Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons account.

The €œC€� - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.

"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."

Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.

A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.

A January 2014 federal government training manual, called "Marking Classified National Security Information," provides a step-by-step guide for reviewing classified information, and allocating classified codes or "portion markings."

"This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information...Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification."

It adds, "A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like."

"Portion markings consist of the letters €œ(U)€� for Unclassified, €œ(C)€� for Confidential, €œ(S)€� for Secret, and €œ(TS)€� for Top Secret."

Congressman Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has read the 22 Top Secret emails too damaging to national security to release, and routinely reviews classified documents.

While he could not speak directly to the April 2012 email, he said, "I've seen information like that often. Often certain parts of a particular message will be unclassified and other parts will be classified and they are almost always marked paragraph by paragraph."

Pompeo added, €œIf, in fact, it is truly marked confidential that would.. and she read it, that made it to her, that would conflict with what she had previously said."

On Wednesday, Clinton told Bret Baier on Special Report, €œthe fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that. €œ

Meantime, Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who spoke to Fox News as part of a book tour to promote his new biolgraphy, "A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1849,"said that the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer -- who claimed to breach Clinton's personal server - may have worked for foreign intelligence.

"Marcel Lazar is a Romanian. He worked from a Russian server. He may well be part of a Russian information operation," Blumenthal explained.

While he said there's no way Lazar compromised Clinton's emails, the hacker told Fox News in a telephone interview before reaching a plea deal with the Justice Department that it was "easy for me, for everybody€� to access the Clinton server.

Given more than 2,100 classified emails were on the server, Fox asked Blumenthal if he had a security clearance to handle such material. "I was her friend, and I had no security clearance, nor did I seek it, nor did anyone ever send me anything that was classified. So I had no access to, nor did I send or receive any classified material."

Blumenthal said he expects FBI Director James Comey to publicly confirm that Clinton and her aides did not deliberately compromise the nation's secrets.

"This is the question that is at the center of the Department of Justice FBI investigation: Whether anybody had intent, criminal intent to put classified information outside of the system. I believe that was not the case, and I think then, that we will see a statement coming from the FBI stating that, saying that... I assume that the FBI has an interest in - James Comey, the FBI Director has an interest in acting promptly to resolve this remaining question. But I feel confident about the resolution, " Blumenthal said.

Asked about the April 2012 email, and how the campaign could reconcile the classified marking with Clintons public statements, spokesman Brian Fallon did not directly address the issue. "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."

On 6/11/2016 4:40 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons account.

The €œC€� - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.

"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."

Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.

A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.

A January 2014 federal government training manual, called "Marking Classified National Security Information," provides a step-by-step guide for reviewing classified information, and allocating classified codes or "portion markings."

"This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information...Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification."

It adds, "A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like."

"Portion markings consist of the letters €œ(U)€� for Unclassified, €œ(C)€� for Confidential, €œ(S)€� for Secret, and €œ(TS)€� for Top Secret."

Congressman Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has read the 22 Top Secret emails too damaging to national security to release, and routinely reviews classified documents.

While he could not speak directly to the April 2012 email, he said, "I've seen information like that often. Often certain parts of a particular message will be unclassified and other parts will be classified and they are almost always marked paragraph by paragraph."

Pompeo added, €œIf, in fact, it is truly marked confidential that would.. and she read it, that made it to her, that would conflict with what she had previously said."

On Wednesday, Clinton told Bret Baier on Special Report, €œthe fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that. €œ

Meantime, Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who spoke to Fox News as part of a book tour to promote his new biolgraphy, "A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1849,"said that the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer -- who claimed to breach Clinton's personal server - may have worked for foreign intelligence.

"Marcel Lazar is a Romanian. He worked from a Russian server. He may well be part of a Russian information operation," Blumenthal explained.

While he said there's no way Lazar compromised Clinton's emails, the hacker told Fox News in a telephone interview before reaching a plea deal with the Justice Department that it was "easy for me, for everybody€� to access the Clinton server.

