Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

It 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.
.. ...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.

[a fan]

Deposition testimony of Yovanovitch:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/ ... 877b33.pdf

Seems I'm not the only one who takes the rules surrounding classification procedures in their entirety seriously.....


Moreover, E0-13525 states that, quote, "in no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as
classified, or fail to be declassified, " unquote, for the
purpose of concealing any violations of law or preventing
embarrassment of any person or entity.

EO, not law. Who writes & enforces EO's ? -- The Exec branch.

Fantastic news. Let's see what the actual law says:

6 CFR § 7.21 - Classification of information, limitations.

f) Information shall not be classified in order to:

(1) Conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error;

(2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) Restrain competition;

(4) Prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.


You're hanging you hat on your opinion that the workers were simply following protocol, and didn't know that what they were classifying was first hand intel that Trump (or others) committed a crime. Do I have this assumption correct?

Because if that's the peg you're choosing, you have a problem. Namely, that we know of at least one government official who thought Trump committed a crime in at least one instance on the phone with the Ukrainian President.

Do you remember who that is? And has that person been deposed by a smart lawyer yet?

This is not even close to a settled matter. And there's a whole mess of people who don't enjoy Trump's protections.

[old salt]

Deposition testimony of Yovanovitch:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/ ... 877b33.pdf

Seems I'm not the only one who takes the rules surrounding classification procedures in their entirety seriously.....


Moreover, E0-13525 states that, quote, "in no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as
classified, or fail to be declassified, " unquote, for the
purpose of concealing any violations of law or preventing
embarrassment of any person or entity.

EO, not law. Who writes & enforces EO's ? -- The Exec branch.

Fantastic news. Let's see what the actual law says:

6 CFR § 7.21 - Classification of information, limitations.

f) Information shall not be classified in order to:

(1) Conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error;

(2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) Restrain competition;

(4) Prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.


You're hanging you hat on your opinion that the workers were simply following protocol, and didn't know that what they were classifying was first hand intel that Trump (or others) committed a crime. Do I have this assumption correct?

Because if that's the peg you're choosing, you have a problem. Namely, that we know of at least one government official who thought Trump committed a crime in at least one instance on the phone with the Ukrainian President.

Do you remember who that is? And has that person been deposed by a smart lawyer yet?

This is not even close to a settled matter. And there's a whole mess of people who don't enjoy Trump's protections.

Ph cons between POTUS & foreign leaders are classified material. Full Stop. It's categorical.

[MDlaxfan76]

Deposition testimony of Yovanovitch:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/ ... 877b33.pdf

Seems I'm not the only one who takes the rules surrounding classification procedures in their entirety seriously.....


Moreover, E0-13525 states that, quote, "in no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as
classified, or fail to be declassified, " unquote, for the
purpose of concealing any violations of law or preventing
embarrassment of any person or entity.

EO, not law. Who writes & enforces EO's ? -- The Exec branch.

Fantastic news. Let's see what the actual law says:

6 CFR § 7.21 - Classification of information, limitations.

f) Information shall not be classified in order to:

(1) Conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error;

(2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) Restrain competition;

(4) Prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.


You're hanging you hat on your opinion that the workers were simply following protocol, and didn't know that what they were classifying was first hand intel that Trump (or others) committed a crime. Do I have this assumption correct?

Because if that's the peg you're choosing, you have a problem. Namely, that we know of at least one government official who thought Trump committed a crime in at least one instance on the phone with the Ukrainian President.

Do you remember who that is? And has that person been deposed by a smart lawyer yet?

This is not even close to a settled matter. And there's a whole mess of people who don't enjoy Trump's protections.

Ph cons between POTUS & foreign leaders are classified material. Full Stop. It's categorical.

Good lord. Stop it.
Multiple levels of classification. Moving from Confidential to TS/SCI is a very different thing...and you know it.

Moving information to the NICE server was an incremental act.
What was the intent? SOP? Or was the intent to cover up a criminal act?
It matters.

[old salt]

Deposition testimony of Yovanovitch:

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/ ... 877b33.pdf

Seems I'm not the only one who takes the rules surrounding classification procedures in their entirety seriously.....


Moreover, E0-13525 states that, quote, "in no case shall
information be classified, continue to be maintained as
classified, or fail to be declassified, " unquote, for the
purpose of concealing any violations of law or preventing
embarrassment of any person or entity.

EO, not law. Who writes & enforces EO's ? -- The Exec branch.

Fantastic news. Let's see what the actual law says:

6 CFR § 7.21 - Classification of information, limitations.

f) Information shall not be classified in order to:

(1) Conceal inefficiency, violations of law, or administrative error;

(2) Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) Restrain competition;

(4) Prevent or delay release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.


You're hanging you hat on your opinion that the workers were simply following protocol, and didn't know that what they were classifying was first hand intel that Trump (or others) committed a crime. Do I have this assumption correct?

Because if that's the peg you're choosing, you have a problem. Namely, that we know of at least one government official who thought Trump committed a crime in at least one instance on the phone with the Ukrainian President.

