Latest Breaking News

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)

1. Which means none of them were marked classified or they wouldn't have to be reviewed.

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 03:03 PM

Aug 2015

The government often decides years after the fact, in the abundance of caution (or paranoia) to classify information that hadn't been classified. That is what is going on here, in response to someone's Freedom of Information Act request.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

State Department flags 305 more Clinton e-mails for review [View all] jpak Aug 2015 OP

Which means none of them were marked classified or they wouldn't have to be reviewed. pnwmom Aug 2015 #1

^^^This!^^^ SoapBox Aug 2015 #2

You are right, and the media is a problem for all the candidates. The other day when the inane reporter still_one Aug 2015 #56

Not exactly. former9thward Aug 2015 #5

Actually, there is someone sitting there marking them classified. jeff47 Aug 2015 #6

No, I really really want Dems to stop assuming she's guilty based on news reports. pnwmom Aug 2015 #8

Guilty implies a law was broken. jeff47 Aug 2015 #11

No, this is nothing like Patraeus. pnwmom Aug 2015 #7

Um....no. jeff47 Aug 2015 #9

I got it Jeff! artislife Aug 2015 #59

So... Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2015 #3

I think you better re-read the article. That's not the point at all. Metric System Aug 2015 #4

No. Not a single one so far has been proven to be classified. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #10

So they're releasing redacted emails for entertainment value? jeff47 Aug 2015 #12

That doesn't mean that the information was classified at the time it was written pnwmom Aug 2015 #14

You keep trying to invent an after-the-fact classification system. jeff47 Aug 2015 #19

pnwmom has her talking points and she is sticking to them. candelista Aug 2015 #23

Maybe this will make you reconsider. pnwmom Aug 2015 #32

Because I also know people who work with classified information and that's what they tell me. pnwmom Aug 2015 #28

Because I need to link to all the media quoting intelligence agencies saying it was jeff47 Aug 2015 #30

This is from the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University. Read it and weep pnwmom Aug 2015 #31

Why would I weep? jeff47 Aug 2015 #36

I'm surprised that any progressive would support retroactive classification, pnwmom Aug 2015 #37

And yet again you conflate marking with classification. jeff47 Aug 2015 #38

Links please. But Grassley has already proven to be a liar, so don't bother with him. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #39

You were already given them repeatedly. You consistently ignore them. jeff47 Aug 2015 #40

Here's a link to Media Matters. pnwmom Aug 2015 #41

Where's the claim that retroactive classification is happening? jeff47 Aug 2015 #42

So Media Matters is wrong, and you, with your earlier references to discredited NYTimes articles, pnwmom Aug 2015 #43

No, me actually quoting the State department is right. jeff47 Aug 2015 #44

Where is this mysterious quote of yours by a named spokesperson? n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #45

It's in the link you provided. jeff47 Aug 2015 #49

!!!! pnwmom Aug 2015 #51

Reading. It's something worth trying. jeff47 Aug 2015 #54

You need to take a ride in the way-back machine pnwmom Aug 2015 #55

State is saying nothing is classified, retroactive or not. jeff47 Aug 2015 #57

So you are somehow using State's assertion that nothing was classified against Hillary? pnwmom Aug 2015 #58

No, I'm using State's assertion that nothing was classified against you. jeff47 Aug 2015 #63

I admire your loyalty (if that's the right word). candelista Aug 2015 #25

We all knew that the M$M will milk this sadoldgirl Aug 2015 #13

Classified or not classified - asiliveandbreathe Aug 2015 #15

What will be really interesting to find out madville Aug 2015 #16

It may not be that simple. Someone can read a classified document and then compose an email 24601 Aug 2015 #17

We're thinking along the same lines madville Aug 2015 #18

There's a better explanation: the miracles of xeroxing. candelista Aug 2015 #21

I agree this is the one really fishy thing. Vinca Aug 2015 #24

And what would have been the point of a photoshop job? Are you accusing Hillary of being a traitor? pnwmom Aug 2015 #34

No. Of course I'm not. Vinca Aug 2015 #61

I think it's a lot more likely they weren't going to do the Rethugs any favors pnwmom Aug 2015 #62

No. The reports I've seen said none of the information in the emails appeared to have been pnwmom Aug 2015 #33

The most above-top-secret doc was a satellite map! candelista Aug 2015 #46

I haven't read that. Could I see your link, please? n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #47

Here are some links. candelista Aug 2015 #50

Thank you. That second excerpt from McCullough's letter referred to CURRENT classification. pnwmom Aug 2015 #53

Unmarked "Classified" information: candelista Aug 2015 #64

Yes. And that does NOT rule out that, as reports say, it may be RETROACTIVELY classified. pnwmom Aug 2015 #66

The issue of who originated, on an unclassified system an email that contains classified information 24601 Aug 2015 #22

But the question of whether this is all speculation or not isn't trivial either. pnwmom Aug 2015 #48

The media has not yet reported that any of them were composed by Hillary. pnwmom Aug 2015 #29

reviewers better hurry, theres probably thousands of 'Freedom of Info.' requests for those emails. Sunlei Aug 2015 #20

Republicans and the "Media" will never be satisfied... Mike Nelson Aug 2015 #26

Is Hillary losing it? ORjohn Aug 2015 #27

Thank you for helpfully pointing this out, Bernie Sanders Supporter. 6000eliot Aug 2015 #52

Donation Honor ORjohn Aug 2015 #65

Another donation! Thank you! 6000eliot Aug 2015 #67

Appreciation ORjohn Aug 2015 #68

I'm not going to form a solid opinion until the investigation is complete Bradical79 Aug 2015 #35

The underlying problem MFrohike Aug 2015 #60

Someone does not like HC Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #69