Clinton talks email controversy: "Biggest load of bull"

[Paperview]

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton: "If there is anyone who fully understands our ‘system’ for protecting classified information, I have yet to meet him." - John Bolton

 

[Paperview]

What do you mean not true?

If something came across Hillary's server and it was classified, but not marked, it was her responsibility to mark it as such.

Apparently she never did that, not once.

Now please explain how the highest ranking official in the department was never sent classified material.

Was she kept out of the loop for a reason?

And before you say that the department of the Secretary of State never has classified material they are discussing, that would be false.

You don't understand classified information, clearly.

And she had another system for sending classified material, as has already been noted in the thread. Der. SCIF. Look it up.

Her entire office was a SCIF and she had one at her home.

 

[iguanaman]

Polls mean little without the demographics of the people who responded.

Not sure what that means but here's a Gallup poll from 2014. I've got a million of them.

 

[Paperview]

Obviously you don't understand that information isn't classified due to markings, it's classified in nature. You're confusing "marked classified" with "classified".

Your Honor, I'd like to call Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Stand...


Q: : And I want to ask you about her emails. You've been in government pretty much your whole life. Secretary Clinton has spent a good deal of time in government. I know there is lots of overclassification and people complain about that. But with your experience, if you read a document in an email, would you have a pretty good idea whether it should be marked Top Secret even if it wasn't?


ROBERT GATES: Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret.


RADDATZ: Even if it’s the highest classification?


GATES: And I would look at somebody and say, I'm about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that's marked Top Secret. And that's going to do serious damage to the United States?

Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it's classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don't have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it's classified or not."

^ From the May 1 edition of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.


Your honor, the jury finds the defendant: Not Guilty

 

[NonoBadDog]

I can't think of one topic I would ever believe anything that Bubba "Slick Willy" Clinton would ever say. Blue dress, Lolita Express, lied to Congress. Hillary's defense is that is too stupid to know what the **** she was doing. Comey confirmed that she was too stupid to know what she was doing. That was her out. Comey pulled her ass out of the fire and now Bubba has the gull to get up and say Comey is picking on poor Hillary.

He said Mrs. Clinton, the former State Department secretary and now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was briefed on the State Department’s policies but broke them, sending or receiving more than 100 messages that contained information that was confidential at the time she handled it. He also confirmed that she misled voters in her public explanations, and he insisted that she would have faced discipline, including potentially losing her right to see secret information, if she were still a government employee.

“Certainly, she should have known not to send classified information,” Mr. Comey told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That, I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

FBI's James Comey: Hillary Clinton not 'sophisticated enough' to understand classified markings - Washington Times

Lied to Judge Emmet Sullivan under penalty of perjury (from Comey's statement):

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

She signed a document that she had turne in all work related documents under penalty of perjury. She also failed to turn in all documents to the State Department for archiving.

there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

Lied to Congress and the people:

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails,

Classified conversations on a private server:

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

I can continue but you get the point. I haven't even really started on all of the issues. It is more than one issue. Minimizing this situation doesn't hold water.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Not sure what that means but here's a Gallup poll from 2014.

No demographics? Perhaps the conservatives were too busy working instead of sitting around killing their time with some polls? I can produce a poll where Bill Clinton is recognized as a piece of crap.

So......big effing deal!

 

[Paperview]

Time to pull this one out again: Five myths about classified information - The Washington Post

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ R E A D I T ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<SNIP>
"The categories of information listed in guides are sometimes so broad or vague that they leave officials to guess whether any given piece of information has been classified. In 2009, President Obama ordered agencies to review their guides and purge outdated material, but his directive did not address the lack of specificity.

...And while the number of original classification decisions is on the wane, there were still almost 50,000 new secrets created last year – on top of the 2 million created in the 10 previous years. "

Q I asked earlier in the thread: If something isn't a govt. secret in 2010, but in 2015 the FBI deems a piece of information now sensitive - or upgrades it to Top Secret, is a person receiving that information then expected to be clairvoyant?


"none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server." These were emails later upgraded by another agency.

