Maid printed out classified emails

[hwytohell]

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/  

[Boered]

Just another felony in the daily life of the new leader of the CCF. Nothing to see here.

[Highmark]

Curious as to what MC and Vince think of this?

[Mileage Psycho]

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Curious as to what MC and Vince think of this?

emails

 

 

Quote

Conservatives Run With NY Post Story About Maid Printing Clinton's Emails, Botch Classification History

The New York Post published a front page report alleging that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents -- including ones containing classified information,” but ignored the fact the emails in question were classified years after the fact. The report cited only two classified emails, both of which were retroactively classified at the lowest level of classification, a practice which is consistent with past State Department actions. Additionally, in both confidential emails Clinton did not request that her maid print the emails. The author of the report has a history of inaccurate reporting when it comes to Clinton’s emails.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/06/conservatives-run-ny-post-story-about-maid-printing-clintons-emails-botch-classification-history/214345

 

 

[Mainecat]

5 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

emails

 

 

 

THE END

[Snake]

28 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

 

Conservatives Run With NY Post Story About Maid Printing Clinton's Emails, Botch Classification History

The New York Post published a front page report alleging that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents -- including ones containing classified information,” but ignored the fact the emails in question were classified years after the fact. The report cited only two classified emails, both of which were retroactively classified at the lowest level of classification, a practice which is consistent with past State Department actions. Additionally, in both confidential emails Clinton did not request that her maid print the emails. The author of the report has a history of inaccurate reporting when it comes to Clinton’s emails.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/06/conservatives-run-ny-post-story-about-maid-printing-clintons-emails-botch-classification-history/214345

Go ahead Vince, tell us how respected and unbiased David Brock is....

I would accept news etched into the sand before I, or anyone else, gave Brock any credibility.

[Highmark]

33 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

emails

 

 

 

 emails in question were classified years after the fact. The report cited only two classified emails, both of which were retroactively classified at the lowest level of classification,

It doesn't have to be marked classified for it to be illegal.

 

Clinton is also seeking to exploit what little is to be gained from the FBI’s feeble defense of her transmission of documents marked classified. Comey noted that there were “portion markings” within three e-mail documents (meaning there were designations -- e.g., “(C)” -- that indicated a particular paragraph in the document was classified). Yet, he also testified that those documents did not conform to the proper procedure for marking documents classified. That procedure includes placing on the document a header indicating its classification level (e.g., “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret”), so there is no mistaking its status.

Clearly, the absence of a header does not change the fact that the classified portions of the three documents in question were marked as such. Nor does it alter the fact that Mrs. Clinton, a regular consumer of classified information who claims always to have been careful in handling it, would have known exactly what the markings meant -- and, thus, that storing or transmitting a document containing such markings on a private, non-secure system was illegal.

Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly pointed out since the Clinton email scandal came to light in March 2015, this whole brouhaha about “marked” classified -- and, in its new iteration, classification “headers” -- is a red herring. A great deal of classified information is not marked at all.

If an official with a security clearance sits in on a meeting or briefing at which classified information is presented orally, it would be unlawful for that official to transmit that information via a non-government, non-classified email system. The fact that such an email would obviously not be marked would make no difference -- officials trained in handling classified information and given security clearances for access to it are intimately aware of the rules.

 

To take another notorious example, General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, knew that his diaries contained top secret information notwithstanding the absence of markings and headers designating them as such. That is why, when he pled guilty to mishandling classified information, he did not attempt to use the lack of markings on the diaries as a defense. Such a claim, he had to know, would have been frivolous