AP Story Demonstrates Weak Claims Against Hillary On E-mails

In an AP Story sourced by Intelligence Community officials, the extreme weakness of the claims against Hillary Clinton are well explained. AP writes:

The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press. [My emphasis]

The idea that an email discussing a news article could be deemed "Top Secret" is ludicrous of course. But the IC is nothing if not ludicrous when it comes to classification issues. The story continues:

The sourcing of the information in the emails could have significant political implications as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up [. . .] The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing. [My emphasis]

Let's review this again - (1) Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself and (2) nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

Frankly, this puts Clinton completely in the clear. This story SHOULD be over as far as Hillary is concerned. IS that true for other State personnel? I think so. But there can be no doubt as to Clinton.

The AP story continues:

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.

This passage is unclear in this phrase - "The copy makes reference to classified information." This could mean, as I think it does, the copy from the news article. In which case, huh? A news article can be TOP SECRET? Just ludicrous. If "copy" means something else, I have no idea what it could be.

The story continues:

[A] second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" different people knowing the same thing through different means.

This seems to be a part of the interagency food fight where the IC thinks everything is classified, even though everyone knows from various sources and normal reasonable people say that's nonsense. And again, none of this implicates Hillary.

The rest of the article is a basic retelling of the controversy.

If this AP story is accurate, it's pretty clear there is no there there in this story.

< Thursday Open Thread | Is the Intelligence Community Violating EO 13526 on Classification? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You may be right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:46:53 AM EST

     A news article can be TOP SECRET

    that isn't what the article says at all.  It says the DISCUSSION ABOUT the article was top secret, which is certainly possible. ("Hey did you see the article in the Post about the drones?  Yeah, they got it right about the fact that we have 500 in Afghanistan, but they don't know about the 5000 we have flying over Iran every day.")

    Now the fact that it was deemed top secret after the fact does seem to show that HRC was NOT passing on classified material, so like I said, you're probably right about that even if your premise is wrong.

    A discussion abt what's in the article (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    This is ludicrous.


    I don;t know why you've taken the IC side on this but I've noticed it throughout your comments.

    A fair reading of the article makers it pretty clear that even the IC sources think McCullough lost his mind on that e-mail.


    Not at all. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 04:56:26 PM EST

    News articles says we have 100 secret agents in Iran.  Commentor says that's way off we have 834.


    The opening (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    paragraph of ther link blows your wild ass hypothetical out of the water
    Neither of the two emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton now labeled by intelligence agencies as "top secret" contained information that would jump out to experts as particularly sensitive, according to several government officials.
    then later
    nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
    Everything points towards the mundane.

    Hypothetical: Article "exposing" the drone program is the thread,  some deputy posts " I hear Langley is mega pissed off".  

    Of course intel considers their PO level to be ultra top secret, SD could give a flying fig. Same as it ever was.


    The PO reference (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    inconfirms the veracity of the article your hypothetical.

    What does that have to do with the topic? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:16:36 PM EST
    As BTD correctly noted, the IC's criteria for the classification of material for national security purposes is likely suspect, particularly given the actual contents that they are trying to classify as "top secret" in this instance.

    I'll go one farther, and say that as each day passes, this story increasingly appears to be less about the legitimate protection of our country's national security interests, and more about a concerted attempt on the part of certain parties in both Washington and the mainstream media to hamstring and derail Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.



    My take, press releases out of the Pentagon (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Particularly press releases about the drone program, generate this sort of friction all the time.  The drone program is top secret, but the Pentagon does do press releases about events involving the drone program because if they don't journalists will have to resort to investigative journalism. And an information black out causes anything that any journalist comes up with to lead. They have learned this from having to live with Sy Hersh.  You can't tell the little people to just screw off, and they can't trust you then either. But the Pentagon DOES NOT WANT TO ENCOURAGE investigative journalism into what they are doing and they can't afford to leave the American public in an information vacuum because then WE ALL demand to know....so...press releases with no named source.

    But the drone program is still top secret, so if you walk up to someone in the Air Force who you know is a drone pilot and begin asking them questions about the news article...they can say nothing.  They can't even wince or make a facial expression that you could take to mean confirming or denying anything that is in the press release.

    So there was a press release about drones. Any conversation at all about that press release among individuals holding security clearances the intelligence community wants classified because that conversation could be taken to be confirming or denying anything about the drone program.


    no wonder Hillary opted for her own server (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    the SMART initiative is the Bush/Powell $2.5 billion Vanguard contract

    The computer systems were configured to allow unauthorized users to access the State's system resources via anonymous log-ins and passwords, default credentials, and unsecured access points. In some cases, accounts are still active for terminated employees. To make matters worse, the department doesn't know how many contractors have access to the system, and whether those contractors have gone through the proper security clearance and training.


    It is interesting to watch our visiting (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    small, limited government conservatives banging the drum for rules, regulations, and obedience.  

    Analyzing the information (4.86 / 7) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    and correcting the misinformation is necessary.  However, the issue is not one of facts, legality, or judgments.  It is a political hit job. Facts do not matter. As with Benghazi, the shovel is passed by Issa to Goudy to continue digging the dry hole. And, now, it looks like it is Grassley's turn.