Given more than 2,100 classified emails were on the server, Fox asked Blumenthal if he had a security clearance to handle such material. "I was her friend, and I had no security clearance, nor did I seek it, nor did anyone ever send me anything that was classified. So I had no access to, nor did I send or receive any classified material."

Blumenthal said he expects FBI Director James Comey to publicly confirm that Clinton and her aides did not deliberately compromise the nation's secrets.

"This is the question that is at the center of the Department of Justice FBI investigation: Whether anybody had intent, criminal intent to put classified information outside of the system. I believe that was not the case, and I think then, that we will see a statement coming from the FBI stating that, saying that... I assume that the FBI has an interest in - James Comey, the FBI Director has an interest in acting promptly to resolve this remaining question. But I feel confident about the resolution, " Blumenthal said.

Asked about the April 2012 email, and how the campaign could reconcile the classified marking with Clintons public statements, spokesman Brian Fallon did not directly address the issue. "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."


I don't believe that anything will ever happen about all this.

burfordTjustice formulated on Saturday :
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for
government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was
marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that
claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� - and
that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons account.

The person sending classified emails to an insecure server should be
arrested and thrown in jail. I believe it is against the rules to do
stuff like that.

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:01:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice formulated on Saturday :
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for
government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was
marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that
claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� - and
that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons account.

The person sending classified emails to an insecure server should be
arrested and thrown in jail. I believe it is against the rules to do
stuff like that.

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

In the case of Clinton, clearly both, because she never reported receiving
anything classified on her email system that was not approved for classified
information. Plus she set up the whole thing to begin with. To me one of the
best pieces of evidence against Hillary is that with 4 years and 2200
classified emails, including dozens that were top secret, we have yet to
hear of even one case where she said "OMG, why is this classified info here
in this email? How did it get there?" and then referred it to the state
dept security people to follow up on, fix, etc. With emails that included
satellite intelligence, drone strike choices, etc, no way even the biggest
dunce in the govt wouldn't know that was classified info. We also know that her
server was shut down several times because it was "under attack". Same
questions there. Why was this not referred to the state dept security
people and the FBI for investigation?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 09:01:22 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

I could message you, but then I'd have to killfile you.

--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

trader_4 brought next idea :
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:01:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice formulated on Saturday :
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for
government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received
was marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that
claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� -
and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons
account.

The person sending classified emails to an insecure server should be
arrested and thrown in jail. I believe it is against the rules to do
stuff like that.

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

In the case of Clinton, clearly both, because she never reported receiving
anything classified on her email system that was not approved for classified
information. Plus she set up the whole thing to begin with. To me one of the
best pieces of evidence against Hillary is that with 4 years and 2200
classified emails, including dozens that were top secret, we have yet to
hear of even one case where she said "OMG, why is this classified info here
in this email? How did it get there?" and then referred it to the state
dept security people to follow up on, fix, etc. With emails that included
satellite intelligence, drone strike choices, etc, no way even the biggest
dunce in the govt wouldn't know that was classified info. We also know that
her server was shut down several times because it was "under attack". Same
questions there. Why was this not referred to the state dept security
people and the FBI for investigation?

I mostly agree. There is a problem though that it is not necessary to
have read an email for it to be on a server. I'm sure it can be assumed
that she read some that she knew were not supposed to be sent to that
server and she just didn't care. I'm also ready to believe that she
sent some information from that server which should have been
classified. IMO they are all a bunch of crooks anyway, but she is the
best presidentially qualified crook left in the running.

on 6/11/2016, Mike Duffy supposed :
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 09:01:22 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

I could message you, but then I'd have to killfile you.

Sheeesh, now I'll have to check my gmail to see if you sent me any
sensitive information. Can't have the FBI and DISCO checking up on me
again after all these years.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 11:10:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 brought next idea :
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:01:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice formulated on Saturday :
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for
government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received
was marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that
claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion marking€� -
and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clintons
account.

