Print

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

[wierd]

So, at least two emails have contained classified information so far, and I am only on page 6 out of 800 something.

Should I continue digging?

B-but she didn't do anything wrong, I heard that on MSNBC :^)

Make that 3. This one is really good. Again, nearly the whole thing is redacted, and even cites a list of G8 people meeting on a certain date and place (and apparently, a brief synopsis of the meeting itself, if the contextual clues mean anything about the redacted text.) Awesome.

Spoiler: message body (click to show/hide)

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015
RELEASE IN PART
1.4(B),B1,B5,1.4(D),B6
From:
H <hrod17@clintonemail.com
>
Sent:
Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:45 AM
To:
'millscd@state.gov
.
Subject:
Re: Yemen
 Original Message
From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov
>
To: H
Sent: Sun Jan 24 07:58:03 2010
Subject: RE: Yemen
Original Message
From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 11:42 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Re: Yemen
Original Message
From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov
>
To: H
Sent: Sat Jan 23 22:52:52 2010
Subject: RE: Yemen
Original Message
From: H [mailto:HDR22@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:44 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Re: Yemen
Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 08/27/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL
— Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 01/22/2025
Original Message
From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD@state.gov
>
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015
To: H
Sent: Sat Jan 23 17:26:53 2010
Subject: Fw: Yemen
See b/I

(redacted section)

 Original Message
From: Burns, William
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Sent: Sat Jan 23 17:23:47 2010
Subject: Re: Yemen

(redacted section)

 Original Message
From: Mills, Cheryl D
To: Burns, William J
Sent: Sat Jan 23 12:27:14 2010
Subject: RE: Yemen

(Redacted section)
 
Original Message
From: Burns, William
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Re: Yemen
Totally unrelated subject:

(Redacted section)

Original Message
From: Mills, Cheryl D
To: Burns, William J
Sent: Sat Jan 23 08:31:36 2010
Subject: RE: Yemen
Thanks
Original Message
From: Burns, William J
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 3:07 PM
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015
To: Abedin, Huma; Sullivan, Jacob J; Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Fw: Yemen
 Original Message
From: Burns, William J
To: 'HDR22@clintonemail.com
' <HDR22@clintonemail.com
>
Sent: Fri Jan 22 15:04:00 2010
Subject: Re: Yemen
A short bberry summary of G8 Pol Dirs mtg in Quebec today:

(A very large redacted section)

1.4(B)
1.4(D)
B1
B5
Back in DC this evening. All best,
Bill
Original Message
From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com
>
To: Steinberg, James B; Lew, Jacob J; Burns, William
Cc: 'cheryl.mills (redacted)
' <cheryl.mills (redacted)
Sent: Mon Jan 18 09:02:28 2010
Subject: Yemen
Anne Patterson made a strong appeal to me for (redacted)
to be Amb and stressed his long experience in conflict areas.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773254 Date: 10/30/2015

It sure looks like using email to discuss confidential information was... "Rampant" in the clinton secretary of state admin term.

5., 6. "Literally nothing is unclassified here, it must be something good!"

By all means, if you wish to continue making mountains, call back your moles and get to work. This scandal won't manufacture itself, after all.

Ahhhh---- But you see, "confidential correspondence", such as the redacted sections mentioned, fall under the previously mentioned policy document, concerning secretary of state internal business!  So, NOT a molehill. It means that Hillary did indeed violate policy, and did indeed communicate confidential information while pursuant to that violation. We will have to wait another 15 years for the information in those sections to become declassified. See you then.

Just to clarify, here is the pertinent section where the term is defined.

Spoiler: legaleese (click to show/hide)

12 FAM 540
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLAS
SIFIED
INFORMATION (SBU)
(CT:DS
-
190
;   
03
-
05
-
2013
)
(Office of Origin:  DS/SI/IS)
12 FAM 541  SCOPE
(
CT:DS
-
190;   03
-
05
-
2013
)
a.
Sensitive but unclassified
(SBU) information is information that is not classified
for national security reasons, but that warrants/requires administrative control
and protection from public or other unauthorized disclosure for other reasons. 
SBU should meet one or more of the crit
eria for exemption from public
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (which also exempts
information protected under other statutes), 5 U.S.C. 552, or should be
protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
b.
Types of unclassified informat
ion to which SBU is typically applied include all
FOIA exempt categories (ref.
5 U.S.C. 552b)
, for example:
(1)
Personnel, payroll, medical, passport, adoption, and other personal
information about individuals, including social security numbers and home
ad
dresses and including information about employees as well as members
of the public;
(2)
Confidential business information, trade secrets, contractor bid or proposal
information, and source selection information;
(3)
Department records pertaining to the iss
uance or refusal of visas, other
permits to enter the United States, and requests for asylum;
(4)
Law enforcement information or information regarding ongoing
investigations;
(5)
Information illustrating or disclosing infrastructure protection
vulnerabilit
ies, or threats against persons, systems, operations, or facilities
(such as, usernames, passwords, physical, technical or network specifics,
and in certain instances, travel itineraries, meeting schedules or
attendees), but not meeting the criteria for cl
assification under
Executive
Order (EO) 1
3526, dated December 29, 2009
;
(6)
Information not customarily in the public domain and related to the
protection of critical infrastructure assets, operations, or resources,
whether physical or cyber, as defined in
the Homeland Security Act, 6
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 12
Diplomatic Security
12 FAM 540
Page
2
of
7
UNCLASSIFIED (U)
U.S.C. 131(c);

In regard to the previously cited email, containing a list of G8 attendees--- Note how the policy document SPECIFICALLY mentions that kind of information, when it says " travel itineraries, meeting schedules or
attendees" in the examples section.