    The intent is to eclipse Mrs. Clinton's sterling record as Secretary of State, and by reduction, equate foreign service experience to, say, a no-nothing like Scott Walker--who says he can deal with ISIS  since he dealt with Wisconsin teachers by reducing their retirement and other benefits.  Or, Jeb! who took a week of try and try again, to get a Fox softball on Iraq correct.

    Republicans are fact-free and like simplistic answers--shouted in a bullying manner.  Facts, logic, common sense are futile.  The strategy for Mrs. Clinton, after correcting the record, address the root cause--no-nothingism politics.

    KeysDan, I may need you to (none / 0) (#38)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    meet me at my gym at mile marker 53, to give it a try with my fellow gym rats, who say that Hillary and Kerry are liars and should be imprisoned.  They get so riled up I'm afraid they may have a heart attack.  One big guy is an older ex-marine who may top the list of the hate Obama club.

    Fishcamp (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    Remberber, you are swimming with barracudas.   Safer to swim with a saner fish, Barry Cuda and his piano at Sloppy Joe's.  

    This article provides more detail (3.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    on why I believe the FBI involvement is an issue for Clinton, and perhaps others.

    "But given this inquiry's importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency's counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled."

    "Those two emails were drawn out of a batch of 40 emails randomly selected from about 30,000 "work-related" emails Clinton turned over to the State Department."

    "Some of the information -- such as communications intercepted via satellite or drone -- is protected under the law 18USC798, which means that they have even tighter rules and higher penalties."

    "Massimo Calabresi of Time notes that the law "makes it a crime not just to knowingly mishandle such secrets, but also to use them 'in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.'"

    "Consequently, a senior intelligence official familiar with the case told Time, the FBI's investigation "will go way beyond what the intelligence community's Inspector General ever would do."

    "Clinton's unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton."

    "The new server was run by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director on Hillary Clinton's campaign before joining the State Department in May 2009. In 2013 -- the same year she left the State Department -- Clinton hired the Denver-based company Platte River Networks to oversee the system."

    "It's unclear if any sensitive information was stored on the server while under Platte River's oversight. Platte River "is not cleared" to have access to classified material, Cindy McGovern, chief public affairs officer for the Defense Security Service, told The Daily Caller."

    "My big issue here is do you want a small firm with little/no government experience or contracting (according to what's being reported) and no stated security expertise to be in charge of the email system for our [former] secretary of state?" Cybersecurity expert Alex McGeorge of Immunity, Inc. told Business Insider over email."

    "Among the questions McGeorge has, and that will likely be investigated by the FBI, are: "How did they secure it? Were they monitoring it for intrusion? If so, how? Were there backups? If so, what kind and how often, and where are those backups now? What kind of security testing did they do, if any? Was the system subject to a penetration test by a third party? Is that report available?"

    "The Times notes that the FBI "is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton's private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation."


    The article doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 10:40:02 PM EST
    say anything concrete.....and certainly does not support your conclusions....

    But, thank you for showing the standard conservative attack line--"there are unanswered questions."

    This is Whitewater all over again.  


    You obviously don't know investigations (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:42:44 PM EST
    including FBI and criminal investigations work. What I've been saying for some time is that the email "scandal" is bigger than many of you think, and the recent developments involving the intelligence inspector general and the FBI are significant and adverse to Clinton. It has nothing to do with being conservative or having an agenda. If I had to vote for president today, I would vote for Clinton. Some people like you are so partisan, that you can't see what is occurring, and how this could, note the could, get bad for Clinton's presidential campaign.

    FBI and government investigations try to identify and answer the unanswered questions. They usually just methodically plod along, and they are difficult to stop or alter.

    Jeez, ask Jeralyn or BT (or any criminal defense lawyer on the site) if they think the FBI involvement in looking at these issues is a positive development for Clinton during a presidential campaign. At least, the FBI probably isn't being partisan and out to get Clinton, like many Congressional investigations.


    I don't know investigations (4.25 / 4) (#116)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 12:04:32 AM EST
    How would you know?

    All you are saying is the investigation by itself spells trouble for Clinton.  Do you know how many times I have heard that?

    And, if you think I am a blind Hillary partisan, that should surprise many here.   I am an Obama partisan since January 2008.  I opposed Hillary here for the entire Primary.....I was very critical of her in many respects....I had many very nasty exchanges here with Hillary supporters--which lasted well beyond the Primary.  All part of the public record.   Ask anyone here.

    But I have been astonished how she never, ever gets the benefit of the doubt and everything she does is twisted to look nefarious.

    What we have here is some people emailed her things that were not labeled classified at the time and have only recently been described as such....

    If you read carefully, they are looking at the senders, and have expressly stated they are not looking at Hillary.


    MKS, I can tell (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    you don't get involved with investigations by the comments you make. No one who is closely involved with and knowledgeable about investigations, especially ones by government agencies, could make the comments you make, in my view.

    "you obviously don't know..." (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    What we don't know is how your speculations and continuously reiterated innuendo will assist in the investigation.

    Shouldn't we (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    ...teach the controversy?

    That way, people know both sides of the issue and can jump to their own conclusions.


    It's nice to see some of you (1.50 / 2) (#81)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 02:41:16 AM EST
    actually provide some information, instead of just attacking posters like Trevor. I appreciate the information you provided. That was helpful.