Do you remember who that is? And has that person been deposed by a smart lawyer yet?

This is not even close to a settled matter. And there's a whole mess of people who don't enjoy Trump's protections.

Ph cons between POTUS & foreign leaders are classified material. Full Stop. It's categorical.

Good lord. Stop it.
Multiple levels of classification. Moving from Confidential to TS/SCI is a very different thing...and you know it.

Moving information to the NICE server was an incremental act.
What was the intent? SOP? Or was the intent to cover up a criminal act?
It matters.

To prevent leaking.
Classification level is at the discretion of the classifying authority, as necessary to prevent unlawful disclosure.
That's the raison d'etre for having a classification process.
Read NastyN's entire article & see the genesis of this procedure in the Trump WH.

The changes came months after entire transcripts of Trump’s calls with the leaders of Australia and Mexico were leaked to The Washington Post, setting off a furious internal search for the source of the unauthorized disclosures and widening the mistrust between the president and his staff.

Before the upgrade, the White House began restricting the distribution of the transcripts of the president’s calls with foreign leaders to a narrower group of officials. Before that, the transcripts had been put on a shared drive that all NSC staffers had access to, which made it easier for leaks to happen, according to a former Trump White House official.

Officials in the NSC’s intelligence directorate had to take the matter up to the principals level because “it was a pretty fundamental change to the system.” John Kelly and H.R. McMaster, the chief of staff and national security adviser at the time, respectively, signed off on the change.

A former White House official said the upgrade came amid "a hard look at who had a 'need to know', which is fundamental to managing classified info and highly sensitive documents, conversations, emails, etc." This former official characterized the changes as the White House merely adopting the standard classification practices used at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies.

[a fan]

Ph cons between POTUS & foreign leaders are classified material. Full Stop. It's categorical.

That CFR says otherwise. We might get to find out which is correct....which would be nice.

And there's a material difference between classification, and hiding possible crimes from those in other branches of government with the proper clearances.

[Trinity]

Enjoy the House transcripts. Republicans had their turns at the plate. They should have sent Salty. Meanwhile 4 WH no-shows skip their chances to clear Trump and Rudy.

[old salt]

Ph cons between POTUS & foreign leaders are classified material. Full Stop. It's categorical.

That CFR says otherwise. We might get to find out which is correct....which would be nice.

And there's a material difference between classification, and hiding possible crimes from those in other branches of government with the proper clearances.

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

For MDLF76 : the crossed out classification levels on the released call transmittal were (C) for the title line & (S/NF) for each para.
...don't ask Secy HRC what that means. She claims she thought they were subparagraph lettering.
The document was stamped : SECRET/ORCON/NOFORN, then crossed out & stamped : UNCLASSIFIED
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/ ... df-1510770

[old salt]

Enjoy the House transcripts. Republicans had their turns at the plate. They should have sent Salty. Meanwhile 4 WH no-shows skip their chances to clear Trump and Rudy.

Complete transcripts of ALL witnesses (unclassified content) should be released as soon as verified for accuracy,
....before selectively leaked by Schiff.

[foreverlax]

Enjoy the House transcripts. Republicans had their turns at the plate. They should have sent Salty. Meanwhile 4 WH no-shows skip their chances to clear Trump and Rudy.

Complete transcripts of ALL witnesses (unclassified content) should be released as soon as verified for accuracy,
....before selectively leaked by Schiff.

Isn't it his final call?

[seacoaster]

Enjoy the House transcripts. Republicans had their turns at the plate. They should have sent Salty. Meanwhile 4 WH no-shows skip their chances to clear Trump and Rudy.

NJBill has it right: you don’t ask questions that you know will only add to a negative narrative.

[seacoaster]

Enjoy the House transcripts. Republicans had their turns at the plate. They should have sent Salty. Meanwhile 4 WH no-shows skip their chances to clear Trump and Rudy.

NJBill has it right: you don’t ask questions that you know will only add to a negative narrative.

[youthathletics]

"That which does not leave your lips, can not come back and bite you in the as$."

[seacoaster]

"That which does not leave your lips, can not come back and bite you in the as$."

So true. A good word to the wise for sure.

[Trinity]

Schiff is so unfair, telling the story in order.

[a fan]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

[foreverlax]

Let's hope the impeachers aren't allowed access to any more conversations with foreign leaders. Going forward, that will leave US foreign policy in tatters. What foreign leader will ever again feel secure speaking with a POTUS?

Any honest one. And what do you think is happening on the other side of the conversation? Do you think we're the only country that monitors these calls?

If I'm a leader of a foreign country? You can bet that I'd be recording every word if Trump is on the line.

Dam right.

Md is asking the right question, next question, can it be brought in to evidence?

[njbill]

....before selectively leaked by Schiff.

You know the difference between leaked and officially released, right?

[njbill]

"That which does not leave your lips, can not come back and bite you in the as$."

So true. A good word to the wise for sure.

Maybe someone should pass that advice on to Rudy.

[tech37]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you