Clinton’s Insecurity, More

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is rather well-known for exchanging emails with classified information in them, and for relaying others with classified information in them, via her unclassified, connected to the Internet, personal email server which she maintained in your New York digs.  She’s also well-known for her claim that nothing she handled on that server—which was all of her State Department work as well as legitimately personal emails—was “marked classified.”

I’ll skip over the fact that the emails containing classified information were classified by that content, regardless of any markings or lack of markings, and that it’s a felony to mishandle classified materials in that way or any other, regardless of intent.

Now we know, however, that she has been lying about those markings, too.

[A] 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking”—and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.

Documents are marked classified in accordance with the classification level of the information contained.  There are two types of markings that every document marked classified carries, and these markings identify the fact of classification—again, contrary to what the Left keeps bleating, the documents already are classified simply because they carry classified information; markings do not create the classification, they merely acknowledge it.

One type of classification marking is the marking at the top and bottom of every page of the document and on the document’s cover sheet, if any.  This marking indicates the highest level of classified information contained anywhere in the document (there can be parts of the document with lesser classification, even with unclassified information).

The other type of classification marking is portion marking.  Here, every paragraph is marked with the highest level of classification of the material contained within that paragraph, including paragraphs that are wholly unclassified being explicitly marked unclassified.  Portion marking is more detailed than that.  Here’s an excerpt from a January 2014 federal government training manual, Marking Classified National Security Information, which is part of the training Clinton had signed off as having taken when she acceded to her Secretary of State position:

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.

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.

Such markings were present in, at the least, that 2012 email.

The “C”—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.

Elections have consequences.

Update: Grammar, grammar, grammar.  Not always a safe space.

YGTBSM

In the wake of last week’s fatal Blue Angels jet crash in Tennessee, a San Francisco lawmaker wants to ban the famed F/A-18 fighter jets from being able to fly over his city—and, in his words, “strafe neighborhoods.”

City Supervisor John Avalos, who long has waged a public battle decrying the squadron’s aerial acrobatics over San Francisco—at one point calling them loud “killing machines”—has introduced a nonbinding resolution to require the jets to only fly over the bay.

Only in California.  Apparently neither jet noise, the sound of freedom, nor entertaining aerial shows is a safe space for these politicians.  Jeez.

Investigate After All?

After acknowledging last week that several minutes of video from a 2013 briefing on the Iran nuclear deal had been intentionally cut, the State Department announced Wednesday that Secretary of State John Kerry has ordered an investigation into who ordered the edit.

This comes on the heels of ABC News having caught the White House altering the transcript of President Barack Obama’s (D) press agent, Josh Earnest’s, briefing about another Iran-related matter.

Given State’s (and this administration’s generally) mendacity regarding this sort of thing from the jump, why should we take any investigation State might now undertake seriously?  Why should we believe its outcome to be anything other than a once-over-lightly square filler, or any “miscreant” who might be identified as anyone other than a scapegoat?

Hillary Clinton’s Insecurity

With her emails, that is.  Only more so.  It seems she exchanged, and was in the middle of exchanges, that were real-time discussions of drone strike permissions in Pakistan.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side”—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe.

Unfortunately, the only thing secret about these discussions was the arrangement between State and the CIA.  They knew their discussions were in the clear because they used weasel-words (instead of encryption).

The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said.

But they talked around the subjects.

State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials.  It happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast, and the US diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didn’t have ready access to a more-secure system, either because it was night or they were traveling.

Because secure communications systems cease operations when the sun goes down.  Sure.  Traveling?  Folks important enough to be in on discussions of this nature have mobile satellite phones on them all the time.

These guys carefully ignore COMSEC considerations when they make idiotic excuses like this.  Which makes the excuses dishonest rather than idiotic.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said.

And one of these guys wants to be President of the United States.  What secrets will she give up from that office, with this knowledge of security?  This knowledge of right and wrong?  What damage will she do to our nation with this level of understanding of the difference at this time that it makes?

Elections have consequences.

Sexism of the Left

Jessica Tarlov, a political strategist at Douglas E. Schoen, LLC, had a couple of thoughts on the significance of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s primary victories Tuesday and their aggregation into the likely Democratic Party’s nomination.

[W]hat really matters here is that the United States has now joined just a few nations across the globe in offering the opportunity to pick a woman to be president.

I couldn’t be prouder.

And I also couldn’t be more astounded at how little the magnitude of this feat has seemed to matter.

While gaining the party’s nomination is something of a big deal, the gender of the nominee is singularly unimportant.  Beyond that, it matters so little because it’s already been done.  Tarlov carefully ignored Geraldine Ferraro who, if elected, would have been right next to the office.  Tarlov carefully ignored the election of an American who is black, which was a far larger accomplishment, even though race is as singularly unimportant as gender.

Tarlov closed her piece with this:

It’s our turn, ladies.

Because a woman needn’t actually be qualified; it’s just her turn.  It’s hard to see how Democrats’ sexism could get any more blatant than that.