Dum Dee Dum Dum.......

[ken a.k.a OMK]

An interesting fact about classifying a document is that I can take, say, 10 unclassified facts and when I put them all into one document that document might become classified.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2016 8:17:06 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 9, 2016 7:51:18 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

Back in the dark ages classified documents had a red border for secret. You had to carry them in a red striped folder. Maybe they should use colored text in emails.  

The example I saw in the news had a C at the beginning of the classified text. If I were reading many emails I know I'd miss that C. 

Ken, Are you telling us that if You were reviewing a highly classified document, that supposedly was not marked,

You would have not know it was a highly classified document??

If you didn't see “Privileged and Confidential/ Attorney-Client Communication” on a document, email, spreadsheet, etc., would you still believe it was a privileged and confidential document?

There is a reason P&C is put on documents.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Yes that would get my attention, but I don't recall it being used when I was in research long ago. Just getting the red folder out of the classified file cabinet and remembering to not let it out of my hands. Once I didn't get back to our secretary before she went to lunch. She has the key and sign out log. So I had to take it to the cafeteria and sit on it while eating. 

[OldCoyote]

Ahhhh, You would have not recognized it as classified or confidential  if it not for that!!

Even I know that something as simple as employee records are not not to be shared with just anyone,  without being marked!!

So we have super secret documents being sent from a unsecured server,

She didn't recognize them as classified because they were not marked,    Sureeeeeee,

Want to buy want some high desert land to protect yourself from global warming , with the rising sea covering half of the U.S.A....................

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I still like my idea of red text for secret.   

[billisonboard]

Jul 9, 2016 9:06:26 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

...

So we have super secret documents being sent from a unsecured server,

...

We have no idea what classification the information involved carried (although we can be sure it wasn't classified as "super secret" ).

I remember when I was stationed full time at a Naval Reserve Center. We were having a all hands meeting to hear about about procedures if the call came to mobilize in the evening when just one of us was on duty. The Captain indicated that the message that told the procedure was classified "Secret" and that some didn't have a clearance which would allow them to read it. He paused and then said, "If you don't a clearance have someone read it to you." I have yet to figure out how we won the Cold War with this cavalier attitude towards security.

[OldCoyote]

Bills, this reminds me of years ago ( before several licenses) We were working under someone else's license.

The Co. would sent someone to go through the Inspection, The inspector showed up a little to early!!

The equipment still need the electrical connected,  With the inspector standing there, the young man said he didn't know how to connect the wires,

I said I know how, The inspector said I could not touch the equipment!!   After a little time, I ask if I could tell him how to do it?

After some thought, the inspector said that it was OK for me to tell him how to do it!!

[ken a.k.a OMK]

 Good one.

[tallguy]

As I recall reading months ago, most if not all was not marked "Classified" originally.  It only became classified after the fact.  Additionally, much of it was not classified internally, but only became classified in response to the FOIA request.  If the documents had not been requested outside of the department they would still not be marked classified.  Hard to get too worked up about that.  

In Washington state we have a guy who is almost continually creating right-wing or anti-tax initiatives to try to put on the ballot.  His initiatives sound good and have a populist appeal, but generally have bad consequences should they ever pass, and some have been ruled unconstitutional.  He is under at least a couple of ethical investigations for misusing and diverting monies from fund-raising efforts to his own use and for violating public-disclosure laws.  

"I want to continue to advocate issues and I want to make a lot of money doing it," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said he tried to hide his backdoor way of getting paid so he could keep the moral high ground.

"This entire charade was set up so I could maintain a moral superiority over our opposition, so I could say our opponents make money from politics and I don't."

link

Just a worthless human being.  It is so bad that not only have I renamed him (Tim Eyman-idiot) but will automatically vote against anything that has his name associated with it.  I feel roughly the same way now about Republicans in Congress.  The very little that they actually do which could in any way be called "good" is far overshadowed by the complete and utter bull**** that so dominates their attention and efforts.  They have LONG since lost any "benefit of the doubt" on pretty much any subject.  These continued witch hunts are no different.  Even if there is some truth to some of it, it is in no way commensurate with the idiocy and wastefulness of the people pushing the investigations, particularly when even some on that side have admitted they are primarily political in nature.  Screw 'em all.   