    Why do you think the inspector general for intelligence and now the FBI are looking into these matters? They don't seem to be as confident, at least yet, that Clinton did everything right.

    I assume that most of you know what being a target means in criminal law, and that many people who are not targets initially, ultimate become targets. You know that right? You know what subjects and witnesses are, right?

    Try (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 07:44:23 AM EST
    going back and reading all of BTD's posts on this matter, he spells out the why of it.

    Too many of you guys come in for a rhetorical drive by rather then a reasoned, well sourced argument. Do you even read the original posts and links?

    Trevor was regurgitating the completely bogus regulatory timeline that was shot down months ago, even Republicans have given up on it. That BS gets shot down instantly around here, as well it should.


    No, Joe, I don't think BT's posts (1.50 / 2) (#101)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    answer these questions. BT's main point is that the intelligence inspector general and State Dept appear to disagree over whether these several emails should have been classified. I don't recall BT's posts explaining why the IIG is pursuing this and what the IIG is looking at--at least specifically. Later, I think I read that the State Dept brought in the IIG because they have more expertise and experience in determining classification of intelligence materials.

    I think i read that the IIG referred the matter to the FBI. I don't believe any of BTI's post describe what the FBI is looking at and why.

    Feel free to point out, specifically, where BT's posts answer these questions.

    None of my posts on this subject are driven by rhetoric. I am just trying to learn some things and figure out what was going on. BT's posts have been helpful, and I agree with him. I enjoy following subjects like this, and having BT and other posters bring things to our attention and provide analysis.


    I agree that 2 (or 4) emails (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    that Clinton received, and didn't send, shouldn't cause any criminal or governmental rules issues for her. They're causing some political damage, though.

    I have several questions. Did these 2 or so emails really just come from a limited sampling of 40 emails, from the 30,000 emails she gave to the State Dept? If so, aren't there likely to be a lot more troublesome emails? Or what am I missing?

    "The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information."  Media Matters article.

    Is it true that Clinton's server has been wiped clean (so that all of her many personal emails are gone)? Is it possible for those emails to be forensically retrieved by the feds from the wiped-clean server?

    That's just asinine. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    Your entire premise is predicated upon the increasingly ludicrous two-fold notion that:

    • Somehow and somewhere, there has to exist a file, a bank statement, a hidden offshore account, a property record, a billing record, a secret girlfriend, or now an e-mail, which has simply yet to be discovered; and

    • When the existence of said file, bank statement, offshore account, property record, billing record, secret girlfriend and / or e-mail is finally found and publicly disclosed, the American people will be shocked, shocked to the point of near-catatonic outrage, and the Clintons' entire political edifice will henceforth come crashing down upon them, and the country will have been saved from calamity.

    In fact, as far as the Republicans' single-minded pursuit of the Clintons is concerned, it's been nothing but a 25-year-long snipe hunt. And for a political party whose members just love to crow about their ostensible fiscal discipline -- given their actual record on THAT subject, God only knows why -- this entire quarter-century enterprise has proven itself to be an absolutely extraordinary misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars.



    To Me... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    ...what is even more ridiculous is the notion that Clinton would ever turn over anything incriminating.

    They want it to be both ways, she can't be trusted, but we trust she will turn over evidence of her own wrongdoing. GD.  Not saying she did anything wrong, only that the right is their hast hasn't actually thought about the obvious.

    The idea that anyone wouldn't ensure what is turned over wasn't clean, is silly.  And before Jim & Co get their undies all twisted, let's not forget when the shoe was on the other foot, their crew simply took the lazy way out and deleted between 5 & 10 million White House emails, that were routed through gwb43.com servers.  And none of the clowns who care today, cared back then.

    Never mind their emails were deleted in mist of a federal investigation into politically motivated firings of US attorneys.


    And I understand (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    there was a federal criminal subpoena for those emails. But hey it's the Clinton Rules. Republicans can do anything, have extremely low standards for everything and that's okay but Clinton has to dot all her I's and cross all her T's.

    What a silly bunch the GOP is these days. Full of buffoons who can't shoot straight.


    There are certain people who live only to ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 03:56:31 PM EST
    ... get their panties in a bunch about politics. While the blatant hypocrisy of their positions is still sometimes rather striking, it's really no longer surprising -- or at least, it shouldn't be.

    But say what one will about the liberal and progressive community, by and large the vast majority of us here at TL are not stupid people. And what I really don't care for is to see our intelligence repeatedly insulted by those who obviously don't know their own a$$es from their elbows, and / or who excel at manufacturing their own sets of "facts" out of whole cloth.

    Such persons deserve neither our respect nor our civility, because they really show none of that themselves in their public discourse, whether it be with us or anyone else. That's why henceforth, one person in particular will be getting only my boiler plate response.



    It's best to stay with civility anyway. (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 08:48:48 PM EST
    You can never have too much karma.

    LOL! How true. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 09:36:09 PM EST

    It's called (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    moving the goal posts, concern trolling, trying to create doubt. It's always where there's smoke there must be fire. It's Ann Coulter going on TV saying oh, the American people are going to change their minds once they find out about that "second intern" which never materializes. It's just how the GOP is.

    However the good news is they are conceding that their issues are big time losers if all they have is scandal mongering.


