Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

It's a uh... interesting read.  AFAIK all but a coupe of them have been completely declassified and they are relentlessly documented so we know exactly what happened when and where.

The most interesting seem to be "a few" which contained information that was "marked classified".  There were two such and they have been declassified.

On August 2, 2012, she replied to an email containing this from her aide.  This reply included the text of the previous email, typed by Monica Hanley.

(C) Purpose of Call: Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan has requested to speak with you. On August 2, UN Secretary- General Ban announced that Annan has decided not to renew his mandate after it expires August 31.

On Aplril 8, 2012, she replied to an email containing this from her aide.  This reply included the text of the previous email typed by Monica Hanley as well.

(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.

I put "scare quotes" around "marked classified" because marked classified has an exact legal definition which you are free to see here: http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/marking-booklet.pdf
I quoted the part with the "(C)" however marking something classified also means putting a header at the start of the document saying classified and putting a footer that says the declassification date.

So that's two.  That leaves about 105 less interesting emails plus the two or three that haven't been declassified yet.  Anyone got the skinny on any other juicy bits as good as this?  I hope they're all this good!

[MarcAFK]

What's the deal with the one that was so classified that the agency couldn't even be named?

[mainiac]

I am unable to determine based on the text of your post if your intent was humorous or not.

[Sheb]

He's referring something Morrigi said on the Ameripol thread linking to a video of Republicans saying something about the handful of classified emails containing Top Secret - Special Acces Program stuff. I didn't watch the vid, but I guess the GOPcritter in it say those are so classified we can't know who created the info or something.

[MarcAFK]

Thx Sheb I lost track of where I read that, sounds like somebody was misinterpreting the data, maybe by as much as I did.

[mainiac]

No, nobody could have been misinterpreting things.  If that happened there would be a congressional committee and they would be lambasted on the news for years.

[anzki4]

Here's the quote from Morrigi containing a link to the video in question:

On another note, wtf is this shit? http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609395/special-access-programs-involved

The Clinton e-mail scandal included information so classified that the government organization responsible for the information cannot even be named.

[mainiac]

What is that even.

[NullForceOmega]

That is an absolutely textbook standard 'right hand doesn't know what the left is doing'.  And typifies our system of plausible deniability.  For someone so well versed in U.S. politics I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

[mainiac]

That is an absolutely textbook standard 'right hand doesn't know what the left is doing'.  And typifies our system of plausible deniability.  For someone so well versed in U.S. politics I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

This is not remotely right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  This is congressperson asks for information they damn well know they wont get because it's not publicly disclosed.  The indication of that is that he said so.  Multiple times.

The glass houses...

[NullForceOmega]

Nice try.

The right hand (congress) doesn't know what the left hand (agency/ies in question) is doing.

Sounds correct to me.

Or to be more blunt, the Intelligence Community Inspector General didn't have adequate clearance to know about this information, again right hand knows not.

[mainiac]

Nice try.

The right hand (congress) doesn't know what the left hand (agency/ies in question) is doing.

Sounds correct to me.

Or to be more blunt, the Intelligence Community Inspector General didn't have adequate clearance to know about this information, again right hand knows not.

the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing
phrase of hand
1. used to convey that there is a state of confusion within a group or organization.

[NullForceOmega]

Yes, I believe that would be accurate here, don't you?  There certainly appears to be a large degree of confusion amongst the various agencies involved does there not?  Your attempts at pedantry are boring.

[mainiac]

Yes, I believe that would be accurate here, don't you?

"Nice try"

There is zero confusion here.  Nobody is confused about a thing here.  Some information isn't disclosed.  It's said that it wont be disclosed.  The right hand knows exactly what the left hand is doing.

Some members of the public seem to be intentionally making themselves confused but it's very straightforward.

[RedKing]

If you're suggesting that Republicans in Congress asked for these emails, knowing that they would be denied because of the classification level (and I'm asking, because I know you hate people[i.e. me] trying to suss out the intended implications of your statements), and that thus the whole thing was a bit of politicial theater, I'm inclined to agree with you.

And I think it was a pretty shrewd piece of theater. Then can then turn to the public (or at least their base) and say, "Not only were there were classified emails on that server, they were so classified they can't even tell *us* about them." That flies rather directly in the face of Clinton's earlier assertions that no classified material was on her private server.

Clinton, March 10, 2015: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

So either she lied about the lack of classified material, or she lied about being well aware of the classification requirements. You can make a (flimsy, IMHO) argument that the low-level classified stuff was easy to assume it wasn't classified. Stuff that's TS/SCA is usually unmistakable in its sensitivity.