NFT: HRC scenarios

In comment 12413980 Randy in CT said:

Quote:

Blah Blah Blah I don't want to hear any facts that go against my hating the left!!

Facts like Bigfoot or aliens?

trying for sarcasm.She's a career politician like most of them running. They all have warts. At the end of the day, both candidates are going to pull over 60 million votes.It comes down to which candidate motivates their voters to go to the polls.

In comment 12414040 Deej said:

Quote:

we are not befuddled and bewildered. The willingness of HRC's detractors to believe the most ridiculous bullshit about her and to take any allegation and both assume it is true and make it out to be the worst thing ever is neither new nor a surprise. Punch drunk we are not.

1. Why did she lie she only wanted to carry one device when she has been pictured with more devices in her hand than an Apple Store?
2. How do you explain the Blumenthal emails with her statement she gave over all work related emails.
3. If you noticed in her affidavit to the court, she didn't say she turned over all the emails, only that she directed her staff to do that.
4. If you compare this to people's wild theories about Vince Foster, I don't know what to tell you. To my knowledge, she never lied about Foster and there is not one shred of evidence of wrong doing in that matter. Here, however, she had lied at every step and been as deceitful as possible by wiping her servers clean. This is more akin to the Rose Law Firm documents just magically appearing years after they were subpoenaed and missing tons of stuff.
5. I voted for Bill and Obama (the first time) and could vote for a Democrat, I do care though that our leaders are somewhat honest and trustworthy; she has proven time and time again she isn't.
6. The people who defend her honesty (you can vote on grounds of ideology) are as nuts as the people who say she killed vince foster, just as every piece of available evidence shows that conspiracy theory to be untrue, every piece of available evidence shows that she, as William Safire coined the term for her, is a congenital liar

What bothers me the most - for both parties - the complete and utter double-standard.

If any Government employee below Secretarial level (including Under or Assistant Secretary) had done this, they would have been fired and facing criminal charges.

This isn't "Confidential" or even "Secret" documents; it's "Top Secret". Do you know how serious this is? Anyone who has worked for the Federal Government with a security clearance knows.

Your are preaching to your choir, expect a lot of Amens! from them

talk about a double-standard...see what the EPA has done to the river systems out west.

the Bush White House... You're really going there to defend Hillary? You're obviously a smart guy who can perform effective critical thinking. Don't let partisanship blind you the facts of this instance. You don't need to make strawman analogies...

In comment 12414064 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

talk about a double-standard...see what the EPA has done to the river systems out west.

In this regard, the EPA is not much different than BP and should be treated similarly. We shall see.

like every GOP Senator that came out against the Iran deal without knowing the details the day it was announced? You want HRC's supporters to look at the facts?, that is fair. What is unfair and why nothing changes, is those on the other side of the aisle remember the dinner the Republicans had the night of Obama's Inauguration in 2009
vowing to say "no" to everything he proposed. It works both ways, unfortunately

a bit of an idea about this stuff...

I had "Secret" clearance (not "Top Secret").

When I received a "Secret" document, I had to sign for it, record it, and ultimately document it's final disposal (i.e., if I shredded it, passed it to another employee).

Not only are confidential and above documents clearly labeled, but each paragraph within the document is designated a classified level.

Rule #1 and this is drilled into us constantly: don't put the info on a non-approved thumb drive. NEVER use private e-mail or non-USG protected system.

Not only have all of these practices been violated, but she's given Top Secret material to her attorneys and staff (who don't have Top Secret clearance) to review.

I can't tell you how much trouble anyone else would be in.

I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie?

Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?

In comment 12414148 TJ said:

Quote:

I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?

So far no criminal action has been alleged. The FBI and inspector generals (I am not exactly sure which ones) are investigating but it is unclear as to who would be a target or if they are investigating with the idea that a criminal action has taken place at all.

WRT the emails, Clinton categorically stated that she never possessed or transmitted classified material from her email account. Subsequently, the many of the emails that she transmitted to State we classified as being classified. After this, her surrogates said that she neither possessed nor transmitted material that was classified *at the time*. Subsequently, Inspector Generals (again I don't know which ones) reviewed a representative sample of 40 (out of 55,000) emails and found 4 that had classified material in them that were actually classified at their inception. Meaning, that they were *not* retroactively classified. This was also re-stted by the heads of 5 different intelligence agencies. After this the Clinton people said that she neither possessed nor transmitted material that had classified *markings* on them. Subsequently (yesterday) some agency or other stated that some of that material went beyond "classified" and was actually in the "Top Secret" category.

