Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama may have a very difficult decision to make re: Hillary [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)40. And you're wrong again.
As head of the agency, Hillary was the authority for deciding whether any State document needed to be classified or not.
Only if the information enters the government through the State Department.
If the information enters the government through an intelligence agency, the DNI gets to decide what's classified. Clinton can not overrule the DNI's decision - he's her peer.
The information in the emails entered the government through an intelligence agency. Clinton gets no say as to whether or not it is classified. (Neither does the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of Energy)
But now, because of the practice of retroactive classification
Nope, it was already classified. It was not properly marked. The only retroactive is properly marking the classified information.
Clinton, the State Department spokesman, and her supporters have worked very, very hard to imply retroactive marking is retroactive classification. This is not true.
The head of the national archives, who must store all this classified info, says that in his opinion more than half should have never been classified.
He's not the DNI. So he can't overrule the original classification. Heck, he doesn't even have classification authority.
I've explained this to you many times in many threads. Please stop spreading disinformation.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Another Clinton, another monumental lapse in judgement. I just want them to go away!
onecaliberal
Feb 2016
#1
Even without an indictment or a recommendation of an indictment, this has been a blemish on Obama's
karynnj
Feb 2016
#48
What person are you speaking of who wants HRC in prison? It's not me and not the op, that I have
karynnj
Feb 2016
#65
You're being duped by the Rethugs. The only issue, as stated by Obama's spokesman,
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#8
Won't happen, but the beneficiary will certainly be Martin O'Malley, not BS.
Tarheel_Dem
Feb 2016
#12
I agree that this is not Watergate and closer to the impeachment, but I differ on how to describe it
karynnj
Feb 2016
#64
And you'll want to claim that Clinton's 'mishandling' was to subvert our way of life or something?
randome
Feb 2016
#43
The facts still remain the same, none of the emails were classified top secret when she received
B Calm
Feb 2016
#25
and she might have called the Benghazi terrorists and said attack now. Blah, Blah, Blah
B Calm
Feb 2016
#45
if she's to be indicted, I sure as hell hope it comes soon , preferably
KingCharlemagne
Feb 2016
#29
But she raises a lot of money for the party! All those moneyed interests buying US off.
RiverLover
Feb 2016
#31
I used to have to go to free republic or Fox Noise for such right-wing smears
joeybee12
Feb 2016
#58