Wouldn’t you like to know? :rolleyes:
CarnalK asks a very valid question.
Yeah, I would. I am not asking for your name and exact position. Whether you worked at an embassy, with a military contractor or at CIA headquarters would give me some perspective as to why you seem so hardline about it.
And you’d be wrong.
As I said before, it is known that the FBI is investigating Hillary’s emails, Hillary’s email servers, Hillary’s security protocol and procedures, as well as the actions of anyone involved with all of the above.
Of course, that would include Hillary, wouldn’t it?
As others said - they could have been talking points for a classified meeting. Or maybe it was classified info that she was trying to use as background to formulate her talking points. Or perhaps it was non-classified material that just happened to be in the classified system.
Question: Does Clinton have the authority to make that determination for herself? Can she just order a subordinate to copy something out of the classified system into her nonsecured E-mail, and to strip the classification headers from it, based solely on her own judgement that the material shouldn’t be classified? Or was she supposed to seek permission or notify someone of what she was doing? I really have no idea.
Wow, AI has come a long way. Who knew that an E-mail server could just take it upon itself to collect classified information? Man, that server could be in big trouble if it’s held responsible for all this. Good thing no actual humans were involved.
It really depends on the specifics. Unclass information can exist (and does in droves, naturally) on classified networks. Imagine a powerpoint presentation with one classified bullet point. Per the rules, each bullet point needs to be marked with the appropriate classification, so all of the unclass bullets would be marked (U). However, that one slide would be marked classified (as a whole) even though it contained classified and unclassified bullets, and the powerpoint presentation would also be marked classified.
Now say you want a copy of one of those unclassified slides to send over unclassified email. You know it’s not classified because it’s clearly marked as such, but you can’t just copy it off the classified network because data can’t go from class -> unclass. You’d need someone to either find that slide on an unclass network, or recreate it. To some, that might be seen as “stripping the headers and sending unclass,” but it’s perfectly on the up and up.
Or it could be a huge security violation. It all depends on the specifics, specifics we’re unlikely to know as long as the offending information remains classified. I’m also not familiar with the specific system they were using, but if it was simply wrapping all traffic in classification markings, that would be a pain. If you sent a cookie recipe over this system and it automatically wraps it in markings, that doesn’t mean the cookie recipe is actually classified.
…and knowledge of any personal info on me will never be forthcoming from me, personally. 
Why would I offer ammunition to start in with the Ad Hominem on me, when all the wildly inappropriate, incredibly misinformed speculation bandied about here does plenty enough to derail this thread as it stands?
You’re the one who threw out the “someone on an internet forum” ad hominem attack. If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
iiandyii said he was in the navy and works as a private contractor with them now. Why should I assume he is less informed than some guy who refuses such a simple question?
You can assume anything you like - matters not to me. I’m just waiting to start my first BBQ thread titled: “Hillary Clinton: Stick a Fork in 'er, She’s Done.” 
Not a private contractor – I’m a Navy civilian worker (and former active duty).
Not according to the FBI, who stated that Hillary Clinton was not under criminal investigation (rather that there is a general, non-criminal investigation into her email server). I’ll assume that the FBI isn’t lying.
How could it be characterized as a “criminal” investigation, until they get towards the end, figure out exactly what happened and decide who (if anyone) is going to be charged with what (if anything)? 
Unlike alot of posters in this thread, FBI spokespeople try not to shoot their mouth off unless they know what they are talking about. OTOH, if it’s political spin, all bets are off!
Speaking of shooting off uninformed opinions, that’s not how federal criminal investigations work. The FBI has internal guidelines about characterizing each individual that is part of an investigation, including the categories of witness, subject, and target. At the point at which they believe an individual has committed a federal crime–usually well before the end of an investigation and often months or years before charging–then the individual becomes the target of the investigation, or at the very least a subject.
Thus, the fact that Hillary Clinton is not a target is actually quite meaningful. It does not mean she cannot become the target. But it does mean that, more likely than not, they haven’t yet turned up any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
I’m sure he’s an expert in FBI investigation too.
Yo man, be careful. Even though he’s yet to post a single cite for his assertions, you can only learn bolding and italicizing like that at Langley.
Which they may or may not externalize at will, depending on their elicitation requirements and other factors.
Not a “fact” at all.
I’m sure you’re not sure about much of anything. :rolleyes:
:dubious: :rolleyes:
I know there may be information in the classified system that is marked classified but really contains no classified material. Maybe it was misclassified, or maybe the classification headers were just added automatically when it was added to the system. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you and I and Hillary would agree that the material really shouldn’t be classified.
My question is, does that mean you or I or Hillary can unilaterally decide, on our own judgment, that this was misclassified and simply re-type it into an unclassified E-mail, stripped of its classifications? And that a valid defence if questioned would be, “Hey, the material obviously shouldn’t have been classified.”
Or, do you have to go through a procedure? Does there have to be a formal request or other process for getting that material out of the system, and does it need to be approved by someone responsible for it?
As an analogy, I can be looking at some code at work and spot an obvious bug. It’s simple to fix, and I could just fix it and leave it at that. But that is simply not done. You have to log the bug, it has to be added to the project plan, and after you fix it you need to get the fix signed off by QA and anyone else who needs to know about it. This is not only good quality practice, but good controllership - the company needs to track found bugs so they can measure quality system changes and the like. The bug also needs to be documented so we know which versions it exists in and which ones have it fixed. Engineers who just go ahead and ‘fix’ things that obviously need fixing can get fired. Or if you’re a GM engineer fixing a switch by substituting a different part and not telling anyone about it you can cause massive recalls and cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars.
Does a similar process exist in government? Do they need to have a paper trail when material is removed from the classification system? Do they need records of how much material was misclassified in the first place, and how much of it has been removed? Do they demand oversight of this process in case there’s a reason for the classification the end user might not realize or understand?