New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Original Classification Authority

Craig said:
Why did you include Arkady and me? Neither of us are Clinton supporters.

However...if she had the authority to classify documents (although Sec of
State is not listed) and she, as the authority to classify...how is it you are so sure it's a "lie"?
Click to expand...

OK if you are not a Clinton supporter why did you just lie when you wrote
(although Sec of State is not listed) Secretary of State is listed.
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
OK if you are not a Clinton supporter why did you just lie when you wrote
(although Sec of State is not listed) Secretary of State is listed.
Click to expand...


OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.

Where do you see Sec of State?
 
Craig said:
OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.

Where do you see Sec of State?
Click to expand...
In the link where I wrote who has it
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority
Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority
Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled "Classified National Security Information" (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as "Top Secret" or "Secret":

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
In the link where I wrote who has it
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-original-classification-authority
Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority
Pursuant to the provisions of section 1.3 of the Executive Order issued today, entitled "Classified National Security Information" (Executive Order), I hereby designate the following officials to classify information originally as "Top Secret" or "Secret":

TOP SECRET

Executive Office of the President:

The Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff

The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor)

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The Director of National Drug Control Policy

The Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Chair or Co-Chairs, President's Intelligence Advisory Board

Departments and Agencies:

The Secretary of State
Click to expand...

I looked at the OCA...as you presented it. The Executive Order is a different list.

http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/oca-desktop-reference.pdf

I showed you the passage.

Here it is again:

OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.

The Sec of State...is not listed.

However...again...Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
 
@Craig you never said
Craig said:
I looked at the OCA...as you presented it. The Executive Order is a different list.

http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/oca-desktop-reference.pdf

I showed you the passage.

Here it is again:

OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.

The Sec of State...is not listed.

However...again...Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
Click to expand...
I posted TWO links the what is the OCA, AND THE WHO has authority given authorization by the President
SO WHY DID YOU LIE?
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
@Craig you never said

I posted TWO links the what is the OCA, AND THE WHO as authorized by the
SO WHY DID YOU LIE?
Click to expand...

Look you frickin ass...

There is no lie. The OCA, dated 2012...does not list the Secretary of State. It's that simple. The Executive order, dated 2009, does. Interesting, no? The later paper does not list the Secretary of State.

The passage, again:

OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.

As you can see, the Secretary of State...IS NOT LISTED.

Now...I noted that the Secretary of State IS LISTED in the executive order. See...this is called reality. Now...the executive order is dated: December 29, 2009. The OCA you posted...is dated, July, 2012. Again...the Secretary of State...IS NOT LISTED.

Here it is...again...since you seem to have such trouble.

OCAs, also called original classifiers, include the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and other officials within DoD who have been specifically delegated this authority in writing.


Now...all of this is just bs crap from you...because it isn't even the complaint I have with you.

First...I am not a Clinton supporter, nor is Arkady. Therefore, your post begins with...as you like to say...LIES.

The second is your flat out refusal to deal with the question posed.

Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
 
Page 4
2. All information necessary for the original classification decision in accordance with E.O 13526, including classification level of the information and declassification instructions to be applied.
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
Which comes first 2009 the date of the executive order or 2012 your date?
Click to expand...

The question is: Which come last?

But again...this is distraction.

The question to you is:


Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
Page 4
2. All information necessary for the original classification decision in accordance with E.O 13526, including classification level of the information and declassification instructions to be applied.
Click to expand...

Awesome...now...deal with the question:


Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
 
Craig said:
The question is: Which come last?

But again...this is distraction.

The question to you is:


Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
Click to expand...
Craig said:
Awesome...now...deal with the question:


Since she IS listed in the Executive Order...as one who could classify documents...how are you so certain of the classifications of these documents?
Click to expand...
Being SHE was the authorized OCA and the documents found in her EMAIL are classified emails you do the math
So you never answered is she guilty?
And to be someone whose not a Clinton supporter you sure are doing a lot opf defending.
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
Being SHE was the authorized OCA and the documents found in her EMAIL are classified emails you do the math
So you never answered is she guilty?
And to be someone whose not a Clinton supporter you sure are doing a lot opf defending.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if she's guilty or not. I haven't actually seen any evidence, but have heard a lot of whining about what is is supposed to be. Have you seen the evidence?

Again...as she had the authority to classify documents...it's really kind of her call, isn't it? She shared them with herself? Is that a crime?

Actually...what I'm doing is questioning you since you brought me into your discussion with a lie.
 
Craig said:
I have no idea if she's guilty or not. I haven't actually seen any evidence, but have heard a lot of whining about what is is supposed to be. Have you seen the evidence?