[billisonboard]

Jul 9, 2016 10:03:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

..It is so bad that not only have I renamed him (Tim Eyman-idiot) but will automatically vote against anything that has his name associated with it. ...

I start a step before voting. I cut off the petition pusher, "Will you sign ...." with, "Is it an Eyman initiative?" and walk away if it is.

[tallguy]

Jul 9, 2016 10:21:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 9, 2016 10:03:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

..It is so bad that not only have I renamed him (Tim Eyman-idiot) but will automatically vote against anything that has his name associated with it. ...

I start a step before voting. I cut off the petition pusher, "Will you sign ...." with, "Is it an Eyman initiative?" and walk away if it is.

Although if I get the response, "Yes, it is" I may let the signature-gatherer in on my opinion of the man....  

[billisonboard]

Jul 9, 2016 10:35:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jul 9, 2016 10:21:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I start a step before voting. I cut off the petition pusher, "Will you sign ...." with, "Is it an Eyman initiative?" and walk away if it is.

Although if I get the response, "Yes, it is" I may let the signature-gatherer in on my opinion of the man....  

but only if I'm not with my wife. I embarrass her with my rants.

[dondub]

Eyman-idiot! Love that and will borrow it with your permission.

[Value Buy]

Hillary is in a state of denial.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-rejects-fbi-claim-that-she-was-%E2%80%98careless%E2%80%99-with-emails/ar-BBu6Plw?li=BBnb7Kz

Democrats came out enmasse after Comey released his findings, and yet she says Comey is wrong.

[Value Buy]

Jul 9, 2016 7:41:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 9, 2016 6:43:49 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

??
I did not read the link?
Bullshit.

Ummm, no, I didn't blow my argument. I clarified misinformation.

And do you really want to now quote from the link which you could have done when you allegedly opened it the first time? Anyone can now open the link, quote a portion, and then say they read it several days ago.

And your math skills suck.

Using "allegedly" opened it the first time" is a strong denial of what I said. I would assume my response would show I read the link. Quite frankly I wondered why it was posted, since it showed an abysmal lack in judgement on the Clinton's. You know, like with Hillary's State Department e-mails.

To satisfy you in the future, I will waste my time posting from your links since you seem unable to do it and leave us with a few select tidbits. You know, the ones that show they took a lot of things besides the "w" key from the keyboards.
I did not just pull the $140,000 out of the air.
So I added incorrectly off the top of my head.
The Clinton's returned a hell of a lot of "stuff" did they not?
I will admit to poor math skills and spelling errors.
Happy now?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2016 6:30:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 7, 2016 22:06:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the word STOLE is inaccurate "according to your sources".

I did not use the word stole in my response and pleas note it was not my source.
Quite frankly, I see little difference between accidentally removing things and stealing when we hit the $140,000 level.

1) it never hit the $140k level
2) those aren't the only two choices.

[Value Buy]

Jul 9, 2016 11:30:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 9, 2016 6:30:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I did not use the word stole in my response and pleas note it was not my source.
Quite frankly, I see little difference between accidentally removing things and stealing when we hit the $140,000 level.

1) it never hit the $140k level
2) those aren't the only two choices.

1) It was over $130,000 according to the article.
2) please explain your response. I am not getting that. It still sounds like George from Seinfeld feigning innocence over things he knew were wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2016 11:36:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 9, 2016 11:30:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

1) it never hit the $140k level
2) those aren't the only two choices.

