Politico suggests Trey Gowdy responsible for State Department screw-up[W:26]

Amadeus said:

It's time for Trey Gowdy to pack his bags go back to sitting on a back-country doorstep dueling banjos with city folk, like he did in Deliverance.

Click to expand...

Paperview said:

"Despite Repeated Claims On Fox, The Source Was Not An "Undercover CIA Agent," But Rather, Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's Former Intelligence Chief. Business Insider reported that the CIA source in question was Moussa Koussa, and that his identity "was not considered by the [CIA] to be secret at all":

The CIA has told Congress that the name of an alleged secret agency source, mentioned but then partially redacted by the U.S. State Department from an email received on Hillary Clinton's private server was not considered by the agency to be secret at all.

At issue is Moussa Koussa, a one-time intelligence chief for Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and the question of whether or not his name should have been treated as a secret in an email Clinton received four years ago from a close confidant.

Republicans, who are trying to show Clinton mishandled classified information while secretary of state, have argued that Koussa's name should not have been included in the email she got on her private server from Sidney Blumenthal.

But the CIA, weighing in after the Republicans made their accusation earlier this month, has told lawmakers that Koussa's name was not classified, according to correspondence between the spy agency and officials of the House of Representatives panel set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility and nearby spy base in Benghazi, Libya. "

CIA: The alleged secret source in Hillary's emails was no secret - Business Insider

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

If the State Department classified and redacted it then it was classified. Would people wholly ignorant of Government classification processes stop dumbing down threads with ignorant speculation, please?

Click to expand...

BWG said:

:2rofll:.......LOL!!!! I can't believe someone posted this. I saw a photo of him the other day and THAT is exactly the vision that popped up.......LOL!!!!:cheers:

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

The email in question on Hillary's server were declassified 4/1/12.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Moussa Koussa was in the news around the same time that Blumenthal mentioned his name in his emails to Hillary. Here's Koussa at a press conference in 2011....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g/220px-Moussa_Koussa_at_press_conference.jpg


Moussa Koussa's name is not classified information....and Trey Gowdy's little piggy just ain't gonna fly.....it just ain't.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

This is such a dumb argument. That someone is a public figure does not mean their involvement in a government project can't be classified. "Sources and Methods" is a classification reason that has far reaching implications. Foreign intelligence agencies have people working around the clock to connect dots and collate seemingly disparate information into logical conclusions and actions. Sometimes revealing the source can simply alert a foreign agency to the fact that the US is lacking actionable intel. If an agency believes that a given persons involvement, even if already known, creates a dot on a foreign agency's board for them to connect, or brings US methods into better focus, then that mention of that person is classified. This isn't about a secret identity, it is about "sources and methods".

Too many people are acting on an understanding of classification and state secrets that the gleaned from James Bond movies...

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Blumenthal got his information off the internet.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

And again, that a name is known doesn't mean a mention of that name in any context isn't classified. Maybe you should ask the State Department why they redacted the name in Clinton's email.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

And again, that a name is known doesn't mean a mention of that name in any context isn't classified. Maybe you should ask the State Department why they redacted the name in Clinton's email.

Click to expand...

Absentglare said:

Who cares? Is it illegal for them to redact things that aren't classified?

Why not just redact all names that they don't recognize as a public official ? *gasp*

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Because you have no idea why the State Department redacted the name.

And again, this is one of how many emails pulled for having sensitive data? Over 400 now?

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Maybe you should read Rep. Cummings letter, instead. The State Department didn't redact the name in the Clinton email....Trey Goudy did.

Click to expand...

The letter accuses Trey Gowdy of putting his own redactions in the emails and then tried to say they were classified...even though both the CIA and State Dept. said they weren't.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The State Department didn't redact the name in the Clinton email....Trey Goudy did.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

No, he didn't. The State Department has apologized for failing to fully redact that email, remember?

I am aware of what Cummings accuses Gowdy of doing, but the State department apologizing for not fully redacting that email blows Cummings lie out of the water.

Click to expand...

The true story, if you read the linked article goes like this:

Gowdy requested an email from State to use as an example to post on the Congressional website. State redacted the name from the email body and sent it to Congress, and it was posted. It was later determined that the State Department had redacted the name Koussa from the body of the email but not the subject line. At THAT point Gowdy made the decision to white out Koussa's name from the subject line to match the intended redaction in the body of the email. Dumb ass Cummings then wrote his scurrilous letter accusing Gowdy of redacting the name, which is either a blatant lie or the ravings of a crazy man.

In short: You should always think twice before trusting the word of Elijah Cummings... he's bound to make you look dumb.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The state department said they redacted the name for privacy reasons...not because it was classified information.

"...State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday afternoon that State officials had missed one occurrence of Koussa’s name it had intended to delete from the email in question.....

