:lol: those links were to the official documents laying out the definitions and rules for the marking of classified information. They are authoritative. You don't "need" them because they will demonstrate that you are incorrect, and you aren't interested in learning, you're interested in finding a way to support your preferred conclusion. Which, of course, is why you cut that out of your reply
.
I am not wrong. "Bearing markings indicating the presence of classified information" is called a "classification marking", and it makes a document "marked as classified". Again, the documents linked for you would lay that out for you, if you would read them, which you won't.
But, since you won't, I'll show it to you in pictures.
This is a fake example of what a classified document looks like:
View attachment 67205464
Everything in red is a "classification marking". It indicates that the information it is associated with is classified. You will note that the Title has a classification marking, and each subsequent paragraph does. You will also note that the heading and footing of the page is a classification marking consisting of a combination of the most restrictive classification specifications on the page. So, for example, even though some of the information is releasable to the Five Eyes community (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US), some of it is not allowed to be disseminated to any foreign entity (NOFORN). So, while the paragraph with the portion marking of (REL TO USA, FVEY) remains releasable to those nations, the document as a whole is not (
Intelligence Community Directive 208 instructs the IC to try to Write for Maximum Utility, which in context of this discussion means generally try to keep things as releasable as possible). Similarly, the entire document itself is only available to those who have been read into
both the SI
and HCS caveats, despite the fact that individual paragraphs are releasable under those individual caveats.
Everything in red, however, is a classification marking per the
Intelligence Community Classification and Control Markings Implementation Manual. Since you probably won't read that link
either, here's a screenshot of the applicable page:
View attachment 67205467
What you are referencing is that Footer and Header classification marking - the one that gives the overall classification of the document (which, again, is a combination of the most restrictive caveats in the document). This is called the "Banner Line". Again, per the Manual:
View attachment 67205468
You will note that Banner Lines are one of several classification markings that go into marking a document. They are not what makes a document marked as classified or not - any classification marking marks a as document classified.
I am, in fact, correct. Not because I'm some kind of classification genius, but because this is basic intro-level stuff that we teach 18 year old kids when they join the military. 18 year olds fresh out of High School have the "sophistication" when it comes to the basic knowledge and minimum attention to detail that is necessary to protect U.S. Government secrets... which Comey claimed Hillary lacked.
Comey:
"As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish."
....and then he went back to the fact that he couldn't establish criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt (leaning on the "she was too stupid to know what she was doing" defense), despite the fact that that is not the standard required by law. :shrug:
Yeah. WRT the TS//SCI/SAP, that would be the people who authored those emails, and who bumped that information down. As I understand it, Comey stated in his testimony that there was intent up the chain, and he didn't intend to pursue it. Which is ****ing mind-blowing, but, given who was on those email chains, sadly understandable.
It seems they were concerned with the FBI.
