Two American Heroes Plain Ol' --- gun running warmongers and mercenaries. .....One day, I genuinely pray that you wake up from the fog that you've been in the last 18 to 24 months, and the lightbulb comes back on for ya..... --- keep your phony prayers and stop being a warmongering US interventionist who condones profiting off war and sacrificing American wealth and security for other nations.
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 4:34:39 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Two American Heroes Plain Ol'.....One day, I genuinely pray that you wake > up from the fog that you've been in the last 18 to 24 months, and the > lightbulb comes back on for ya..... > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:45 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