 

[Paperview]

I can't think of one topic I would ever believe anything that Bubba "Slick Willy" Clinton would ever say. Blue dress, Lolita Express, lied to Congress. Hillary's defense is that is too stupid to know what the **** she was doing. Comey confirmed that she was too stupid to know what she was doing. That was her out. Comey pulled her ass out of the fire and now Bubba has the gull to get up and say Comey is picking on poor Hillary.

...

You're not going to like calling her Madam President, are you?

 

[Henrin]

You're not going to like calling her Madam President, are you?

I have never even used the word president when speaking towards Obama.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Not sure what that means but here's a Gallup poll from 2014. I've got a million of them.

Here is another poll....




It really doesn't mean squat!

 

[Risky Thicket]

The sheer number of emails would tell any sane person that Hillary was indeed working as SOS and it was not a easy job either. You must be confused by someone in Govt that actually does the things that her job requires. That has become a lost art on the right I'm afraid.

I'm not buying what you and Bill and Hillary are selling.

Apparently Hillary wasn't too busy to ignore directives and required training regarding security to circumvent everything, to establish home brew servers AND to spend time sending tens of thousands of personal emails.

If Hillary had simply followed government security protocols we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Bill Clinton somehow forgot to mention that.

 

[Paperview]

I have never even used the word president when speaking towards Obama.

Color me surprised.

 

[Fenton]

At a gathering of the Asian American Journalists Association Bill Clinton defended his wife regarding the email imbroglio:

"First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day's statement that she had never received any emails that are classified. They saw two little notes with a 'C' on it," Clinton said.

"This is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard."

Clinton went on to say that while the classification system of sensitive emails was "too complicated to explain to people," what is clear is that Clinton and her colleagues were never being careless with national security.

"Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that's how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that?" he said. "Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Bill Clinton talks email controversy: 'Biggest load of bull' - CNNPolitics.com



He's right. Comey did have to amend his statements, those emails had been improperly marked.

Yet, what we hear played over and over again is sliced up CEC version of a tape that leaves out the only thing marked classified at the time carried "bore markings" (c) on .000001% of all the emails she sent or received. Later Comey states in his testimony they were not properly marked -- and it would have been easy for anyone with knowledge of handing classified documents to miss. The content of the emails were about her making a freakin' telephone call.

We found out later those "bore markings" were not even classified to begin with. [ Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016 ]

And even if they were, they originated at State, so she could have declassified them, as she has that power. But they weren't. AND, even if -- they were on such a level of "secrecy" those same two (c) emails could have been sent through the US mail with a simple No. 10 envelope and a First Class postage stamp.

The other part of this which Bill reminds us, is allllll the other career diplomats she exchanged emails would have been just as careless.

"Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Clinton set up a home brew server. Why ? She said it was for convenience, so she could use only " one device ". Comey exposed her lie ( LIES ) and said she used multiple devices.

So why would she make up such a ridiculous lie if she was doing nothing wrong ??

And there's THIS......
FBI wanted DOJ to probe Clinton Foundation but DOJ refused:report - NY Daily News

 

[Renae]

At a gathering of the Asian American Journalists Association Bill Clinton defended his wife regarding the email imbroglio:

"First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day's statement that she had never received any emails that are classified. They saw two little notes with a 'C' on it," Clinton said.

"This is the biggest load of bull I've ever heard."

Clinton went on to say that while the classification system of sensitive emails was "too complicated to explain to people," what is clear is that Clinton and her colleagues were never being careless with national security.

"Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that's how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that?" he said. "Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Bill Clinton talks email controversy: 'Biggest load of bull' - CNNPolitics.com



He's right. Comey did have to amend his statements, those emails had been improperly marked.

Yet, what we hear played over and over again is sliced up CEC version of a tape that leaves out the only thing marked classified at the time carried "bore markings" (c) on .000001% of all the emails she sent or received. Later Comey states in his testimony they were not properly marked -- and it would have been easy for anyone with knowledge of handing classified documents to miss. The content of the emails were about her making a freakin' telephone call.

