\old salt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:39 pmIt doesn't have to be 100% of the calls. It may be at the discretion of the classifying authority to apply it to information likely to be leaked.No, you have never been able to show that this applied to 100% of the calls.
Because you don't know, nor do I.
Was the concern with "leaking" just the ones embarrassing in some way or implicating Trump criminally?
Or was it 100%?
Eventually we'll know, and I'd bet that eventually we will know the details of those that were protected that way, if selectively.
.. ...again I quote Nasty Natasha.
That highly classified system is being newly scrutinized in light of a whistleblower complaint alleging that national security officials used the system—meant for storing information classified at the highest level — to conceal politically embarrassing conversations, including a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 in which President Donald Trump urged Zelensky to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.
If hiding politically embarrassing material, rather than protecting national security secrets, was the motive, experts and former officials said, it would be an abuse of the codeword system. While not necessarily an illegal act, it does run counter to an executive order signed by President Barack Obama in 2009 that says information can’t be classified to “conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error” or “prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.”
Right, so the intent of the "classifying authority" matters.
If national security concern, not a problem.
If to cover up politically embarrassing information = problem, violation of EO; If covering up a criminal act, then it is a crime.