    Agreed. But the obvious problem is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    ... there has always been a big market for faux scandal / rumormongering. Sad to say, it's a time-testing tactic in politics because it works.

    And when it causes otherwise incompetent, unqualified or manifestly unfit persons to gain high office, the damage they cause us can be considerable before the public finally wises up and makes a course correction.

    Let's face it, Richard Nixon's entire political career was premised upon the effective dissemination of rumor and innuendo about his political opponents, both real and perceived. And frankly, we're STILL paying for the mistake voters made in 1968, when they handed the White House keys over to that paranoid alcoholic and his ingratiating crowd of sycophants and cronies.



    I believe they were not a random sample (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    but rather a collection of emails that were already under dispute.

    This NY Times article has more information (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:26:52 AM EST

    Also this quote:

    "Computer experts said it was likely that F.B.I. technicians would be able to recover from the server at least some of Mrs. Clinton's deleted personal emails."


    If this story is supposed to be about ... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 02:08:36 AM EST
    ... national security, then why are you interested in accessing and reading Mrs. Clinton's personal e-mails? This has everything to do with her being the presumed Democratic frontrunner, and nothing at all to do with protecting our country's vital secrets.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:39:24 AM EST
    we're finally getting down to the real truth from the GOP. They want the personal emails but then that's what they really wanted all along.

    They could care less about her personal emails (2.67 / 3) (#35)
    by coast on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:00:28 AM EST
    The issue is that she mixed personal and government emails, therefore that makes the whole population suspect.

    This is no different than if you deposit both personal money and business money into an account.  You then report the business amount on your income tax return.  When the IRS request information on the deposits, they aren't going to be satisfied with you just supplying information on the deposits you reported on your income tax return.  They are going to sample all your deposits both personal and business to make sure you didn't under report your income.

    This is the exact same concept.  She should have had a separate email for her government work and one for personal.  It's that simple.  They are simply verifying that she has in fact turned over all relevant government emails.

    The lesson is that you never should mix business and personal items, whether it's deposits, expenses, emails, ect.  It only opens your personal information for inspection.


    Do tell? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:48:55 AM EST
    I'm looking for the link in your post with the requirement that she was required to use a .gov email address or prohibited from using a personal email address, but it's not there.



    Just as those who preceded her as SoS (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    Did so, like Colin Powell, for instance, we don't hear about any problems with his e-mail despite doing the same thing as Hillary did.

    Why is that?


    Different rules and regulations (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    Probably because the State Department's policy on personal email accounts dates back to 2005, the year Powell left the administration.

    Additionally, in 2009 , the Obama Administration enacted new regulations dictating that all government employees use government e mail


    No (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    the regulations changed in 2013 but I'm sure the facts are not going to alter your thinking one bit. Feh, this stupid story is pretty much done except for the annals of the conspiracy nuts. So far a couple of the conspiracy theories have already been blown up and I'm sure more are going to go down.

    Or because that's false (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    Which is why you don't post links.

    False? (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    It is not really hard to check. I found the info. You are thoroughly invested in your narrative, I am amazed at the persistent denial of everything, go back to March and look up all the posts here on this topic. The Democrats really need another option, and I believe that senior Democrat donors and party loyalists are exploring that now. If this gets worse, I would expect Elizabeth Warren to reluctantly throw her hat in the ring, per popular demand.
    Everything has gotten progressively worse, and most likely will continue to do so.
    Looking at this non biased , non politically, this has been one cluster**. It is a pr disaster of Hillary's own making. She basically made it impossible for the State Department to respond to FOIA requests. If she had any intention of being transparent she would have turned over any State Department e mails when she left as Sec State.
    I have been reading this blog for 8 years (lurker) and know many of the personalities, and have not tried linking, just am aware it is a issue on this site.
    This issue will not go quietly, or soon. We will all see where it leads. You may be right, but I am not inclined to believe that.

    You should be able to link to a primary (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    source to back up your allegations, instead of doubling-down on your conspiracy theory version of things.

    Read and learn:

    To date however, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have largely downplayed references to the fact that Powell's private, secretary of state emails are all gone

    Why is Powell relevant to Clinton? Because after she took questions from the reporters yesterday about the email saga, the press focused in on the fact in reviewing her private emails, Clinton found roughly 60,000 messages. She handed over 30,000 to the State Department and determined the other 30,000 were personal in nature and disgarded them.

    Those 30,000 emails have now become the key storyline, which goes like this: How can people be assured that Clinton turned over all the pertinent emails when she was the one (or her attorney) who decided which ones were personal, and would be withheld, and which ones were government-related, and would be turned over. Doesn't there need to be an "independent arbiter" to look over all 60,000 emails to decide which ones the State Department gets to keep?

    "They were personal and private about matters I believed were in the scope of my personal privacy," Clinton said. "They have nothing to do with work. I didn't see any reason to keep them." That's what the so-called scandal revolves around: Hillary's team decided which emails to turn over and which ones to toss. And that's a deeply troubling development. The press is insistent on that fact.

    And so here's why Jeb Bush's name is conspicuously absent from the current coverage: He did the exact same thing. Like, the exact same thing.