1) It was over $130,000 according to the article.
2) please explain your response. I am not getting that. It still sounds like George from Seinfeld feigning innocence over things he knew were wrong.

the GAO report put the damages at $15,000.  they interviewed 150 people for the report:

articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12

i have been PRESUMING that the Clinton's would claim that the property was "personal" (that it was not in the WH when they arrived).  it is not "stealing" if you think the items are yours.  it is "mistakenly removing" (or, if you think the property actually WAS theirs, simply REMOVING).

here is a second report that explains my thinking a bit better than i just did:

The Clintons came under strong criticism after disclosing that they were taking with them $190,000 in gifts received over the last eight years. GOP lawmakers and others criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular for accepting many presents just before she joined the Senate and became covered by strict ethics rules that prohibit accepting gifts worth more than $50.

Bowing to such criticism, the Clintons decided Feb. 2 to pay for $86,000 worth of gifts given them in 2000. This week, they agreed to return another set of gifts, including the four items questioned by Walters, and $28,500 more in furnishings identified by the Washington Post this week as having been legally designated as White House property by the National Park Service.

so, the way i read this is: the Clinton's decided that it would be smarter to simply pay for and/or return 2/3 of the questionable stuff.  i have no idea about the remaining $70k, but i would bet that it would not be unusual for other presidents. 

it might be a good time to mention that the same Politifact article cited here mentioned this:


The Reagans had issues too

As an aside, we’ll note that the problem of gifts to the first family was not a new one.

For instance, the IRS investigated President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1989. At issue were gowns worth as much as $25,000 and diamond jewelry that had been loaned to Nancy Reagan. A year before, the White House Ethics Office found that the president could accept a $2.5 million home in Bel Air, Calif., purchased on his behalf by undisclosed friends. However, the Reagans ultimately repaid the donors.

so, RR accepted a $2.5MILLION gift.  i can't imagine that previous presidents did NOT do worse than the Clintons.

in the world of "wrong stuff", i am thinking indicting BC for war crimes ranks a bit higher than "stealing" china. 

edit: i just noticed (red) that over 40% of the items in question were given to the Clintons PRIOR to them coming to DC.  so, basically what you are saying is that the Clintons should have "gifted" that stuff to the WH, even though it was "gifted" to them prior to BC getting elected?  that seems really weird to me.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 9, 2016 11:16:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 9, 2016 7:41:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Ummm, no, I didn't blow my argument. I clarified misinformation.

And do you really want to now quote from the link which you could have done when you allegedly opened it the first time? Anyone can now open the link, quote a portion, and then say they read it several days ago.

And your math skills suck.

Using "allegedly" opened it the first time" is a strong denial of what I said. I would assume my response would show I read the link. Quite frankly I wondered why it was posted, since it showed an abysmal lack in judgement on the Clinton's. You know, like with Hillary's State Department e-mails.

To satisfy you in the future, I will waste my time posting from your links since you seem unable to do it and leave us with a few select tidbits. You know, the ones that show they took a lot of things besides the "w" key from the keyboards.
I did not just pull the $140,000 out of the air.
So I added incorrectly off the top of my head.
The Clinton's returned a hell of a lot of "stuff" did they not?
I will admit to poor math skills and spelling errors.
Happy now?

So to recap the final few paragraphs of the linked article in question:

Our ruling

A viral graphic said that Hillary Clinton was forced to return about $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork and china that she had stolen from the White House. The statement contains several inaccuracies.

The Clintons returned about $48,000 in furniture, and they paid the government about $86,000 for other items. Any way you count it, the $200,000 figure is too high.

According to top ethics lawyers, it’s at least debatable -- and at worst hyperbolic -- to say the Clintons "stole" the items. A congressional investigation found poor tracking of ownership and final disposition of gifts, which makes it hard to speak definitively of wrongdoing. In fact, two items the Clintons returned were ultimately sent back to them. Finally, it’s worth making clear that the "force" they responded to was political pressure, not legal jeopardy.

Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic. We rate the claim Mostly False.

I get it, VB, you disagree with the story. I expected no less.

[tallguy]

Jul 9, 2016 10:47:17 GMT -5 dondub said:

Eyman-idiot! Love that and will borrow it with your permission.

Absolutely!  ANYTHING to get the word out about that f****** twit!    

