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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: State Department flags 305 more Clinton e-mails for review [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)57. State is saying nothing is classified, retroactive or not.
Not "at the time". Right now, State thinks nothing in the emails is classified. Today. This instant in time. No retroactive bullshit that you made up. State says "it's all unclassified".
Again, read your own damn sources instead of scanning for keywords. State says exactly nothing about retroactive classification.
The DNI says it was classified at the time. They say exactly nothing about retroactive classification.
Claims about retroactive classification were invented out of whole cloth in an attempt to excuse Clinton's failure to report the security breaches. No statements from State, nor DNI support this claim. Including statements in your own source.
Which you apparently still have not read.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Which means none of them were marked classified or they wouldn't have to be reviewed.
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#1
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
No, I really really want Dems to stop assuming she's guilty based on news reports.
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#8
That doesn't mean that the information was classified at the time it was written
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#14
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
Links please. But Grassley has already proven to be a liar, so don't bother with him. n/t
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#39
So Media Matters is wrong, and you, with your earlier references to discredited NYTimes articles,
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#43
So you are somehow using State's assertion that nothing was classified against Hillary?
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#58
It may not be that simple. Someone can read a classified document and then compose an email
24601
Aug 2015
#17
And what would have been the point of a photoshop job? Are you accusing Hillary of being a traitor?
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#34
No. The reports I've seen said none of the information in the emails appeared to have been
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#33
Thank you. That second excerpt from McCullough's letter referred to CURRENT classification.
pnwmom
Aug 2015
#53
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