    From the Tampa Bay Times [emphasis added]:

    The former governor conducted all his communication on his private Jeb@jeb.org account and turned over the hand-selected batch to the state archives when he left office. Absent from the stash are emails the governor deemed not relevant to the public record: those relating to politics, fundraising and personal matters while he was governor.

    And again here, the Tampa Bay Times reported Bush, "hand-picked emails from his time as governor to help build his case for a 2016 primary run for president."  

    Who decided which emails were "relevant to the public record"? Jeb Bush.

    Obviously if journalists consistently include that nugget it deflates the Clinton narrative, especially the one about her being uniquely secretive. If Jeb Bush, who might be the Republican nominee for president, went through half-a-million private emails from his days as governor and self-selected which one's he'd let the public see and which one were truly private, that completely diminishes the media's preferred narrative that Clinton went rogue and somehow broke all the rules.

    She did not. But that's not the story the press wants to tell.

    Any questions?


    This (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    guy fell for the Al Gore story. LOL. Why spend anytime arguing with people who stand for nothing therefore will fall for anything.

    All hat and no cattle (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    So I won't bother with his baseless assertions from here on in.

    More "False Info" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 03:31:47 PM EST

    Some more unlinked information, or stuff I made up  :)
    Washington Post's Carol Leonnig, Karen Tumulty, and Rosalind Helderman noted at the bottom of their late-afternoon roundup that the pressure may be picking up after all:

    The investigation is being overseen by two veteran prosecutors in the Justice Department's National Security Division. One of them helped manage the prosecution of David H. Petraeus, the retired general and former CIA director who was sentenced to probation earlier this year after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was also fined $100,000.
    The FBI probe is concentrating on two tracks, according to the New York Times' Michael Schmidt and David Sanger. The first is how the classified material ended up in an unauthorized and unsecured system, and the other is an assessment of whether the material ended up in hostile hands:

    Actually, 18 USC 793 does not require an intent to mishandle classified material. Paragraph (f)(1) only requires "gross negligence" that results in unauthorized transfer or relocation of sensitive material, with 10 years of prison possible for each count, and it doesn't have to be classified for it to count. Also, 18 USC 1924 makes it a crime to be in unauthorized possession of classified material. If the server contained classified material while it was in Hillary's physical possession at an unauthorized location (her house in Chappaqua), then it violates this law.  Plus, Hillary was no longer authorized for access to that kind of information after leaving office even in a secure facility; she no longer had a "need to know." Petraeus was charged under 1924, by the way, as was Sandy Berger, John Deutsch, and others who eventually plea-bargained for misdemeanors.


    Thanks (3.67 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 03:41:28 PM EST
    for the cut and paste from right wing websites but you neglected to add that the people who saw the emails are saying that there's nothing there.

    The GOP is playing politics with national security.


    GA6, most of Trevor's above post (none / 0) (#57)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:51:45 PM EST
    came from yesterday's WaPost article. The info was not from right wing websites; it was from the linked WaPost article. Perhaps you should be doing more mainstream reading on this subject before you falsely accuse or criticize others. You and Yman have a bad habit of doing this.

    Cleared Up? (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    Washington Post, NY Times are Right Wing websites.

    In the 1 prior post, those eagle eyes caught a mistake, ( had to research it further, and by golly they were right) they were not required to use .gov, but are required to make sure ALL correspondence ends up on a .gov address, and not 4 years later

    "Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they're conducting official government business," Earnest said. He added if there are occasions when personal email is used for government business, a copy should be sent to the government account so the message can be properly preserved for inquiries from the public, historians and Congress.

    President Barack Obama didn't sign a law requiring archiving of emails from government officials until last year, after Clinton left office. But in 2011, when she was still secretary amid Google's revelations that China tapped email accounts of U.S. officials, the White House said government officials should use government email accounts for official business.
    "The administration policy that is effective here is that we - all of our work is conducted on work email accounts," said then-press secretary Jay Carney.



    That was (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:08:45 PM EST
    not a mandate nor was it a law. It was a recommendation. Do you take your recommended daily amount of vitamins? I'm sure you don't.

    I find it fascinating that the GOP is always yelling about how there are too many rules and regulations and now they want everybody to follow the vague recommendations. Sheesh.


    FOIA (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 07:47:50 AM EST
    Seriously, take your partisan blinders off, for a moment. Can't we agree that the FOIA is one of the most important tools the American public has to keep our politicians somewhat honest?

    So you are pooh poohing methodology used to circumvent the FOIA laws, and using partisan politics to do it.
    Yes, Republican clamor that there are too many rules and regulations, mostly ones that drive up the cost of doing business. There can be a reasoned discussion as to the validity of that argument, both sides have valid points.

    But for the enforcement of FOIA requests, I hope you do truly believe that it benefits ALL Americans when these FOIA regulations are strictly enforced.


    Take off yours, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    Then you can expect others to as well.

    Nobody (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    is arguing against FOIA, in theory it is an important tool, in practice it falls far short. After all is said one or more government agency decides what is "unclassified" enough for release.

    There is no evidence that Hillary was trying to circumvent FOIA regulations, even as vague as they were. She archived her emails as required, plus they were presumably archived at the .gov  addresses she was communicating with.