[OldCoyote]

Jul 9, 2016 11:55:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 9, 2016 11:36:32 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

1) It was over $130,000 according to the article.
2) please explain your response. I am not getting that. It still sounds like George from Seinfeld feigning innocence over things he knew were wrong.

the GAO report put the damages at $15,000.  they interviewed 150 people for the report:

articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12

i have been PRESUMING that the Clinton's would claim that the property was "personal" (that it was not in the WH when they arrived).  it is not "stealing" if you think the items are yours.  it is "mistakenly removing" (or, if you think the property actually WAS theirs, simply REMOVING).

here is a second report that explains my thinking a bit better than i just did:

The Clintons came under strong criticism after disclosing that they were taking with them $190,000 in gifts received over the last eight years. GOP lawmakers and others criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular for accepting many presents just before she joined the Senate and became covered by strict ethics rules that prohibit accepting gifts worth more than $50.

Bowing to such criticism, the Clintons decided Feb. 2 to pay for $86,000 worth of gifts given them in 2000. This week, they agreed to return another set of gifts, including the four items questioned by Walters, and $28,500 more in furnishings identified by the Washington Post this week as having been legally designated as White House property by the National Park Service.

so, the way i read this is: the Clinton's decided that it would be smarter to simply pay for and/or return 2/3 of the questionable stuff.  i have no idea about the remaining $70k, but i would bet that it would not be unusual for other presidents. 

it might be a good time to mention that the same Politifact article cited here mentioned this:


The Reagans had issues too

As an aside, we’ll note that the problem of gifts to the first family was not a new one.

For instance, the IRS investigated President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1989. At issue were gowns worth as much as $25,000 and diamond jewelry that had been loaned to Nancy Reagan. A year before, the White House Ethics Office found that the president could accept a $2.5 million home in Bel Air, Calif., purchased on his behalf by undisclosed friends. However, the Reagans ultimately repaid the donors.

so, RR accepted a $2.5MILLION gift.  i can't imagine that previous presidents did NOT do worse than the Clintons.

in the world of "wrong stuff", i am thinking indicting BC for war crimes ranks a bit higher than "stealing" china. 

edit: i just noticed (red) that over 40% of the items in question were given to the Clintons PRIOR to them coming to DC.  so, basically what you are saying is that the Clintons should have "gifted" that stuff to the WH, even though it was "gifted" to them prior to BC getting elected?  that seems really weird to me.

But,But But, Hillary needed the money,  by her own words, they were dead broke when they left the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[djAdvocate]

Jul 9, 2016 23:09:51 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Jul 9, 2016 11:55:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the GAO report put the damages at $15,000.  they interviewed 150 people for the report:

articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12

i have been PRESUMING that the Clinton's would claim that the property was "personal" (that it was not in the WH when they arrived).  it is not "stealing" if you think the items are yours.  it is "mistakenly removing" (or, if you think the property actually WAS theirs, simply REMOVING).

here is a second report that explains my thinking a bit better than i just did:

The Clintons came under strong criticism after disclosing that they were taking with them $190,000 in gifts received over the last eight years. GOP lawmakers and others criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular for accepting many presents just before she joined the Senate and became covered by strict ethics rules that prohibit accepting gifts worth more than $50.

Bowing to such criticism, the Clintons decided Feb. 2 to pay for $86,000 worth of gifts given them in 2000. This week, they agreed to return another set of gifts, including the four items questioned by Walters, and $28,500 more in furnishings identified by the Washington Post this week as having been legally designated as White House property by the National Park Service.

so, the way i read this is: the Clinton's decided that it would be smarter to simply pay for and/or return 2/3 of the questionable stuff.  i have no idea about the remaining $70k, but i would bet that it would not be unusual for other presidents. 

it might be a good time to mention that the same Politifact article cited here mentioned this:


The Reagans had issues too

As an aside, we’ll note that the problem of gifts to the first family was not a new one.