The person sending classified emails to an insecure server should be
arrested and thrown in jail. I believe it is against the rules to do
stuff like that.

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

In the case of Clinton, clearly both, because she never reported receiving
anything classified on her email system that was not approved for classified
information. Plus she set up the whole thing to begin with. To me one of the
best pieces of evidence against Hillary is that with 4 years and 2200
classified emails, including dozens that were top secret, we have yet to
hear of even one case where she said "OMG, why is this classified info here
in this email? How did it get there?" and then referred it to the state
dept security people to follow up on, fix, etc. With emails that included
satellite intelligence, drone strike choices, etc, no way even the biggest
dunce in the govt wouldn't know that was classified info. We also know that
her server was shut down several times because it was "under attack". Same
questions there. Why was this not referred to the state dept security
people and the FBI for investigation?

I mostly agree. There is a problem though that it is not necessary to
have read an email for it to be on a server. I'm sure it can be assumed
that she read some that she knew were not supposed to be sent to that
server and she just didn't care. I'm also ready to believe that she
sent some information from that server which should have been
classified. IMO they are all a bunch of crooks anyway, but she is the
best presidentially qualified crook left in the running.

Presumably with so many, there has to plenty of emails that had classified
info in them that she *replied* to. If I was the FBI, I'd find some of
those with obvious classified info and focus on those when questioning her.
Also there would be almost certainly be emails where she created them and
they should have been born classified, eg if she put the contents of a
conversation, what she learned from someone, into an email. There would
have to be some of those, where that content should have been treated as
classified too.

trader_4 wrote :
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 11:10:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 brought next idea :
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 9:01:26 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice formulated on Saturday :
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for
government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received
was marked classified at the time.

But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge
that claim because it carries a classified code known as a €œportion
marking€� - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly
to Clintons account.

The person sending classified emails to an insecure server should be
arrested and thrown in jail. I believe it is against the rules to do
stuff like that.

If I send *you* a classified document, is it your fault or mine?

In the case of Clinton, clearly both, because she never reported receiving
anything classified on her email system that was not approved for
classified information. Plus she set up the whole thing to begin with. To
me one of the best pieces of evidence against Hillary is that with 4 years
and 2200 classified emails, including dozens that were top secret, we have
yet to hear of even one case where she said "OMG, why is this classified
info here in this email? How did it get there?" and then referred it to
the state dept security people to follow up on, fix, etc. With emails that
included satellite intelligence, drone strike choices, etc, no way even the
biggest dunce in the govt wouldn't know that was classified info. We also
know that her server was shut down several times because it was "under
attack". Same questions there. Why was this not referred to the state
dept security people and the FBI for investigation?

I mostly agree. There is a problem though that it is not necessary to
have read an email for it to be on a server. I'm sure it can be assumed
that she read some that she knew were not supposed to be sent to that
server and she just didn't care. I'm also ready to believe that she
sent some information from that server which should have been
classified. IMO they are all a bunch of crooks anyway, but she is the
best presidentially qualified crook left in the running.

Presumably with so many, there has to plenty of emails that had classified
info in them that she *replied* to. If I was the FBI, I'd find some of
those with obvious classified info and focus on those when questioning her.

Yes, indeed! That, however, is not what is mentioned in the post bTj
made.

Also there would be almost certainly be emails where she created them and
they should have been born classified, eg if she put the contents of a
conversation, what she learned from someone, into an email. There would
have to be some of those, where that content should have been treated as
classified too.

Yes, so the outgoing ones are more important to be looked at because
they would also presumedly have the incoming ones as quoted material
*and* any added classified material she herself included.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:35:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the ballot box is much help either. The
Clintons are, imo, sort of like a crime family. They aren't concerned
about the every day rank and file and seem to believe that the laws of
this country don't apply to them.

Notice who's MIA here? Micky. How many posts has he made complaining
about Trump? But Hillary, well she and her many scandals that are far
worse than anything Trump has said, they don't count because she's special.