    Huh? (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 09:27:05 AM EST
    The whole purpose of a home brew server is to circumvent FOIA requests. (It is not for convenience, lol, Hillary still used multiple devices)
    She did not archive the e mails as required, she presented them to the State Department, years later,  only after the State Department requested them, as the State Department could not comply with the multitude of FOIA requests they had received.

    Now you're just babbling (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    what do you think (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    the IC IG is doing by reclassifying a document?

    He is ensuring that the document will not be released via FOIA.  


    I used (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    google and unless Google brings up the wrong thing most I took his phrases and it did a cut and paste and places like Hot Air and all other right wing websites are what came up. So yes, I did my research.

    Yman, which supposed facts (none / 0) (#55)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    has Trevor posted that you believe are false? I may not have read all of his posts, but most of what I've looked at seems to have correct information, or at least nothing jumped out as being false or incorrect.

    This one, for starters (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:47:25 PM EST

    Additionally, in 2009 , the Obama Administration enacted new regulations

    Which is true, but it didn't mandate all government employees have a .gov  email addy.  That is definitely untrue.


    Got it, MoreD (none / 0) (#59)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    I had not noticed the reference to .gov. Thanks.

    Do you see anything else?


    I think one serious misstatement (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    Of fact((or, to use a layman's term, lie) is enough to keep him from being taken seriously.

    I don't agree. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:21:01 PM EST
    Everyone makes mistakes. Most of what he's said is accurate. You ought to point out what's not accurate, and what you disagree with, and not just falsely assert that what he is saying is wrong. Should we completely dismiss GA6 for falsely saying his stuff was from right wing sites, when it was mostly a recent WaPost article.

    That wasn't a mistake, it is not supported (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:22:45 PM EST
    by any news account I know of, so,you may think that Trevor isn't a troll, but he is.

    Read the WaPost article (none / 0) (#65)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:35:47 PM EST
    from yesterday, which I linked. Most of his post right above the post accusing him of getting the information from right wing websites, is out of that WaPost article. False accusation. When people disagree with some of you, some resort to quickly to labeling them a troll or saying nothing they say can be trusted.

    The Wa Po article, if it says (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    The e-mail regulations changed between when Powel left and Hillary took over the job, then it's wrong and full of BS, just like Trevor and you.

    Just post a link (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:50:06 PM EST
    It makes all this discussion moot.....

    And Powell should be held to the same standard. (none / 0) (#51)
    by coast on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    All public employees should.  How else can the public have confidence that we have all records from an individual's service, if that same individual can determine what is and is not public record?

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    if all public employees have a .gov email address.

    How do you know they use it for all government related business instead of using private email for some issues?  You don't.

    Just having and using a .gov address means nothing, actually.


    Means Something (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 07:36:26 AM EST
    It means in theory, that the e mail is always the property of the State Department, and they maintain possession of it. That they do not have to request former employees to send them copies of any  e mails they might have sent from a private  e mail account to comply with FOIA requests, and not knowing that they received all the information to legally comply with that request.

    false assumption (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by mm on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    that the e mail is always the property of the State Department, and they maintain possession of it. That they do not have to request former employees to send them copies of any  e mails they might have sent from a private  e mail account to comply with FOIA requests, and not knowing that they received all the information to legally comply with that request.

    The problem with your assumption is that the State Department has already stated on the record that this wasn't happening.  Preserving and archiving emails that is.

    A State Department spokeswoman said Friday that the department did not start automatically archiving emails from senior officials until February of this year -- raising questions about Hillary Clinton's claim that her emails were "immediately" saved whenever she corresponded with colleagues.

    The former secretary of state made that assertion during her press conference earlier this week -- and in a lengthy statement put out by her office -- as she defended her exclusive use of personal email. Clinton downplayed concerns that official emails could have been lost by suggesting anytime she emailed anyone with a ".gov" address, that email would be stored for posterity.

    "The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department," she said Tuesday.

    But department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear on Friday that this was not the way the system worked.

    She said the department only started automatically archiving emails for other senior officials in February.

    "They have long been planning to do this. It's just something that it took some time to put in place," Psaki said, adding that they'll "continue to ... take steps forward."

    Before February, these senior officials would have been responsible for flagging their own official records for preservation. And as an inspector general report released earlier this week made clear, that often was not happening.

    The report said that in 2011, employees created just "61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent." They created even fewer in 2013.

    So in essence, if Secretary Clinton had used the .gov account many of the emails that have now been turned over in response to the FOIA requests probably wouldn't even exist.  The fact that Hillary Clinton preserved all her work related emails should be applauded.


    National Archives Regulations (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    What it means is that the State Department was not complying with National Archives regulations...ALSO

    The State Department is in serious CYA mode,

    They have 2 Federal District Court judges really pissed at them for their response to FOIA requests,
    Plus , they will be defending themselves against IG reports of the classified, not classified, e mails.
    No, The State Department has not been operating in compliance with regulations.


    this is not responsive to the central point (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by mm on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    Secretary Clinton preserved all her work related emails, which have been turned over to the State Department.  It appears that this was above and beyond what anyone else has ever done.  Now those emails are available for Trey Goudy to play politics with.  

    These probably would not have been retrievable though the State Department system.
    So it seems that Secretary Clinton saved the SD from their own incompetence if you will.

    Isn't that what this is all about, making sure the GOP has every bit of evidence they need to complete this 8th investigation into the Benghazi tragedy?  