That's pretty much where we stand today.

I'm not sure if she had permission or not to use her own address or server. As pointed out earlier, prior SoS had used personal email addresses (not sure if this was instead of or in conjunction with gov't email addresses). Regardless, the Obama administration had to be aware, even if they didn't give explicit permission, for her to have her own set up. Interestingly, when the story first broke, the Obama administration said that they actually were *not aware that she used her own server. That contradiction is for those two parties to sort out.

there is the political fall out from the fabrications (should they prove to be fabrications, as opposed to definition of "is" type things). There are a couple of incidents where there actually are proven direct falsehoods. The first is that she used her own set up because of convenience so that she need not use multiple devices. This is contradicted by her interviews and I believe photographic documentation. The second, more serious issue, is that she had turned over all government emails to State. This was found to be false when Sidney Blumenthal turned over emails pertaining to gov't business that was correspondence between the two parties. Subsequently, she said that Blumenthal sent her emails but she never solicited them. This was shown to be false when the emails were released and there were specific questions from Clinton to Blumenthal where she asked for a response back. She was also asked why she never turned over emails to Congress and she said she was never asked (subpoenaed). Within hours, Congress released a copy of the subpeona that was sent to her.

It is a security violation to put hold or transmit classified material on non-USG, non-secure systems. It's not allowed. It's a serious infraction.

Hilliary broke the law simply by having the material on a private server and also transmitting classified material by private e-mail.

Now whether the Justice Department wants to charge her or not is a different matter. But the Inspector General for the national security agencies said she had top secret documents on the server.

also a national security infraction to give classified material to those without the appropriate security clearance (her attorneys and staff).

And I am quick to slap hypocrites who were all over the Bush Administration for the same bullshit, but ignore it when one of their own does it.

What part of 'transparency' do these people not understand? For me, my biggest beef is that she knew damned well that she would be running for President, and did it anyway.

I personally will be surprised if she actually takes any real damage from all of this.

Ironically, if she does go down in e-mail flames, Republicans will be facing a FAR more liberal candidate in Sanders - one who is turning out to be much more serious than anyone could have expected.

Keep in mind, this is the first time ANY candidate has led Hillary in head-to-head polling. Go Bernie!

that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.

In comment 12414148 TJ said:

Quote:

I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?

I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.

In comment 12414290 BlackLight said:

Quote:

that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.

Hillary fatigue cuts both ways

In comment 12414294 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12414148 TJ said: Quote: I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed? I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.

I would not assume that the most problematic things have already come to light. I also wouldn't assume that they ever will, if they do or once existed, lol

In comment 12414294 schabadoo said:

Quote:

I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.

The legal issue all depends on when things were classified. A single classified document on her server would (should) spell legal trouble for her.

But it all depends on what the investigation finds. I certainly wouldn't take the word of HRC's camp at this point when they've already stated she never solicited advise from Blumenthal (proven false), turned over all State related emails (proven false), etc.

In comment 12414294 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12414148 TJ said: Quote: I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed? I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.

You don't believe anything illega is involved?

You might want to read what Eric just wrote

In comment 12414148 TJ said:

Quote:

I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?

Hillary said there were no classifed emails. Now that other people have them, they are finding classified emails.

In comment 12414290 BlackLight said:

Quote:

that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.

The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.

In comment 12414341 phillygiant said:

Quote:

In comment 12414294 schabadoo said: Quote: In comment 12414148 TJ said: Quote: I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie? Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed? I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later. You don't believe anything illega is involved? You might want to read what Eric just wrote

I read it. Did you read the part about them not being classified at the time? Seems an odd thing to skip.

"However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton's email was not marked as classified at the time."

those are two different steps in the evolution of this thing.

First, never had classified material

Second, wasn't classified at the time (retroactively classified)

Third, was classified at the time but wasn't *marked* classified.

In comment 12414367 buford said:

Quote:

In comment 12414290 BlackLight said: Quote: that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same. The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.

I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.

is that if you buy into her excuse that the material didn't have a CLASSIFIED sticker on them, then you might wonder about her competence as SoS in not being able to recognize Top Secret material as it came across her desktop. Apparently some of this stuff (a random sampling suggesting that 10% of all the emails (5,500, that is) were classified at their generation. Should she not have been able to recognize that there is a whole lot of stuff that she shouldn't be handing out, regardless of whether or not they were marked?

