Disavowed by barack and hillary. Almost like mission impossible On Jul 19, 2016 3:45 PM, "plainolamerican" <[email protected]> wrote:
> two of the survivors from Benghazi > --- > gun running warmongers who got lucky. > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:15:59 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >> After watching two of the survivors from Benghazi last night at the >> Convention, there's no way anyone could vote for Hil Clinton unless >> they're a traitor..... >> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:54 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails >>> surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto >>> Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced >>> because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had >>> used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican >>> National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 >>> million emails were deleted, which was considered by some to be a violation >>> of the Presidential Records Act. >>> >>> The shocking truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state >>> has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked >>> in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an >>> enormous scandal! >>> >>> Oh, wait. No, it’s not. >>> >>> Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week <http://www.newsweek.com/trial> >>> >>> This news involving Powell and Rice is meaningless except that it sets >>> up a rational conversation (finally) about the Hillary Clinton bogus >>> “email-gate” imbroglio. Perhaps the partisans on each side will now be more >>> willing to listen to the facts. From the beginning, the “scandal” about >>> Clinton using a personal email account when she was secretary of >>> state—including the finding that a few documents on it were retroactively >>> deemed classified—has been a big nothing-burger perpetuated for partisan >>> purposes, with reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or >>> acting out of ignorance. Conservative commentators have raged, presidential >>> candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some >>> politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling >>> classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to >>> cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless. >>> >>> But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on >>> them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack >>> respected Republicans first.) Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all >>> modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one >>> personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified >>> *at >>> the time of their creation* . For classified information, both of >>> them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive >>> compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence >>> circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified >>> information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes. >>> >>> These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is >>> constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense >>> communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure >>> that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot >>> be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping. A group called the >>> technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or >>> activity to check that all communications are protected from outside >>> surveillance and cannot be intercepted. >>> >>> SPONSORED BYNEXTADVISOR >>> <http://eb2.3lift.com/pass?imp_id=1468954401_514779965_8359&redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextadvisor.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F04%2F02%2Fpay-interest-2017-credit-cards%2F%3Fkw%3Dtlift_dsk_paynoint17-1-3%2Bwww.newsweek.com> >>> >>> <http://eb2.3lift.com/pass?imp_id=1468954401_514779965_8359&redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextadvisor.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F04%2F02%2Fpay-interest-2017-credit-cards%2F%3Fkw%3Dtlift_dsk_paynoint17-1-3%2Bwww.newsweek.com>CARDS >>> WITH 0% APR UNTIL 2017 >>> <http://eb2.3lift.com/pass?imp_id=1468954401_514779965_8359&redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextadvisor.com%2Fblog%2F2015%2F04%2F02%2Fpay-interest-2017-credit-cards%2F%3Fkw%3Dtlift_dsk_paynoint17-1-3%2Bwww.newsweek.com> >>> >>> Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called >>> TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven >>> days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security >>> clearance. There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously >>> present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the >>> SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the >>> inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power >>> lines or signal lines. >>> >>> I could keep going for thousands and thousands of words explaining the >>> security measures used for SCIFs. And all of this— *all *of this—is >>> designed to protect the confidentiality of emails and communications >>> determined to be classified at the time of transmission. >>> >>> In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are >>> personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the >>> relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If >>> they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have >>> to follow some rules set up in the *Federal Register* . There are no >>> guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, >>> no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule >>> against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check >>> out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter >>> XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of >>> personal email accounts by any State Department official. >>> >>> To give an idea of *how *insecure these communications could be, >>> Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when >>> he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the >>> information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign >>> dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with >>> ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.) >>> >>> So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified >>> information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently >>> determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret >>> material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information >>> apply to communications designated as secret *at that time* . If >>> documents that aren’t deemed classified, and aren’t handled through a SCIF >>> when they are created or initially transmitted, are later, in retrospect, >>> deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled >>> in the past is irrelevant. >>> >>> There is also an enormous difference between a secretary of state >>> sending an email to someone inside the department and that same email being >>> released to the general public. Put simply, as anyone who has filed a >>> request for a document under the FOIA knows, not every email or other item >>> can be handed out, even if it was not originally deemed to be so >>> confidential that it required SCIF procedures. The determination of what >>> State Department documents can be publicly released is handled by the FOIA >>> staff, both in the State Department and, when deemed appropriate, by >>> officials with the same duties in the intelligence community. In fact, the >>> entire issue right now regarding the emails of every secretary of state >>> concerns which ones can be released under the FOIA. People outraged by the >>> (false) belief that Powell and Rice’s aides broke the law are creating a >>> fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go >>> through a SCIF just in case the FOIA staff eventually determines, sometime >>> in the future and applying different standards, that the information in the >>> email should not be released to the public under a FOIA request out of >>> classification concerns. Given the cumbersome procedures of using a SCIF, >>> that would mean the secretary of state would have to spend a lot of time >>> sitting inside a locked box and sending emails not yet designated as >>> containing secret information, solely to avoid the partisan gnashing of >>> teeth that could potentially occur if someday the FOIA staff were to >>> retroactively decide they should not be released to the public out of >>> classification concerns. >>> >>> Which brings us to the next most important issue here: classification. >>> Members of Congress should—and probably do—know this, but the public >>> apparently doesn’t. Just because the FOIA staff decides a document is top >>> secret doesn’t mean it contains information of any import. (It’s widely >>> known that, even in the creation of a document, the government >>> over-classifies information, meaning communications are deemed secret that >>> don’t need to be, but that’s another issue.) The FOIA staff is supposed to >>> be extra-cautious when releasing a document to the public. As I mentioned >>> in a previous column, that is why anyone wanting to obtain a document >>> should file multiple FOIA requests for the information—one staffer might >>> deem something secret that another staffer releases without concern. In >>> fact, if someone were to submit a FOIA request for every email in the State >>> Department that has been sent over a system without the extreme protections >>> reserved for information determined to be top secret on creation, there is >>> no doubt that the FOIA staff would call many of the emails classified and >>> refuse the request. >>> >>> Plus, both Powell and Rice had the authority, granted by President >>> George W. Bush through executive order, to classify and declassify any >>> document created by the State Department. So if either of them had received >>> an email from another agency containing information that had not gone >>> through a SCIF, he or she could have independently declared that it did not >>> need to be secret and sent it along to anyone they chose. >>> >>> In other words, just because the FOIA staff years later labeled emails >>> sent from Powell and Rice’s aides as classified does *not *mean those >>> records contain some crown jewels of critical intelligence. In fact, >>> usually they are quite benign. I have seen emails called “top secret” that >>> contained nothing more than a forwarded news article that had been >>> published. (The Associated Press has reported that one of Clinton’s >>> “secret” emails contains an AP article.) >>> >>> Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and Rice’s staff >>> have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with >>> special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL >>> server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the >>> State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email >>> system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information >>> improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the >>> email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff were compromised. >>> >>> Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never >>> backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with >>> some of the preservation rules detailed in the *Federal Register*. Of >>> course, that doesn’t mean they can’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is >>> now reviewing his emails. >>> >>> The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the >>> email accounts used by Powell and Rice’s staff into a scandal. They may >>> release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they >>> may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to >>> the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these >>> honorable Republicans. But it would all be lies. Powell and Rice did >>> nothing wrong. This could be considered a scandal only by ignorant or lying >>> partisans. >>> >>> So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will >>> infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into >>> believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her >>> predecessors. >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:34:02 PM UTC-5, Perplexed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/19/hillary-admits-email-scandal-hurt-her/ >>>> >>>> OMG there is simply no end to this woman's lies! >>>> >>>> She actually claims at the end she did nothing more than previous >>>> Secretaries of State had done and blamed it on her subordinates. She also >>>> claims that Comey clarified remarks in his testimony to Congress that she >>>> seems to think resulted in him saying she wasn't "extremely careless". >>>> >>>> How can democrats vote for such a deluded, lying POS??? >>>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