Basically, Hillary is dirty on this. You can spin and deny all you like, but the proof is in the pudding. You can go see for yourself, the archive was linked previously.  Denial wont make her stop being dirty, any more than denial wont make climate change stop being real.

[wierd]

I think a policy synposis of the G8 summit would count, don't you? Especially when the summit is still on-going?

Perhaps I am going about this the wrong way-  The state department itself has determined that the content of those messages is classified-- meeting the opening criteria of the definition, since it is clearly NOT in the public domain. So, the fact that it was redacted at all indicates that it meets the critera for the definition, per the definition.

If that is not sufficiently satisfactory, then please state where your boundry for burden of proof is, so that I might reach it without fear of the goalpost being moved.  (I dont feel like playing the political rhetoric version of Zeno's Paradox today, m'kay.)

Thanks.

[wierd]

And that makes it stop being true?  I think climate change denialism and anti-vaxxing suddenly become quite appropos.

[Helgoland]

wierd, you're acting like an atheist in the religion thread

[wierd]

It may seem strange, coming from an american, but I feel that politics should not be in the same ideological category as religion.

[wierd]

Maybe it's my mild aspergers-like mode of thought here-- but how can it be construed any other way?

An atheist in the religion thread states an assertion based on empirical data, where a faith-based respondant retorts that the position is based on faith based reasoning. The atheist's view is still valid, in as much as it is a view on a religious matter.

I have previously stated that I am an independent centrist-- and am not aligned with any political movement. I make my judgements based on what factual data I can unearth.

The scandal concerning Hillary and the email server, is that she used the server in violation of policy (proven with policy itself being cited) to transmit information that should not be transmitted on such a system (proven through the citation of redacted email that contained such information, and the definition presented by the policy statement.) This indicates that the premise of the scandal is true-- Hillary did indeed do that. The confidential information could have been Michelle Obama's secret recipie for oatmeal raisin cookies-- that part is immaterial to the factuality of the underlying condition of the scandal. Hillary clearly violated that standing policy with her email server. End of story. Finito. I have cited traceable and verifiable instances of such violations. The burden of proof for denial now changes court.

The insinuation that this is like the religion thread, implies that there are topics or theses that are not subject to this kind of empirical scrutiny, due to the opinionated nature of the discussion. I pointed out that opinion is not fact.

Just like a fundamentalist christian can deny that the earth is not older than 6000 years, Hillary supporters can deny that she violated standing policy with her email server, despite evidence to the contrary being provided to them. That is their prerogative.

That should not stifle my own ability to make a factual statement that contradicts that belief, no matter how many cheerios it shits in. ;P

[Arx]

The difference is that he's not comparing politics to religion, he's comparing you to an atheist. Specifically, an internet atheist.

[wierd]

That would imply that the atheist does not have a valid view on religious matters, no?

More bluntly: Is this a political discussion concerning US politics, or is it the Pro Hillary 2016 Echo Chamber thread?

[smjjames]

That would imply that the atheist does not have a valid view on religious matters, no?

More bluntly: Is this a political discussion concerning US politics, or is it the Pro Hillary 2016 Echo Chamber thread?

You're the one who started the Hillary discussion.

[Helgoland]

I'm saying that you keep going on about the issue even though the majority here has acknowledged your data and arguments while coming to a different judgement about it. In this you're like an atheist in the religion thread insofar as they too keep beating dead horses.

[Aklyon]

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?

[wierd]

SSJames-- Nope. It was the topic when I joined earlier tonight. Mainiac was already discussing it prior.

The progression went like this:

Mainiac makes light of the scandal hearing.
I weigh in that the scandal is true, and provide some limited (and dubious) sources.
The sources are questioned.
Stronger sources are cited.
Denialism rears its head
Denialism is pointed out
People complain about the rigorousness of the source citation/about the "beating of the dead horse" while acting "cute."

Helgoland-- You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to it being correct. If you feel my evaluation is incorrect, please state why. Otherwise, your argument amounts to "[we] Disagree, therefore wrong." As far as I can tell, I am correct. If I am incorrect, please state why- Being correct/maximally informed is my ultimate goal. If you have contradictory information or evidence, please provide it.

[RedKing]

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?

Because she's going to be the nominee for President. If she wasn't running, or had Jeb Bush's kind of poll numbers, no fucks would be given.

[nenjin]

I wonder what the dem's field would have looked like had she chosen not to run.

[wierd]

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?

Because she's going to be the nominee for President. If she wasn't running, or had Jeb Bush's kind of poll numbers, no fucks would be given.

Precisely.  To quote a proverb-- "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." Luke 16:10.

EG, If Hillary is willing to violate policy with something as trivial as this stupid little email server, she will be willing to violate more important policies as the president.  I would rather that not happen, and is why I consider the implications of the scandal to be important, even if the the information that was transmitted was little more than Michelle Obama's recipe for oatmeal cookies.

I would give precisely zero fucks if she was not running for president.