Quote:

As an example, many, many, many moderate and independent voters won't vote for a Rubio who insists that that abortion be illegal in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Without social issues, he appears to be a strong choice against a flawed Hillary. With them, probably not.

I say this with the caveat that I find it monstrous to deny a raped woman the right to an abortion... but if you're of the opinion that it's a form of murder to allow abortion in the case of mothers who consensually conceived a child, why all of a sudden is it less murderous now that the child would be the result of a rape? That kid was a sperm penetrating an egg like any other.

I get that adhering strictly to the original pro-life idea in these cases defies common sense, but we are talking about (what pro-life people characterize as) murder. By the logic and respect for that term, there should be no exceptions.

And again.. I am definitively pro-choice.

In comment 12414379 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 12414367 buford said: Quote: In comment 12414290 BlackLight said: Quote: that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same. The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it. I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.

I don't think Benghazi is a mole hill. And one of the reasons we don't know the entire truth is because of her secretive email server. All of her scandals go together.

In comment 12414381 Bill L said:

Quote:

is that if you buy into her excuse that the material didn't have a CLASSIFIED sticker on them, then you might wonder about her competence as SoS in not being able to recognize Top Secret material as it came across her desktop. Apparently some of this stuff (a random sampling suggesting that 10% of all the emails (5,500, that is) were classified at their generation. Should she not have been able to recognize that there is a whole lot of stuff that she shouldn't be handing out, regardless of whether or not they were marked?

Right: a political issue, not legal.

In comment 12414379 BlackLight said:

Quote:

In comment 12414367 buford said: Quote: In comment 12414290 BlackLight said: Quote: that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same. The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it. I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.

You also have a whole lot of people, especially in the MSM not reporting, reporting on the A31 page, telling you that it's nothing, telling you that (as we see here) it's just part of the typical Republican mountains of molehills. So that plays into that whole picture in which the Repubs do have some mountains/molehills. Although, some things, like Vince Foster are more fringies being portrayed as mainstream Repubs.

In comment 12414381 Bill L said:

Quote:

is that if you buy into her excuse that the material didn't have a CLASSIFIED sticker on them, then you might wonder about her competence as SoS in not being able to recognize Top Secret material as it came across her desktop. Apparently some of this stuff (a random sampling suggesting that 10% of all the emails (5,500, that is) were classified at their generation. Should she not have been able to recognize that there is a whole lot of stuff that she shouldn't be handing out, regardless of whether or not they were marked?

Exactly. And as I said, when you are SoS, you have to expect that at some point, a classifed email will cross your computer. Then what do you do (if you don't use the required .gov email account). Like I said, the whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable. Like the IRS saying they can't find emails.....

In comment 12414373 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12414341 phillygiant said: Quote: In comment 12414294 schabadoo said: I read it. Did you read the part about them not being classified at the time? Seems an odd thing to skip. "However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton's email was not marked as classified at the time."

False. The IGs released a statement addressing this:

Quote:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

So far, virtually everything she's asserted regarding the emails has been proven false.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12414383 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Quote: As an example, many, many, many moderate and independent voters won't vote for a Rubio who insists that that abortion be illegal in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Without social issues, he appears to be a strong choice against a flawed Hillary. With them, probably not. I say this with the caveat that I find it monstrous to deny a raped woman the right to an abortion... but if you're of the opinion that it's a form of murder to allow abortion in the case of mothers who consensually conceived a child, why all of a sudden is it less murderous now that the child would be the result of a rape? That kid was a sperm penetrating an egg like any other. I get that adhering strictly to the original pro-life idea in these cases defies common sense, but we are talking about (what pro-life people characterize as) murder. By the logic and respect for that term, there should be no exceptions. And again.. I am definitively pro-choice.

I feel like whenever we talk about anything, we are compelled to add "NTTAWWT"

In comment 12414387 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12414381 Bill L said: Quote: is that if you buy into her excuse that the material didn't have a CLASSIFIED sticker on them, then you might wonder about her competence as SoS in not being able to recognize Top Secret material as it came across her desktop. Apparently some of this stuff (a random sampling suggesting that 10% of all the emails (5,500, that is) were classified at their generation. Should she not have been able to recognize that there is a whole lot of stuff that she shouldn't be handing out, regardless of whether or not they were marked? Right: a political issue, not legal.

Sure, that part.

-actively classified Top Secret is beside the point. The reason why a high-level government official shouldn't have their own private email server is precisely because documents can be reclassified.

