonsense. The FBI has assigned 150 agents to the case. Let's wait and see. You can keep pretending though.

You have to stop watching or reading Fox News. 150 agents? That would be entire field offices in some states. The FBI only committed a couple hundred agents to the Boston Marathon bombing, from all over the New England states, and only for a couple of weeks. You honestly believe that Hillary Clinton's email server requires 150 agents, an issue that is rooted in an incident that happened in 2012? When does this fantastic story begin to find some basis in reality?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

You have to stop watching or reading Fox News. 150 agents? That would be entire field offices in some states. The FBI only committed a couple hundred agents to the Boston Marathon bombing, from all over the New England states, and only for a couple of weeks. You honestly believe that Hillary Clinton's email server requires 150 agents, an issue that is rooted in an incident that happened in 2012? When does this fantastic story begin to find some basis in reality?

This is directly from a Real Clear Politics story (not exactly partisan) dated January 13, 2016. I posted it earlier in the thread, but you, as per usual, have a habit of not really reading things before opining.

Charles Lipson wrote the story. He is a political science professor at University of Chicago. Not exactly a partisan source.

http://political-science.uchicago.ed...y/lipson.shtml

[Frequitude]

Wow, I just read Sanders' platform for the first time. I didn't realize he was that far left. My god the thought of a Sanders-Cruz general is frightening.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is directly from a Real Clear Politics story (not exactly partisan) dated January 13, 2016. I posted it earlier in the thread, but you, as per usual, have a habit of not really reading things before opining.

Charles Lipson wrote the story. He is a political science professor at University of Chicago. Not exactly a partisan source.

http://political-science.uchicago.ed...y/lipson.shtml

You're hilarious! Lipson is very partisan. He's trying to prevent the Obama Presidential Libary from being at the Univeristy of Chicago for crying out loud. You are also aware that this is the 2nd Lipson article that you've posted as support, but from a different publisher.

That's the absolute perfect example of the echo chamber in action. You post two separate articles from different sites that say essentially the exact same thing. Well of course they do, they are written by the same person. Did you also notice that Lipson quotes Fox News for the FBI angle. Did so in the other article as well. But keep plugging away on this. I'm sure you can find a third and fourth article by Lipson, or one that quotes his article, about the Clinton email "scandal." What I'm waiting for is another article from Alison that quotes another that quoted him, completing the circular reference!

[nik-]

Jesus this is awful

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Wow, I just read Sanders' platform for the first time. I didn't realize he was that far left. My god the thought of a Sanders-Cruz general is frightening.

I really want no part of this matchup, because you can already tell how Calgary Ted is gonna play it:

"Folks, this is an end days battle. We either choose to side with God, and the good, courageous Christian conservatives, and the founding fathers and this Judaeo-Christian nation , or we bow down to the hammer and sickle, and watch as millions of Christians die as martyrs at the hands of the Satanic socialists."

Please no....

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Calgary Ted

No.

Just no.

[Frequitude]

Please Bloomberg, come up the middle. Please come up the middle. Please.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

You're hilarious! Lipson is very partisan. He's trying to prevent the Obama Presidential Libary from being at the Univeristy of Chicago for crying out loud. You are also aware that this is the 2nd Lipson article that you've posted as support, but from a different publisher.

That's the absolute perfect example of the echo chamber in action. You post two separate articles from different sites that say essentially the exact same thing. Well of course they do, they are written by the same person. Did you also notice that Lipson quotes Fox News for the FBI angle. Did so in the other article as well. But keep plugging away on this. I'm sure you can find a third and fourth article by Lipson, or one that quotes his article, about the Clinton email "scandal." What I'm waiting for is another article from Alison that quotes another that quoted him, completing the circular reference!

You have to read things before you talk about them. I have only posted one Lipson article. The other was a completely different one from the Observer. Pay attention, dude.

Also, I just googled Lipson and Obama, like you obviously did because you like to attack sources, and not address arguments. He opposed the Obama Library because he opposed Chicago's association with what would be a very partisan library and think-tank.

In regards to Clinton, I tend to see smoke as a sign of fire. I would love to be proven wrong, but until there is a definitive statement from both the State Department and FBI, I will presume her guilty.

So are you insinuating that the talk about an FBI investigation is partisan in itself? Oh man, here is another source making allegations that the State Department is making it difficult for the FBI. Make sure to read it, ok?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...clinton_emails

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to Clinton, I tend to see smoke as a sign of fire. I would love to be proven wrong, but until there is a definitive statement from both the State Department and FBI, I will presume her guilty.

I'm just wondering if you consider 8 Benghazi investigations as smoke, especially considering what Kevin McCarthy had to say about it?

[nik-]

Well Benghazi is another matter, one investigation being silly doesn't automatically make another silly. I mean honestly, it's clear that Clinton ####ed up here with sending sensitive information with her own server, including things to family that really shouldn't be sent to family.

How much weight one wants to put on the gravity of her decisions is a matter that can be discussed for eternity. It was bad judgement though, and it's pretty silly to deny that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I'm just wondering if you consider 8 Benghazi investigations as smoke, especially considering what Kevin McCarthy had to say about it?

Well, Benghazi is a separate issue. This is also an independent criminal investigation. Obviously, this is pretty serious.

I am not denying that there isn't mudslinging on both sides, just that one of the candidates may be guilty of committing many crimes. If this is the case, wouldn't you agree that there is a major credibility issue with her candidacy?

I am not sure why people are accusing me of partisanship. I have been pretty open about my support for Rubio, but not overly damning of Sanders or even the Democrats. I just dislike Clinton immensely, and I believe there are many good reasons to do so. That doesn't mean I want the Cruz or Trump Empire to commence next year.

[DuffMan]

as far email goes, they could investigate Bush, Gowdy, Chaffetz, Christie, Jeb etc. etc. etc.
GWBush lost millions of emails??? no one bats an eye
It's a partisan witch hunt, like Benghazi.

This is from Nov 2014

The CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a Republican-controlled House committee has found. Its report concluded that there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials.

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the two-year investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

So why is there an 8th investigation going currently?