Many times I have noted his inability to answer any difficult (for liberals) questions. Obviously he believes what some local
union official told him to believe and he's too afraid to admit the truth.

Asking a liberal a difficult question is as good as applying a filter to their posts -- you'll never hear from them in that
thread again.

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:35:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the ballot box is much help
either. The
Clintons are, imo, sort of like a crime family. They
aren't
concerned about the every day rank and file and seem to
believe
that the laws of this country don't apply to them.

Notice who's MIA here? Micky. How many posts has he
made
complaining about Trump? But Hillary, well she and her
many
scandals that are far worse than anything Trump has said,
they don't
count because she's special.

Many times I have noted his inability to answer any
difficult (for
liberals) questions. Obviously he believes what some local
union
official told him to believe and he's too afraid to admit
the truth.

Asking a liberal a difficult question is as good as
applying a filter
to their posts -- you'll never hear from them in that
thread again.

That's the liberal way(DUH)

On 06/11/2016 05:17 PM, trader_4 wrote:
For what it's worth, I didn't like the idea of Bush running either.
It's inherently wrong for the same family to hold onto power. Why is
it that in a country of 320 mil, the only people qualified to be president
has to include the same families? What's next, Chelsea?

Unfortunately Socks died after a long and honorable life. That's the
only member of that jumped up white trash family I'd vote for.

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/2016 05:17 PM, trader_4 wrote:
For what it's worth, I didn't like the idea of Bush running either.
It's inherently wrong for the same family to hold onto power. Why is
it that in a country of 320 mil, the only people qualified to be
president
has to include the same families? What's next, Chelsea?

Unfortunately Socks died after a long and honorable life. That's the
only member of that jumped up white trash family I'd vote for.

At least Socks was a team player. Unlike Mitt who's busy apparently trying
to boost Clinton's chances by publicly and tearfully undermining Trump.
Maybe he's dreaming of a "draft Romney" movement. Perhaps he and Bernie can
run for President of the Alternate Universe of the United States.

The spectacle of a loser like Mitt trying to distance himself from someone
who could conceivably win the R nomination is like watching a train wreck in
slow motions. I *know* Socks would not have approved of such behavior.

--
Bobby G.

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 7:25:34 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 06/11/2016 05:17 PM, trader_4 wrote:
For what it's worth, I didn't like the idea of Bush running either.
It's inherently wrong for the same family to hold onto power. Why is
it that in a country of 320 mil, the only people qualified to be
president
has to include the same families? What's next, Chelsea?

Unfortunately Socks died after a long and honorable life. That's the
only member of that jumped up white trash family I'd vote for.

At least Socks was a team player. Unlike Mitt who's busy apparently trying
to boost Clinton's chances by publicly and tearfully undermining Trump.
Maybe he's dreaming of a "draft Romney" movement. Perhaps he and Bernie can
run for President of the Alternate Universe of the United States.

The spectacle of a loser like Mitt trying to distance himself from someone
who could conceivably win the R nomination is like watching a train wreck in
slow motions. I *know* Socks would not have approved of such behavior.

--
Bobby G.

See, the difference is that Romney and a lot of the GOP have principles, objectivity. That's why you see us speaking out against Romney.
On the Democrat side all you have are partisan hacks that whine about
Trump, buy can't ever see a single thing wrong with Hillary.

On 06/12/2016 05:23 AM, Robert Green wrote:
The spectacle of a loser like Mitt trying to distance himself from someone
who could conceivably win the R nomination is like watching a train wreck in
slow motions. I*know* Socks would not have approved of such behavior.

It says a lot about Romney's megalomania that he thinks anyone cares
what a loser, and it's not a figure of speech in his case, thinks. Maybe
the crowd he invited to his little barbecue should form their own party
because his vision for the country was a no sale.

On 06/12/2016 07:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
See, the difference is that Romney and a lot of the GOP have principles, objectivity. That's why you see us speaking out against Romney.

I'm glad the scales have dropped from your eyes and you see Romney for
the hack he is. Or was that one of those Freudian slip thingies?