Fair point. However these people weren’t leaking real classified info. They were leaking fake and political convenient ones. They would leak something while behind closed doors the exact opposite was true. This was confirmed last year after the russiagate testimonies was finally declassified.
Also no answer on how cnn got the leak about Roger stone swat raid at 3am?
Information classification is a joke in most cases. When dealing with time/place/force structure of incipient military operations, it has a place. The diplomatic bag existed before classification came into vogue, and that seems to be a requirement of statecraft.
Most of the rest is just garbage. Of course, if we keep having endless wars, we keep having endless (over)classification of information. Most people can't even identify the classifying authority for documents, and many are considered classified because of their presence on a classified network, which is wrong on many levels.
The number of people holding clearances is about 1% of the population. I submit that is too many to keep any kind of secret for long. Thank goodness for need to know.
It's why I liked Ric Grenell. His MO leaned toward, "declassify all the things!"
I suspect what was going on with this investigation wasn't trying to determine the source of classified information, but to identify the anonymous sources that were "leaking" false or misleading information to the media.
That first bombshell Russia-gate article in the NY Times that won its authors a Pulitzer? Peter Strzok's margin notes are compelling.
"This paragraph is misleading on its face." Referring to the NYT's description of the FBI's alleged detailed assessment of certain bank records, "we've requested those documents, but have not received them yet." At one point, he says one of the claims is so out in left field, "we do not know, nor can we figure out, where this is coming from." He couldn't even find a way to chalk it up it to the authors misinterpreting or misconstruing accurate information. He was basically just like, "wut?"
Keep in mind, this is Peter "Trump is Evil Incarnate" Strzok, basically saying, "this entire article is filled with misinformation." Allegedly, the anonymous sources for the article were "familiar with" the FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia collusion, yet the lead investigator on that case was baffled by the claims made.
Now picture Schiff and Swalwell doing the media rounds, claiming they had seen evidence of the article's bogus claims in the secret Intel hearings. Of course they'd be the prime suspects.
If Schiff and Swalwell (or their staffers) were the sources, they were not leaking classified information. They were feeding the media misinformation which they could then claim to have seen supporting evidence of in hearings and other documents they never thought would be declassified and released to the public.
There is way too much classified information. I object to the classification of all this info more than I object to leakers.
Fair point. However these people weren’t leaking real classified info. They were leaking fake and political convenient ones. They would leak something while behind closed doors the exact opposite was true. This was confirmed last year after the russiagate testimonies was finally declassified.
Also no answer on how cnn got the leak about Roger stone swat raid at 3am?
Information classification is a joke in most cases. When dealing with time/place/force structure of incipient military operations, it has a place. The diplomatic bag existed before classification came into vogue, and that seems to be a requirement of statecraft.
Most of the rest is just garbage. Of course, if we keep having endless wars, we keep having endless (over)classification of information. Most people can't even identify the classifying authority for documents, and many are considered classified because of their presence on a classified network, which is wrong on many levels.
The number of people holding clearances is about 1% of the population. I submit that is too many to keep any kind of secret for long. Thank goodness for need to know.
It's why I liked Ric Grenell. His MO leaned toward, "declassify all the things!"
I suspect what was going on with this investigation wasn't trying to determine the source of classified information, but to identify the anonymous sources that were "leaking" false or misleading information to the media.
That first bombshell Russia-gate article in the NY Times that won its authors a Pulitzer? Peter Strzok's margin notes are compelling.
"This paragraph is misleading on its face." Referring to the NYT's description of the FBI's alleged detailed assessment of certain bank records, "we've requested those documents, but have not received them yet." At one point, he says one of the claims is so out in left field, "we do not know, nor can we figure out, where this is coming from." He couldn't even find a way to chalk it up it to the authors misinterpreting or misconstruing accurate information. He was basically just like, "wut?"
Keep in mind, this is Peter "Trump is Evil Incarnate" Strzok, basically saying, "this entire article is filled with misinformation." Allegedly, the anonymous sources for the article were "familiar with" the FBI's investigation into Trump-Russia collusion, yet the lead investigator on that case was baffled by the claims made.
Now picture Schiff and Swalwell doing the media rounds, claiming they had seen evidence of the article's bogus claims in the secret Intel hearings. Of course they'd be the prime suspects.
If Schiff and Swalwell (or their staffers) were the sources, they were not leaking classified information. They were feeding the media misinformation which they could then claim to have seen supporting evidence of in hearings and other documents they never thought would be declassified and released to the public.