We found out later those "bore markings" were not even classified to begin with. [ Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016 ]

And even if they were, they originated at State, so she could have declassified them, as she has that power. But they weren't. AND, even if -- they were on such a level of "secrecy" those same two (c) emails could have been sent through the US mail with a simple No. 10 envelope and a First Class postage stamp.

The other part of this which Bill reminds us, is allllll the other career diplomats she exchanged emails would have been just as careless.

"Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?"

Who gives two ****s?

 

[Paperview]

Who gives two ****s?

Apparently you gave at least one **** to post to this thread.

 

[Paperview]

Apparently you gave at least one **** to post to this thread.

Ha. You outdid yourself.

Not only did you give a **** to post that -- you even started a thread on this same topic, giving more ****s.

:lamo

 

[Captain Adverse]

Odd that you source Comey's statement to support your argument but then reach a conclusion that completely contradicts Comey.

Comey, an expert on these matters, says it would be reasonable for Hillary to conclude that there was no classified info in those messages. You, "someone on the internet", says the opposite.

Incorrect.

What I am stating is that his succinct response, while generically correct; did not address the real issue.

First, the question asked was an improper phrasing of the issue.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference."

Look at the question asked. Where is the "reasonable person" standard in that question?

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person

This hypothetical person referred to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests.

Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person

But people who hold office or serve in law enforcement are also held to a higher duty of care:

A requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would.

Duty of care legal definition of duty of care

Now the law considers a variety of factors in determining whether a person has acted as the hypothetical reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation. These factors include the knowledge, experience, and perception of the person, the activity the person is engaging in, the physical characteristics of the person, and the circumstances surrounding the person's actions.

Who is the person we are discussing? Not Joe Citizen. Not even a minor functionary in a government agency. No, someone who at the time was holding the Office of Secretary of State of the United States of America.

This person is the highest government agent for that Cabinet level office. As such she is privy to secret briefings presented by any appropriate agency (CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, etc,) to the President concerning issues of Foreign Affairs. During these meeting things already Secret might be discussed as well as things presented that may need to be, and therefore will be designated classified during the meeting. The Secretary will have access to many documents that have not been "stamped" classified, but she knows very well are concerning classified issues.

It is disingenuous to believe otherwise.

Second, there is the problem with those 56 documents. I now refer you back to Director Comey's original report:

Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Read Comey's full statement on Clinton email system

To believe that Hillary did not know what she was doing when she intentionally set up her private server; did not know the level of security the "unstamped" documentation she was transmitting actually represented; and did not intentionally destroy 30,000 documents by scrubbing the hard drive to make absolutely sure no one could recover them because they were "personal" is the real problem here.

That anyone would argue she was completely unaware of what she was doing? :spin:

 

[sangha]

Incorrect.

What I am stating is that his succinct response, while generically correct; did not address the real issue.

First, the question asked was an improper phrasing of the issue.



Look at the question asked. Where is the "reasonable person" standard in that question?

Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person

Reasonable Person legal definition of Reasonable Person

But people who hold office or serve in law enforcement are also held to a duty of care:

Duty of care legal definition of duty of care

Now the law considers a variety of factors in determining whether a person has acted as the hypothetical reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation. These factors include the knowledge, experience, and perception of the person, the activity the person is engaging in, the physical characteristics of the person, and the circumstances surrounding the person's actions.

Who is the person we are discussing? Not Joe Citizen. Not even a minor functionary in a government agency. No, someone who at the time was holding the Office of Secretary of State of the United States of America.

This person is the highest government agent for that Cabinet level office. As such she is privy to secret briefings presented by any appropriate agency (CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, etc,) to the President concerning issues of Foreign Affairs. During these meeting things already Secret might be discussed as well as things presented that may need to be, and therefore will be designated classified during the meeting. The Secretary will have access to many documents that have not been "stamped" classified, but she knows very well are concerning classified issues.

It is disingenuous to believe otherwise.

Second, there is the problem with those 56 documents. I now refer you back to Director Comey's original report:


Read Comey's full statement on Clinton email system

To believe that Hillary did not know what she was doing when she intentionally set up her private server; did not know the level of security the "unstamped" documentation she was transmitting actually represented; and did not intentionally destroy 30000 documents by scrubbing the hard drive to make absolutely sure no one could recover them because they were "personal" is the real problem here.

