Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mike Pompeo 'Regularly' Used Personal Email While Director of CIA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    It depends on the nature of the emails, and whether or not he was authorized to use that account for non-classified communication.

    The thing that liberals love to forget is that the reason Hillary's email server is such a big deal is because, first of all, it was secret; secondly, it was unsecure and basically wide open to any foreign government who wanted to login and take a peek; and third, she used the server for sending and receiving classified information.

    So unless all or some of that also applies to Pompeo, there is no analogous circumstance here.
    And she destroyed its contents when an inquiry was launched.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Transmitting classified information via non-classified networks is illegal.
      I used to think that was true, but it isn't. It turns out that knowingly introducing classified information to an unclassified network is a security violation, not a crime.

      Source: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf

      The DoS definition of a security incident found in 12 FAM 550 reflects the framework set forth in E.O. 13526. Incidents are categorized as either violations or infractions based on the likelihood of unauthorized disclosure. An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to resu]t in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        Just a friendly reminder.....This is wrong.

        There were paragraphs marked with paragraph markings (c) (s) (ts) that identified those paragraphs as classified.
        My understanding is that the paragraphs with those markings were not classified at the time the emails were sent (though the information had earlier been temporarily classified). (And there was no (s) or (ts), just (c)s.)

        Also, the paragraph markings don't identify paragraphs as classified unless the document is classified, as identified at the top and bottom of each page.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

          I used to think that was true, but it isn't. It turns out that knowingly introducing classified information to an unclassified network is a security violation, not a crime.

          Source: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf

          The DoS definition of a security incident found in 12 FAM 550 reflects the framework set forth in E.O. 13526. Incidents are categorized as either violations or infractions based on the likelihood of unauthorized disclosure. An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to resu]t in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.

          © Copyright Original Source

          You do know you're replying to guy who does this for a living, right?
          Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-22-2020, 02:52 PM.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            And aren't certain communications considered classified by default even without explicit markings?
            Yes.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              You do know you're replying to guy who does this for a living, right?
              Cool. Then if I'm wrong, he can correct me.

              More likely, he'll know enough about the subject to understand that I'm right.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                I used to think that was true, but it isn't. It turns out that knowingly introducing classified information to an unclassified network is a security violation, not a crime.

                Source: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17%20State%20Dept.%20to%20CEG%20-%20Classified%20Emails.pdf

                The DoS definition of a security incident found in 12 FAM 550 reflects the framework set forth in E.O. 13526. Incidents are categorized as either violations or infractions based on the likelihood of unauthorized disclosure. An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to resu]t in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Sen Grassley is correct in that there is a violation. However, they are still illegal and carry punishments with their commission. 18 U.S. Code 1924 says " Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  My understanding is that the paragraphs with those markings were not classified at the time the emails were sent (though the information had earlier been temporarily classified). (And there was no (s) or (ts), just (c)s.)

                  Also, the paragraph markings don't identify paragraphs as classified unless the document is classified, as identified at the top and bottom of each page.
                  Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.

                  The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.

                  Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).

                  There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                    Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.

                    The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.

                    Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).

                    There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.
                    And that's provided the document or record creator complies with the applicable agency marking rules, which Sec. Clinton did not do when creating these emails on her private email system. Lack of proper marking is also a violation. At the very, VERY least, she should have had her clearance revoked when all of this came up.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Sen Grassley is correct in that there is a violation.
                      It's actually a State Department document. Sen. Grassley just had a conveniently located copy.

                      However, they are still illegal and carry punishments with their commission. 18 U.S. Code 1924 says " Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
                      The State Department obviously doesn't think that 18 U.S. Code 1924 applies to "the introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control." From the same document I linked before:

                      ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.


                      Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        At the very, VERY least, she should have had her clearance revoked when all of this came up.
                        There are people currently in jail who did far less than Hillary.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          It's actually a State Department document. Sen. Grassley just had a conveniently located copy.
                          Either way, yes it is correct. Security incidents, both class and unclass, are called violations, which is the worse of the 2 categories:

                          An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.


                          The State Department obviously doesn't think that 18 U.S. Code 1924 applies to "the introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control." From the same document I linked before:

                          ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.
                          State Department policies do not overrule US law. That the APD determined "There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." should have been immaterial to 18 U.S. Code 1924. The Code does not address volume or intent. Comey just whiffed on applying it.


                          Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.
                          Around the time of Sec. Clinton's server issue:

                          In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.

                          In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Either way, yes it is correct. Security incidents, both class and unclass, are called violations, which is the worse of the 2 categories:

                            An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.




                            State Department policies do not overrule US law. That the APD determined "There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." should have been immaterial to 18 U.S. Code 1924. The Code does not address volume or intent. Comey just whiffed on applying it.
                            So you disagree with the State Department as to whether these people should be charged. That's fine, but I'm looking for a reason to believe the State Department is wrong.

                            Around the time of Sec. Clinton's server issue:

                            In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.

                            In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.
                            Neither of those cases is equivalent to someone putting some classified information into an unclassified email and sending it to someone who is authorized to receive that classified information.

                            (I'm not arguing that this is an acceptable practice, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the sort of thing anyone has ever been criminally charged for.)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              There are people currently in jail who did far less than Hillary.
                              Name one.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                                Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.

                                The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.

                                Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).
                                Yes, IF the document is properly marked classified, then you can assume that the (C) means that the particular paragraph is Confidential. Otherwise, for all you know it was copied from a document where the paragraphs were labeled (A), (B), and (C).

                                There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.
                                That was the classification when the original document was created. By the time it made it into an email, it was no longer classified. (i.e., it is not the case that once something is classified, it is always classified)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:50 AM
                                8 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                                54 responses
                                403 views
                                5 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Sparko, 01-16-2021, 09:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                91 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                                18 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-15-2021, 02:30 PM
                                6 responses
                                52 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X