News Report: The White House is investigating the email records of current and former State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email. The officials targeted in the investigation were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and may now possibly be considered security violations.
When you went through the intersection, Mrs. Clinton, the light was green. But we retroactively changed it to “red.”
I promised to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I retroactively changed the words to, “preserve, protect and defend the wealth and power of Donald J. Trump.”
7 thoughts on “Retroactive classification in Trumpworld”
In the early 1980s, while I was in the government, the requirement for a security clearance renewal had a new provision that covered presently unclassified but potentially classifiable material. We were told that the government would never use it to entrap an employee. A coworker and I refused to sign it ,however, and we retired a few years later. This is the first case I have heard of its being used as we feared it could be.
Rodger, the early 1980s was wrong; it was the early 1990s. The provision was printed on the standard form that everyone had to sign to obtain or renew a clearance. I believe that form was replaced by a far more complete and complicated form.
1 Cached
2 Similar
Sensitive Security Information (SSI) is a category of sensitive but unclassified information under …. Ultimately, the “classifiable” aspect of the government nondisclosure policies was dropped. However, the same situation has reared its head in …
The quote follows:
During the 1980s, Congress and the White House clashed over nondisclosure agreements that said employees could be penalized for disclosing “classifiable” (rather than classified) information. The primary argument against was that a whistleblower could be retaliated against by a management decision to simply retroactively decide that they disclosed classified information – though it was not classified when the disclosure took place. The decision to mark the information as sensitive would have taken place only after a disclosure. Furthermore, this would have held employees who disclosed to a higher standard than the person responsible for marking information that should be marked classified. Ultimately, the “classifiable” aspect of the government nondisclosure policies was dropped.
However, the same situation has reared its head in the former TSA Federal Air Marshal Robert MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security national security whistleblower termination case, which revolves around the TSA’s retroactive decision to label a disclosure from MacLean as “Sensitive Security Information,” three years after he made his disclosure and four months after terminating him. MacLean argues that his disclosure was protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act; the TSA counters that SSI disclosures are not protected because violations of executive agency regulations are equal to a “violation of law.”[2]
According to this 1988 House report.[3] “The Administration’s most recent attempt to define ‘classifiable’ holds employees liable for disclosers of unclassified information, without any prior notice to them of its special status. Under Executive Order 12356, classified information is marked as such. Sec. 1.5. Even information that is in the process of a classification determination is given an interim classification marking for a 30-day period. Executive Order 12356, Sections 1.1(c), 1.(e). The employee is, therefore, aware of its special status. Without the classification markings on unclassified information, however, an employee cannot be sure that the nondisclosure agreements’ restrictions apply to that material. Consequently, they must check with their supervisors, thereby alerting them to the disclosure. That invites a chilling effect. As then Congresswoman (now U.S. Senator) Barbara Boxer noted at the hearings:
“……….. investigating the email records of current and former State Department officials…”
He’ll do anything to dig up any dirt he can to distract from the ongoing investigation of him. All the while he only digs himself in deeper. His new home should be in the Labrea tar pits.
It used to be he only lied a few times a day (which was way too much for a President). Now he spends his time tweeting rather than governing, and he lies with every tweet. Dozens a day. The people who believe him are fools and suckers. Sadly, when you tell a fool he has been suckered, that only hardens his position.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
In the early 1980s, while I was in the government, the requirement for a security clearance renewal had a new provision that covered presently unclassified but potentially classifiable material. We were told that the government would never use it to entrap an employee. A coworker and I refused to sign it ,however, and we retired a few years later. This is the first case I have heard of its being used as we feared it could be.
LikeLike
Tip, Is that provision documented in any public source?
LikeLike
Rodger, the early 1980s was wrong; it was the early 1990s. The provision was printed on the standard form that everyone had to sign to obtain or renew a clearance. I believe that form was replaced by a far more complete and complicated form.
LikeLike
I don’t suppose there is any way to see a sample of the form??
LikeLike
Rodger, I didn’t find a copy of the old form, but did find the following under
Sensitive Security Information – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sensitive_Security_Information
1 Cached
2 Similar
Sensitive Security Information (SSI) is a category of sensitive but unclassified information under …. Ultimately, the “classifiable” aspect of the government nondisclosure policies was dropped. However, the same situation has reared its head in …
The quote follows:
During the 1980s, Congress and the White House clashed over nondisclosure agreements that said employees could be penalized for disclosing “classifiable” (rather than classified) information. The primary argument against was that a whistleblower could be retaliated against by a management decision to simply retroactively decide that they disclosed classified information – though it was not classified when the disclosure took place. The decision to mark the information as sensitive would have taken place only after a disclosure. Furthermore, this would have held employees who disclosed to a higher standard than the person responsible for marking information that should be marked classified. Ultimately, the “classifiable” aspect of the government nondisclosure policies was dropped.
However, the same situation has reared its head in the former TSA Federal Air Marshal Robert MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security national security whistleblower termination case, which revolves around the TSA’s retroactive decision to label a disclosure from MacLean as “Sensitive Security Information,” three years after he made his disclosure and four months after terminating him. MacLean argues that his disclosure was protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act; the TSA counters that SSI disclosures are not protected because violations of executive agency regulations are equal to a “violation of law.”[2]
According to this 1988 House report.[3] “The Administration’s most recent attempt to define ‘classifiable’ holds employees liable for disclosers of unclassified information, without any prior notice to them of its special status. Under Executive Order 12356, classified information is marked as such. Sec. 1.5. Even information that is in the process of a classification determination is given an interim classification marking for a 30-day period. Executive Order 12356, Sections 1.1(c), 1.(e). The employee is, therefore, aware of its special status. Without the classification markings on unclassified information, however, an employee cannot be sure that the nondisclosure agreements’ restrictions apply to that material. Consequently, they must check with their supervisors, thereby alerting them to the disclosure. That invites a chilling effect. As then Congresswoman (now U.S. Senator) Barbara Boxer noted at the hearings:
LikeLike
“……….. investigating the email records of current and former State Department officials…”
He’ll do anything to dig up any dirt he can to distract from the ongoing investigation of him. All the while he only digs himself in deeper. His new home should be in the Labrea tar pits.
LikeLike
Trump mistruths on Ukraine, impeachment fight
It used to be he only lied a few times a day (which was way too much for a President). Now he spends his time tweeting rather than governing, and he lies with every tweet. Dozens a day. The people who believe him are fools and suckers. Sadly, when you tell a fool he has been suckered, that only hardens his position.
See: The Ukraine story is just the tip of the impeachment iceberg
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
See: What has changed in our national Trump nightmare — and what hasn’t
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
See: A Second Whistleblower Complaint Is Targeting Trump’s Tax Returns
LikeLike