If you think anyone's going to buy your notion that the "reasonable man standard" is stricter for Hillary, you are delusional.

The bottom line - You say she should have known they were classified. Comey, who is an expert on the matter and not some shady lawyer on the internet, says she should not have known.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If you think anyone's going to buy your notion that the "reasonable man standard" is stricter for Hillary, you are delusional.

The bottom line - You say she should have known they were classified. Comey, who is an expert on the matter and not some shady lawyer on the internet, says she should not have known.

That's not what he said, as I've explained. He answered the question specifically and clinically. He is correct "going by the manual" a person not familiar with the document and seeing no stamp on it would reasonably consider it unclassified.

That would be you or I with no original access to it. It simply was not the right question. Had I been on the Committee I would have asked the right question...and I wonder what the answer would have been? :coffeepap:

 

[Paperview]

Incorrect.

What I am stating is that his succinct response, while generically correct; did not address the real issue.

First, the question asked was an improper phrasing of the issue.

...

Improper phrasing. lol

As to the rest of your jabber...it might behoove you to read this. Wish I could add more than just these short snips.

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom? How does that information get transmitted? The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.
An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.
<snip> This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified

<snip>
In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. <snip> However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

 

[sangha]

That's not what he said, as I've explained. He answered the question specifically and clinically. He is correct "going by the manual" a person not familiar with the document would consider it unclassified.

That would be you or I with no original access to it. It simply was not the right question. Had I been on the Committee I would have asked the right question...and I wonder what the answer would have been? :coffeepap:

Umm, no. Neither of you nor I would have any access to it. He's talking about Clinton.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference."

Can you read the first 8 words of the question? Even an internet lawyer (or those who play one) should be able to understand the question was not about Sangha or CaptAdverse - it was about Clinton and it presumed that she is an expert on classification, not someone with "no original access"

Try and tell less obvious lies, Cap

 

[sangha]

Improper phrasing. lol

The only argument Trump supporters seem to have is that the obvious meaning of words is somehow "improper" and they really mean something else.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Improper phrasing. lol

As to the rest of your jabber...it might behoove you to read this. Wish I could add more than just these short snips.

How did classified information get into those Hillary Clinton emails?

<snip>


"What information is classified in the first place and by whom? How does that information get transmitted? The answer to the first question partly lies in the way sensitive information is handled and classified at the State Department and other U.S. government agencies.
An important thing to understand is that the determination of what information is classified is subjective. This means reasonable people can disagree about the relative sensitivity of particular information.
<snip> This is why determining whether Secretary Clinton was careless is not a cut and dried issue.


Classification levels and what gets classified

<snip>
In discussing normal business, it may not be evident that certain specific topics are classified. Is the entire conversation the secretary has with a foreign leader classified? Are parts of it? Is the fact that the conversation took place classified? It depends on subject matter and context, and the assessment is subjective. In the normal course of business, however, a government employee may decide that the subject matter is not sensitive and discuss the conversation over an unclassified system.

But other more complicated issues arise. <snip> However, drone strikes carried out by the Department of Defense are not subject to such restrictions. This distinction may be one of the key contentions the intelligence community has with some information in the Clinton emails.

The fact is government officials inadvertently send classified details over unclassified email systems all the time. Considering the amount of information dealt with on a daily basis, it is inevitable. Classified details are accidentally revealed in casual conversations and media interviews. We may not hear about it because it’s not in the interviewee’s interest to point that out after the fact.

A colleague and former CIA analyst tells his students he would never knowingly but almost certainly will inadvertently relate in the classroom a tidbit that is classified. The classic example is when Senator David Boren accidentally revealed the name of a clandestine CIA agent. Boren at the time was no less than chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that light, Clinton may have been careless, but she’s certainly not alone."

Blah, Blah! Yadda, yadda. I've already pointed out to you the "Everybody else is doing something wrong, why can't I?" argument has no merit.

In fact, it merely points out the problems we are having with elected and high-level appointed government officials in the improper performance of their duties.

