eGhazi: IC Backs Down on "highly classified" claims

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 01:09:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Josh Gerstein:

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO. The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A top expert in classification procedures called the development" an astonishing turn of events."

So it turns out the IC doesn't agree with the IC IG. Charles McCullough it turns out, is a hack.

Told you so.

< Project Runway Finale | Sharm el Sheikh: Home to Luxury Resorts >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

eGhazi: IC Backs Down on "highly classified" claims | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bracing for incoming (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 03:18:40 PM EST

Yammering about the "politization" of the intelligence community and the craven lawlessness of the entire Obama administration that will go to any length to..... Blah....blah....blah....

Maybe the GOP will accept the findings ... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 06:34:12 PM EST

... with quiet dignity and grace.


: Perfect. I'm giggling (none / 0) (#10)
by Towanda on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 09:48:39 PM EST

almost too much to type "thank you."

Right... (none / 0) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 04:03:05 PM EST

...to the GOP, "This changes nothing."


Benghazi today, Benghazi tomarrah, Benghazi foreva (5.00 / 6) (#9)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 08:14:35 PM EST

lol! You win. (none / 0) (#17)
by Mr Natural on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 04:11:26 PM EST

: same people or their descedants. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 04:31:34 PM EST

Hopefully (none / 0) (#5)
by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 04:07:21 PM EST

With the right messaging it may reach the public.

I just posted in the open not a word about this on cable.

Isn't this sort of big news? Or since it is information that is good for a Clinton are Clinton rules working here?

It will be interesting to see if it come up at the debate thing tonight.


: It (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by FlJoe on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 04:26:05 PM EST

will be crickets from the media. You would think there would be something after all the hoopla, but this nothing burger is fading into the slipstream without anyone trying to set the record straight as per The Clinton rules.
Of course like all the rest of of the nothing burgers this will still be considered part of her "baggage".

: It'll result in an Emily Litella moment, at best. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 05:05:16 PM EST

"Oh. I see. Never mind -- bi+ch!"

Probably not (none / 0) (#11)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 06:06:53 AM EST

Appearing on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on Tuesday, the host of "Meet the Press" argued that the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which shows that Clinton is underwater in her favorability numbers prove, "she has a long way to go with the middle of the electorate when it comes to honest and trustworthy numbers."

Host Andrea Mitchell noted that a "warning sign" for Clinton is that "She's an overwhelming favorite among Democrats but as a general election nominee she has a net negative."

Chuck Todd explained the poll, which was conducted right before and right after Clinton's Benghazi Committee testimony, shows that Clinton "improved among Democrats and simultaneously got worse among independents."


Chuck (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by FlJoe on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 08:16:18 AM EST

Todd and Andrea Mitchell? You could hardly find better examples of overpaid underqualified corporate media hacks.

Sure Hillary has had a problem with her fav/unfav for months but it is not news, matter of fact her numbers appear to be improving, their own poll showed a downtick but they had to find a fly in the ointment by discovering a slight uptick in the independents, all within the margin of error of course. They cannot stay away from the negative self re-enforcing narratives.

It's hard to deny that the email "scandal" has had a lot to with the unfavorability rise over the last six months , there is a definite bump after the whole "criminal investigation" story took hold.

Now that it turns out that this investigation from hell that was flogged by the media and the Republicans for months has been shown to have been based on absolutely nothing, there is no effort by the media to correct the record and that is the real crime here.


A job for Super-Pac (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by christinep on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 08:43:26 PM EST

The fact that a candidate's Superpac is not allowed to coordinate with said candidate's campaign does not mean that the Superpac cannot make its own concerted effort to point out the lay of the land, the background, the reality of fabricated & wasteful circus probes that detract from America's work, etc. A Superpac's focus would certainly include providing hard-hitting information for voters ... information that repeatedly sets the record straight.

My point: If the truth will out in this situation, it will be because the several democratic entities implement a massive correction effort in the coming months ... not just a mention here & there, but an unyielding & impossible-to-miss statement of the facts.


Then (none / 0) (#13)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 09:30:08 AM EST

Why is the FBI continuing with their investigation?
Shouldn't they just suspend it?
No, all the downgrade did was lower the status of 2 emails sent.

The facts that Clinton has not told the truth , that since March , her statements have had to be walked back, revised, is what has lead to her bad poll numbers regarding trust. It has just reinforced that perception of her.


I can (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by FlJoe on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 10:36:32 AM EST

not speak to the status of the FBI investigation and how this revelation affects it, but the investigation and the subsequent charges of criminality by her were all based on the assertions of the IC IG that he discovered highly classified material in her email., a claim that is now completely debunked.

Maybe

her statements have had to be walked back, revised,

maybe not, it's not unusual for public figures to have to do so as a story evolves, especially when some wild accusations are being thrown around.

Her statements have always been basically:
The server was legal, and not unprecedented, true.
The server was secure, never proven otherwise.
No(marked) classified info was sent, technically true but with the IG's assertions throwing a huge cloud of doubt over the reality of it.

Maybe now that the truth is out and that cloud has been completely blown away you would think the media would do a little "walking back" and "revising" also, but alas no.


Oh Well (none / 0) (#16)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 03:38:49 PM EST

But a spokesman for James Clapper, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence and the man tasked with evaluating the two "Top Secret" emails, said that's not the case.

Here's a passage from Politico's first update to the story Friday night (this part has since been shortened):

However, after an initial version of this story was published Friday, a spokesman for Clapper indicated the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said. He declined to say if any changes had been made in recent days to the strict handling requirements for the disputed emails.


: I will (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by FlJoe on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 04:13:58 PM EST

grant you It's only Politco and only one unnamed source, I guess we shall see.
In any case the fact
that the issue had not been fully resolved. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing,"
is telling. Four months and the experts still can't tell? Talk about government waste.

: Yeah, because James Clapper (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 08, 2015 at 06:15:27 PM EST

Doesn't have a partisan bone in his public servant body.

Not really (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by MKS on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 10:58:47 AM EST

Just like Whitewater, as the actual claims are debunked, the exoneration gets little publicity.....and her critics still say she has "trust" problems.....The Clinton Rules....

All a political hit job....no there, there....


Good info (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by MKS on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 04:02:03 PM EST

Oh, good lord (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 08, 2015 at 06:53:00 PM EST

It was always a big nothingburger pushed by desperate Republicans.

For those (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by FlJoe on Mon Nov 09, 2015 at 08:54:51 AM EST

keeping score, this story got one sentence on MTP and a whopping 30 seconds on FTN and

ABC's This Week, Fox Broadcasting Co's Fox News Sunday, Fox News' Media Buzz, and CNN's State of the Union and Reliable Sources, failed to mention the Politico report and any reaction to it.

Good money quote on FTN though:

JOHN DICKERSON (HOST): The last 30 seconds we have there was report that -- Politico reported Friday that Hillary Clinton's emails were not actually classified material. If it's possible, taking the politics out of it, does that surprise you, that judgement?
MICHAEL MORELL: John, it does not. The working level people in the intelligence community whose job it is to look at a piece of paper and decide whether that's classified or not are really good people, they are really working hard, but they have a bias toward saying something is classified.

Yes, you did! (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 03:12:51 PM EST