    The regulations state that the "employees" determine themselves which emails to preserve and which ones were personal and may be deleted.

    There is no mythical omniscient, all-seeing, almighty creature sitting there reviewing each and every one of the billions of emails sent through the .gov system.

    Finally, you keep asserting as fact that some emails sent to Secretary Clinton were classified.  This is in dispute as BTD has shown with statements from the State Department.


    Correct (none / 0) (#106)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    The State Depart most likely would not have stored all of those e mails,
    So, in retrospect, Hillary should have used the .gov account, the FOIA requests would have come up empty, and not by her doing.
    However , use of a private server was against National Archive regulations, as conducted by Hillary as some e mails never hit a .gov account, or given over to the State Dept.
    Classified documents, well that number will balloon once they start reviewing the other 29k e mails, and I do not believe the State Department will be able to deny all of them. People make mistakes, I can't see how no one  "inadvertantly" added in some classified info into a e mail. But we will find out...eventually

    These government investigations always start with one thread, and end up  pulling  others.
    Fitzgeralds Special Prosecutor investigation was for who leaked Valerie Plame to Novak, well, Fitzgerald knew early on it was Armitage, but Libby ended up being charged.


    If you think this will lead (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    To criminal charges, then you are an idiot, full stop.

    Classified info (2.00 / 2) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    I must say, You are a classy individual,

    But, nevertheless,

    If there really is any semblance of classified information in her e mails

    There is a strong likelihood of someone getting charged criminally

    Maybe someone lower in the food chain will take the fall

    The Obama Justice Department has been relentless in charging people with mishandling classified information


    Tells us again about how Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    was required to have a .gov account back in 2009.

    so we can all go home then? (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by mm on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    Hillary should have used the .gov account, the FOIA requests would have come up empty, and not by her doing.

    You are elevating form over substance.  The emails have been preserved, they are in the State Department's hands and are being reviewed now in response to the FOIA requests.  This is more than Colin Powell did, so naturally Hillary will be hounded to the gates of hell.

    That's what this whole mishegas nonsense going on between the IC and State is all about.

    Remember, when the personal server was first reported and made public, Secretary Clinton was not concerned because she assumed that her emails that she sent to .gov State employees had been captured and preserved.  She stated so publicly.  It turned out that was not the case.  So why does she look suspicious and why are all the media saying she looks like she's hiding something?  Quite the opposite to me.

    Who looks more suspicious and untrustworthy, someone like McCain or Huckleberry Graham who consciously and deliberately and quite proudly avoid using email or Secretary Clinton who used it in the normal course of her duties and assumed they were being preserved?

    Finally, please address the substance.  This is supposedly all about the Goudy Committee investigation into Benghazi.  The potential that anything Secretary Clinton wrote in her emails on that subject would add anything substantive to that sham of an investigation is infinitesimal.  She didn't use her emails for sending sensitive or classified information.  That's the point.

    It was already revealed that her email volume went down dramatically during the months leading up to the attack in Benghazi.

    Among the hundreds of emails released by the State Department from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. So far, there are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead

    We are witnessing a political assassination going on here.


    Hillary was bound by the (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    Federal Records Act Of 1950 which had no provision for private servers so Hillary's use of a private server could not be against the 1950 regulations.

    However , use of a private server was against National Archive regulations, as conducted by Hillary as some e mails never hit a .gov account, or given over to the State Dept

    Even if you are using the amended Act of 2014 (2 years after Hillary resigned), the bill allows employees to use their personal email account for official business.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    The Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. § 3101) requires all government agencies and government officials to preserve records and keep copies of official correspondence dealing with the agency's business, functions, policies, procedures, and more. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "[I]n 2009, the National Archives did issue regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on nonofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved "in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

    18 U.S.C. § 1924: "Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."
    18 U.S.C § 793: "(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
    (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
    (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer--
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
    18 U.S.C. § 2071 makes it a felony whenever any custodian of official government records "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same."


    When did Hillary (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 12:10:42 AM EST
    interact with the e-mails in a way that violated any of those statutes?

    Investigate (none / 0) (#118)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 06:21:23 AM EST
    Federal Records Act was already violated,

    All the others, are very broadly written,
    And, that is why there is a investigation,
    And they have 30k, maybe 60k, e mails to read.

    In theory, that server, and the lawyers thumb drive should have been seized the moment the IG's office informed anyone that classified information was on the server.
    The FBI will have to answer why they waited so long. If anyone in the services was thought to have classified information on a laptop, that would have been seized the next day, and having a lawyer, not cleared for classified information also having a copy.
    This whole thing stinks, the State Department, FBI, all will have to account for their lack of action regarding that server


    Um, no (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 07:51:37 AM EST
    The FBI has already stated that there is no Criminal investigation.

    Can you explain why Powell's own lack of compliance with the same law doesn't open him up to criminal prosecution as well?

    And the IG determined some unmarked material in the e-mails should be classified, not that it was classified at the time she received it.

    You're not making any sense now, Trevor.


    Which law? (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    National Archives came into being in 2009

    I believe the other ones deal with classified information

    Is there any documentation that Powell retained classified records

    THE Title 18 laws come into play with Clinton as it is alleged that classified information was stored on her server, and in possession of her lawyer.