You don't seem to see that when you keep bringing ups such examples? :doh

 

[Paperview]

That's not what he said, as I've explained. He answered the question specifically and clinically. He is correct "going by the manual" a person not familiar with the document and seeing no stamp on it would reasonably consider it unclassified.

That would be you or I with no original access to it. It simply was not the right question. Had I been on the Committee I would have asked the right question...and I wonder what the answer would have been? :coffeepap:

Here's a clue-by-four.

Those emails that contained "bore markings" were in error.

Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016

"QUESTION: Okay. I have one other one. I should have asked this yesterday, but the FBI director spoke of a small number of emails that bore classified markings that identified them as classified. And The New York Times reports that these were call sheets. I don’t know if those are the ones that we’re talking about, but is there anything you can say on specifically what the markings were and how someone could mishandle information that is clearly marked classified in the heading?

... MR KIRBY: So I’m not going to comment on their findings and recommendations or all the documents that they reviewed. I am aware that there have been media – a media report pointing to call sheets within the Clinton email set that appear to bear classification markings. So let me just talk to that in a sense.
Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level – prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call.

The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Given this context, it appears the markings in the documents raised in the media report were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time that they were sent as an actual email. So it appears that those --



QUESTION: That the calls were already made?
MR KIRBY: -- no – that those markings were a human error. They didn’t need to be there. Because once the secretary had decided to make the call, the process is then to move the call sheet, to change its markings to unclassified and deliver it to the secretary in a form that he or she can use. And best we can tell on these occasions, the markings – the confidential markings – was simply human error. Because the decision had already been made, they didn’t need to be made on the email.

QUESTION: But how – did this – as I understood some of these call sheets, she would ask who she was supposed to call, and they would send a call sheet. So she hadn’t made a decision because she didn’t even know who was on the sheet yet.
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no. A call sheet isn’t just about who you’re going to call; the call sheet has points to raise, things to be prepared for in the discussion. It’s a preparatory document.
QUESTION: And usually when you classify something, you give an endpoint for its classification. As I understand, on your classified system, you put a date. So isn’t that a problem? I mean, if there is no end date, it shouldn’t have – and then it’s still classified.
MR KIRBY: No, there – it’s not a problem. They’re not --
QUESTION: Not a problem?


<cont>

 

[Paperview]

MR KIRBY: Call sheets – call sheets are not – the classification on them are not fixed in time. They are rendered at the confidential level, which, as you know, is the lowest level, so as not to prejudge or get ahead of the secretary’s decision about making a call or not. Sometimes not --

QUESTION: That’s a cop --
MR KIRBY: -- every secretary agrees that now is the right time to call this foreign leader or that foreign leader. And so to protect the information of the call itself, the idea of the call itself, the need for the call itself, it’s kept at the confidential level. Once the secretary makes a decision to place the call, which are done --
QUESTION: So the idea to call somebody is classified? I thought there are very strict --
MR KIRBY: To preserve --
QUESTION: -- rules on national security grounds.

MR KIRBY: To preserve the secretary’s decision space and sometimes the information in the call sheet itself, they’re kept at the confidential level by and large before a decision is made. Once a decision is made, they are --

QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: -- converted to unclassified, and if there’s anything that --
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR KIRBY: -- needs to stay classified on it it’s not put on the call sheet.
QUESTION: That makes sense.
QUESTION: Right, but --
MR KIRBY: And then it’s used.
QUESTION: -- somebody has to convert them to unclassified.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: If they still have the markings, they’re classified.
MR KIRBY: In this case --
QUESTION: You can’t say, “Well, we think it would have been unclassified.”

MR KIRBY: Brad, as I said, in this case we think that it was human error; that those confidential markings should have been removed by the individual who was transmitting them on the unclassified side. It was an honest – it was a mistake.

QUESTION: Can I ask a --
QUESTION: Okay, wait – wait, wait, can I just --
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- on this one point? So – okay, so we’re talking about, what were they, two instances when there were these call sheets that were --
MR KIRBY: We’re aware of two."

*public records, not subject to copyright rules.