Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

Let's take the CIA drone program. We know about it, but it remains classified.

If they discussed this program at all over unsured email, they violated the law.

Same thing goes for other info, like foreign intelligence.

You can't discuss satellite info. You can't discuss how we gather foreign intelligence. You can't discuss the intelligence operatives in the field.

 

Got it. Yes.

I thought you may have been defending their actions.

 

Some folks tell me you can if you say the two magic words: "It's allowed."

 

Baron, if I view classified info, and then type up a summary of the info for the Secretary of State's review, is that memo classified, or must someone mark it as such for it to "become" classified?

 

Clinton is funny. When under pressure a while back, she finally apologized, and said what she did was wrong.

But on the campaign trail last week she went back to saying she did nothing wrong and didn't need to apologize.

 

Depends on if "it's allowed" or not ...

 

#NothingBurger

 

The speed limit was changed to 35 mph. The sign when you were driving four years ago was 55 mph, and you were driving 55. Can the government now call you a speeder for going 55 mph in what was a 55 mph zone four years ago just because they've now decided to make it 35 mph?

 

But that's not what happened.

The law didn't change. The nature of the information didn't change.

It was always classified and they were never allowed to traffic it across an unsecured network.

 

Was it classified at that time?

And yes, it does matter because otherwise, someone could say a NY Times profile of Lena Dunham is classified.

 

Yes. The information was always classified, with or without markings.

And, no, unless a Lena Dunham profile contains classified information, it will never be made classified retroactively.

 

When you reject Baron's false analogy, he thinks he's winning the argument.

Later, he'll bring this up as an example of you running away from his winning argument.