Again...as she had the authority to classify documents...it's really kind of her call, isn't it? She shared them with herself? Is that a crime?

Actually...what I'm doing is questioning you since you brought me into your discussion with a lie.
Click to expand...
"I have no idea if she's guilty or not. I haven't actually seen any evidence, but have heard a lot of whining about what is is supposed to be. Have you seen the evidence?"
If you're an honest person you do have an idea. The evidence is she sent documents knowing they were classified they are now classified and the FBI said they were classified when they weren't sent

"Again...as she had the authority to classify documents...it's really kind of her call, isn't it? She shared them with herself? Is that a crime?"
What the hell is this nonsense?


"Actually...what I'm doing is questioning you since you brought me into your discussion with a lie."
Where exactly did I lie?
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
"I have no idea if she's guilty or not. I haven't actually seen any evidence, but have heard a lot of whining about what is is supposed to be. Have you seen the evidence?"
If you're an honest person you do have an idea. The evidence is she sent documents knowing they were classified they are now classified and the FBI said they were classified when they weren't sent

"Again...as she had the authority to classify documents...it's really kind of her call, isn't it? She shared them with herself? Is that a crime?"
What the hell is this nonsense?


"Actually...what I'm doing is questioning you since you brought me into your discussion with a lie."
Where exactly did I lie?
Click to expand...

You said Arkady and I were Clinton supporters. That's exactly where you lied.

The "nonsense" is what you're spewing. She was the authority...as you are trying to make very clear...in the marking of classification of documents. Therefore, she knows how the documents were classified...and you do not.

Evidence is physical. One has to be able to view evidence. I have not seen any evidence, but I have read many reports like yours that have already convicted her. This is, of course, in direct opposition to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. We here in the US operate on the presumption of innocence. You, on the other hand, are operating on the presumption of guilt. You presume...as you've not seen the evidence.
 
Craig said:
You said Arkady and I were Clinton supporters. That's exactly where you lied.

The "nonsense" is what you're spewing. She was the authority...as you are trying to make very clear...in the marking of classification of documents. Therefore, she knows how the documents were classified...and you do not.

Evidence is physical. One has to be able to view evidence. I have not seen any evidence, but I have read many reports like yours that have already convicted her. This is, of course, in direct opposition to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. We here in the US operate on the presumption of innocence. You, on the other hand, are operating on the presumption of guilt. You presume...as you've not seen the evidence.
Click to expand...
To deny that you are not a Clinton supporter is a lie. You're defending her right now.

"The "nonsense" is what you're spewing. She was the authority...as you are trying to make very clear...in the marking of classification of documents. Therefore, she knows how the documents were classified...and you do not."

Why is the FBI saying she sent classified documents on her private server?

"Evidence is physical. One has to be able to view evidence. I have not seen any evidence, but I have read many reports like yours that have already convicted her. This is, of course, in direct opposition to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. We here in the US operate on the presumption of innocence. You, on the other hand, are operating on the presumption of guilt. You presume...as you've not seen the evidence."

Not all evidence is physical and I'm not presuming anything, how about going back to the top post. From the questions she dodged during her last hearing she is guilty. Where did I say they convicted her?
 
Constitutional Sheepdog said:
To deny that you are not a Clinton supporter is a lie. You're defending her right now.

"The "nonsense" is what you're spewing. She was the authority...as you are trying to make very clear...in the marking of classification of documents. Therefore, she knows how the documents were classified...and you do not."

Why is the FBI saying she sent classified documents on her private server?

"Evidence is physical. One has to be able to view evidence. I have not seen any evidence, but I have read many reports like yours that have already convicted her. This is, of course, in direct opposition to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. We here in the US operate on the presumption of innocence. You, on the other hand, are operating on the presumption of guilt. You presume...as you've not seen the evidence."
Click to expand...

You are most decidedly presuming her guilt.

Not all evidence is physical and I'm not presuming anything, how about going back to the top post. From the questions she dodged during her last hearing she is guilty. Where did I say they convicted her?

Sorry...I am a process person...and I am not a supporter of Clinton. Neither is Arkady.

Yes...evidence is physical. You're talking about e-mails. Have you seen these e-mails?
 
What she is doing is hiding behind what the meaning of is, is. Technically what she is saying is factually correct, because she instructed her staff to REMOVE the classification notices on them before sending them over the insecure channels. It's precisely the kind of argument that @Arkady uses here all the time - it's a lie on every level except the strictly technical legal meaning of her words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top