There is a HUGE difference in security classifications. Top Secret is really a huge deal.

We're not talking about a cable here that relays what the Japanese Prime Minister said - for example - privately over dinner about the domestic political situation in Japan.

We're talking about what U.S. policy options/decisions for dealing with Putin in the Ukraine. Or perhaps our current intelligence infrastructure in Iran. We're talking about the most serious classified information.

The information in the emails in the sample examined by the IGs were classified from the very beginning. To continue to speak of retroactive classifications is a red herring at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst.

In comment 12414289 x meadowlander said:

Quote:

And I am quick to slap hypocrites who were all over the Bush Administration for the same bullshit, but ignore it when one of their own does it. What part of 'transparency' do these people not understand? For me, my biggest beef is that she knew damned well that she would be running for President, and did it anyway. I personally will be surprised if she actually takes any real damage from all of this. Ironically, if she does go down in e-mail flames, Republicans will be facing a FAR more liberal candidate in Sanders - one who is turning out to be much more serious than anyone could have expected. Keep in mind, this is the first time ANY candidate has led Hillary in head-to-head polling. Go Bernie!

I was curious as to your feelings about this because I recall you being crazy happy when Petreaus was indicted.

In comment 12414386 buford said:

Quote:

In comment 12414379 BlackLight said: Quote: In comment 12414367 buford said: Quote: In comment 12414290 BlackLight said: Quote: that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same. The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it. I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise. I don't think Benghazi is a mole hill. And one of the reasons we don't know the entire truth is because of her secretive email server. All of her scandals go together.

Buford being Buford. And you wonder why you're the joke of BBI.

It was SCI, or Sensitive Compartmented Information . Within TS, there can be subsets of information that is only available to people cleared for that specific type of info.



SI and TK are specific subsets of information. I believe SI is signal intelligence (things such as phone/radio intercepts) and TK is satellite intelligence, but I'm no expert. Others like Ronnie or Reb would be the ones to ask. My point is that this stuff was highly, highly classified information. Even if it wasn't specifically marked as such in the emails, the idea that the Secretary of State wouldn't have a notion as to what material likely is TS/SCI is preposterous.

In comment 12414040 Deej said:

Quote:

we are not befuddled and bewildered. The willingness of HRC's detractors to believe the most ridiculous bullshit about her and to take any allegation and both assume it is true and make it out to be the worst thing ever is neither new nor a surprise. Punch drunk we are not.

No it is the HRC supporters who are in complete denial that the Clinton's could ever be wrong.

She is Teflon. Nothing she ever does comes back to her.

Unfortunately for the Dems, she is all they have, ALL. The repubs have a few And some buttons, but HRC is all they have. Unless the Pres gets his third term.

2 documents were top Secret when she received them

Buffoons

She indicated a few months back that it had been wiped clean. Unless there are back-ups somewhere (which I doubt) they are going to get an empty email server. She is not stupid, if she went to the trouble to wiped it clean, I'm sure she hired a professional to clean the disk as well so that nothing could be recovered. You don't wipe an email server clean unless you are trying to hide something.

In comment 12414403 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

The information in the emails in the sample examined by the IGs were classified from the very beginning. To continue to speak of retroactive classifications is a red herring at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst.

Then I don't know why they keep reporting things like this:

“Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,” the statement continued, but added this important caveat. “They were not marked as classified.”

It's very strange reporting.

The material was always classified. There just wasn't any kind of labeling on the emails to indicate that the material was classified.

In comment 12414452 Beer Man said:

Quote:

She indicated a few months back that it had been wiped clean. Unless there are back-ups somewhere (which I doubt) they are going to get an empty email server. She is not stupid, if she went to the trouble to wiped it clean, I'm sure she hired a professional to clean the disk as well so that nothing could be recovered. You don't wipe an email server clean unless you are trying to hide something.

Probably hoping that their forensics team is better than whoever she hired to wipe it.

In comment 12414464 schabadoo said:

Quote:

In comment 12414403 Greg from LI said: Quote: The information in the emails in the sample examined by the IGs were classified from the very beginning. To continue to speak of retroactive classifications is a red herring at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst. Then I don't know why they keep reporting things like this: “Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,” the statement continued, but added this important caveat. “They were not marked as classified.” It's very strange reporting.

That would mean whoever wrote the initial email with the classified info effed up big time. Not only is it illegal to send the emails on unclassified systems, but they are also responsible for marking the info as classified.

But anyone that received or forwarded the info also has an obligation to report the initial screw up.