Toner said the CIA had not objected to the release of the name, but State wanted it withheld for privacy reasons.

CIA “assessed that the information in question was not classified and suggested no redactions to the documents in question,” Toner said. “We have asked the Benghazi Committee not to use the individual’s name publicly to protect that individual’s privacy. … That was our rationale behind redacting his name.”..." ​

Click to expand...

Cummings letter seems to collaberate the state departments story.....

"....Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.

As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individual’s name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual’s privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person...."​

In response to Rep. Cummings, Gowdy confesses he "redacted" document

Click to expand...

That seems more plausible than your story. The name was redacted to protect Koussa's privacy....but it wasn't classified. Former CIA director, George Tenet wrote about Kousso in his book and his name was published in a NYT article the day before Blumenthal mentioned him in his email to Hillary....

Click to expand...

"... The CIA normally would treat the names of its alleged sources as confidential. However, Koussa’s contacts with U.S. intelligence have been publicly acknowledged for years. ....

While it’s unclear how much information Koussa was giving to Western officials at the time the email was sent, the former spy chief’s role was being bandied about publicly at that time. A mention of Koussa in former CIA director George Tenet’s memoir was referenced in a New York Times story the day before Blumenthal sent the email in question to Clinton.​

In short, Koussa was public knowledge before Blumenthal sent the email to Hillary. It would be silly to classify information that has been publically known and available for years.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

The reasons for redaction are the purpose for redaction. When a piece of information is accidental released don't expect a full disclosure of the reason for the initial redaction.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

The reasons for redaction are the purpose for redaction. When a piece of information is accidentaly released don't expect a full disclosure of the reason for the initial redaction.




Gowdy did no such thing. The State Department redacted the name, you have already admitted as much. What Gowdy did was fix the already intended redaction, which the State Department already said they screwed up.

Also, in cases of failed redactions like this don't ever except a government Department to admit to the true purpose of the redaction as it simply confirms more information to foreign governments that even the failed redaction has.



Public Trust is a form of classification that was most likely the level at which the redaction was justified, or possibly PII. I have already discussed this. This doesn't change the fact that Cummings assertion that Gowdy redacted the name was flat out false.



And yet, Koussa's name was redacted. Again, I have already stated that it is possible to redact a publicly known person's name for any reason on the classification scale. A person's name isn't the actual information that is being redacted and the purpose of redaction would never be admitted openly should the redacting agency screw it up. The State Department deemed in necessary to redact the name, but did it poorly, which was corrected by Gowdy.

Click to expand...

Absentglare said:

Don't you EVER admit when you've lost ...?

Koussa's name was not classified...

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Your ignorance of the system isn't a great debate tool. The State department redacted his name, which does classify the information, the Executive branch has essentially 4 levels of classification, but that isn't the full extent of information classification. Even if the redaction was for PII purposes that is a level of government info classification. The act of redaction is only done because the information being redacted has been classified such that it is deemed worthy of redaction. That is the whole point of the classification system. The government is required to release any non-classified information to the public upon request, it is not allowed to redact any information that falls outside the continuum of classified data. This is what keeps the state from avoiding FOIA by simply whiting out entire documents regardless of classification.

When the State Department redacted Koussa's name they signaled that the data fell into a classification of data that could be redacted. Gowdy fixed the error by the State Department in their redaction and gave what is a boilerplate response to the level of the information accidentally released.

Remember that the Snowden leak was originally downplayed by the White House and NSA when they were approached by The Guardian and asked if the data met any security concerns and they declined. No doubt all of this data was highly classified. First line of defense in a leak is to downplay it.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Your ignorance of the system isn't a great debate tool. The State department redacted his name, which does classify the information, the Executive branch has essentially 4 levels of classification, but that isn't the full extent of information classification. Even if the redaction was for PII purposes that is a level of government info classification. The act of redaction is only done because the information being redacted has been classified such that it is deemed worthy of redaction. That is the whole point of the classification system. The government is required to release any non-classified information to the public upon request, it is not allowed to redact any information that falls outside the continuum of classified data. This is what keeps the state from avoiding FOIA by simply whiting out entire documents regardless of classification.

When the State Department redacted Koussa's name they signaled that the data fell into a classification of data that could be redacted. Gowdy fixed the error by the State Department in their redaction and gave what is a boilerplate response to the level of the information accidentally released.

Remember that the Snowden leak was originally downplayed by the White House and NSA when they were approached by The Guardian and asked if the data met any security concerns and they declined. No doubt all of this data was highly classified. First line of defense in a leak is to downplay it.

Click to expand...

Absentglare said:

Don't you EVER admit when you've lost ...?

Koussa's name was not classified...

Click to expand...