For instance, the IRS investigated President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1989. At issue were gowns worth as much as $25,000 and diamond jewelry that had been loaned to Nancy Reagan. A year before, the White House Ethics Office found that the president could accept a $2.5 million home in Bel Air, Calif., purchased on his behalf by undisclosed friends. However, the Reagans ultimately repaid the donors.

so, RR accepted a $2.5MILLION gift.  i can't imagine that previous presidents did NOT do worse than the Clintons.

in the world of "wrong stuff", i am thinking indicting BC for war crimes ranks a bit higher than "stealing" china. 

edit: i just noticed (red) that over 40% of the items in question were given to the Clintons PRIOR to them coming to DC.  so, basically what you are saying is that the Clintons should have "gifted" that stuff to the WH, even though it was "gifted" to them prior to BC getting elected?  that seems really weird to me.

But,But But, Hillary needed the money,  by her own words, they were dead broke when they left the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why should a president leave behind $86k in personal property that they BROUGHT to the WH, oc? 

[OldCoyote]

The discussion was about what they took that did not belong to them!

[sesfw]

But,But But, Hillary needed the money, by her own words, they were dead broke when they left the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Y, S, R ......... Someday may I be so broke .............

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2016 18:13:30 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

The discussion was about what they took that did not belong to them!

i wish i could be as sure as you are.  from where i sit, it has to do almost entirely with stuff they took that belonged to them (gifts).

the problem is that gifts are not allowed.  that is where this all stems from (again, from how i read it).

[Tennesseer]

Jul 10, 2016 21:05:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 10, 2016 18:13:30 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

The discussion was about what they took that did not belong to them!

i wish i could be as sure as you are.  from where i sit, it has to do almost entirely with stuff they took that belonged to them (gifts).

the problem is that gifts are not allowed.  that is where this all stems from (again, from how i read it).

And the confusion as to what was an intended gift for the Clintons and what was an intended gift for the White House.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 10, 2016 21:08:06 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 10, 2016 21:05:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i wish i could be as sure as you are.  from where i sit, it has to do almost entirely with stuff they took that belonged to them (gifts).

the problem is that gifts are not allowed.  that is where this all stems from (again, from how i read it).

And the confusion as to what was an intended gift for the Clintons and what was an intended gift for the White House.

that too.  when this issue was resolved, it appears to me that it was resolved in favor of the state.  in other words, where there were uncertainties, the Clintons either returned the items or paid for them.

i am not sure how much "there" is there.  it could be $70k.  it could be nothing.

[Ombud]

Presidents are permitted to receive gifts they just have to declare them. And they did including

gifts included $7,375 for tables and chairs from Denise Rich, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and the ex-wife of a fugitive financier, Marc Rich, who was pardoned by Clinton on the president’s last day in office.

[Further down]
In general, presidents are “free to accept unsolicited personal gifts from the American public,” according to a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service. Federal law requires that all gifts valued at more than $350 be disclosed in financial disclosure reports each year, but the president is free to keep them after moving out of the White House.

www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/

bad timing yet again. Bad timing seems to follow them

[OldCoyote]

I  will post it again, For someone so smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just out of curiosity, and to inform those that might have forgotten, or didn't know,

Hillary is an attorney,,,,,,,,, Maybe you have forgotten that, in fact at one time one publication stated that

She was one of the top 100 attorneys in the nation, Remember any of that?? Which leads to this question,

If She is sooooooo, smart and educated in law, practiced with great law firms,,,,,,

How comes She can not tell the difference between classified email and a love letter from Bill??

Orrrrrr, ,are you trying to convince us, She is that stupid! So just which is it??

It just does follow her around!!

Again I am amazed at the amount of effort that is put into the "spin"  Like Massive!!

[Ombud]

We're in a strange time. After all didn't the POTUS have to fight to keep his BlackBerry in 2009? Wasn't there a huge debate regarding that security? Weren't his emails sent from that device encrypted so that they could not be forwarded?

Emails / texting / twitter is relatively new

IMHO none of that excuses lying or misremembering (is that even a word?) about the volume or sensitivity regarding her emails from a private server.