    Mordiggian, where did the FBI say (none / 0) (#122)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    there's no criminal investigation? I haven't seen that. Thanks in advance.

    Sointainly (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    From the NYT:

    Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.(Ed)

    I (none / 0) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:03:44 PM EST
    always love the "marginal consequence" or some such phrase that is always included in any half way honest reporting, of course the Times soon reverts to form
    Mr. McCullough said he found four out of 40 that contained classified information, though perhaps stripped of any indication that it was of classified origin.
     Weasel word alert! "Perhaps" they don't believe their own reporting or any subsequent reporting, statements by officials and leaks, which have unanimously and repeatedly stated there was no "perhaps" about it.

    They do stumble upon the truth eventually.  

    Nevertheless, the findings are consistent with the view of some federal officials that the State Department is not rigorous enough in handling classified national security information.

    This an institutional feud that has gone on for decades(State was doing secret long before the CIA was born), if not for Hillary being involved it would have gone totally unnoticed.


    Not the Target (none / 0) (#128)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    They state she is not the target of the investigation.

    I believe that they are trying to determine how this information ended up in Clinton's e mail,

    Then, was it forwarded anywhere else.

    It is the beginning of a Federal investigation,

    And you know what they say about Federal INvetigations


    No, Trevor. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    What do they say about Federal investigations?

    federal investigation (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    They are huge, cover everything and anything and never ending

    Which is why the saying goes when someone is being asked a lot questions,

    What is this, A federal investigation?


    Are you aware (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:40:30 PM EST
    that this "investigation" was requested by three GOP senators Burr, Corker and Johnson?

    So Hillary is telling the truth when she says it's just political BS.

    The more the truth comes out the more the GOP is going to look like a bunch of silly fools. However at this point the GOP has nothing to lose. They know they can't win a general election with candidates who think women should be turned into birthing slaves for rapists.


    I thought it went, (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    "I didn't expect a sort of federal investigation!"

    Out jump some dark suits.  The lead suit says, "Nobody expects a Federal Invesitgation! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to J. Edgar Hoover.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."


    Doesn't mean (none / 0) (#131)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:34:33 PM EST
    that this one will amount to a hill of beans against Hillary, does it?

    No (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    Right now, No.

    But someone is in trouble, State Department personnel are not feeling very good right now.

    Who sent the emails to Clinton, how did they come by the classified information, did they have clearance, why did they not state the e mail contained classified information

    Just for starters.

    Yes, Federal Investigations are very thorough


    Stil no indication of wrongdoing (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    on the part of Hillary.  You can investigate away, but even the best and most experienced investigative team can't make things up out of thin air, as you've tried to do, Trevor.  

    Even (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 06:03:48 PM EST
    Republicans it seems have moved away from trying to make Hillary a criminal. It's now she's "incompetent" Everything has come full circle it would seem because that is what they were saying before.

    That's a lot of outrage (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    before we know that anything wrong has really happened....

    In terms of classified information, were you outraged at what Cheney did to Valerie Plame?



    The GOP (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    is full of nothing if outrage junkies.

    Leak to Novak (none / 0) (#142)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 06:11:26 AM EST
    Another example of government abuse of power

    But it was Armitage who leaked to Novak

    And another perfect example of "federal investigations" and how they morph.

    The purpose of Fitzgeralds investigation was to find the leaker to Novak, which he knew early on was Armitage , but he didn't stop there


    Mordiggian, that doesn't (none / 0) (#143)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    say the FBI has said there is no criminal investigation. We don't know who law enforcement officials are. Not necessarily FBI. Not being a target does not mean there is no criminal investigation. While it is good not to be a target, as that means the investigators are focusing on the targeted person, there are other levels, such as subject or witness. The article's statement that there is no evidence that she broke the law, is not attributed to anyone, let alone the FBI. That's just someone's opinion. The investigation by the FBI just started. No one knows what will be found. There are 30,000 emails to go through, as well as perhaps more if they can be found on the server.

    What, do you think it's the Park Ranger (none / 0) (#145)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    police when they say federal LEO are involved' and not the FBI?  The FBI is the agency examining Hillary's famous server, for cry in' out loud, in their central laboratory.  

    And if it isn't the FBI, what federal LEO agents are involved, Green26?


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by mm on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 07:55:40 AM EST
    About 6 seconds after Clinton turned the server over to the DOJ, we start getting leaks from somewhere describing the nature of the "classified" information including specific references to news articles about drones.

    I guess this information is only classified for certain persons named Clinton.


    Okay, put them all in jail (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    And, your evidence?  Your links to evidence?

    Just make broad unsupported accusations.....Yeah, that is pretty standard....


    Not really (none / 0) (#146)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    She turned over (unsearchable) paper copies of some emails.

    OIG report says (none / 0) (#98)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    In 2013, Department employees created 41,749 record emails.   These statistics are similar to numbers from 2011, when Department employees created 61,156 record emails out of more
    than a billion  emails sent



    note also (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by mm on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    Who it is that created these "record emails".  It was the Department employees themselves.  There seems to be massive confusion or deliberate misinformation being spread by our hyperventilating genius journalists reporting this story.

    And let's try to remember where this all started - Benghazi.  The GOP is still looking for that email from Secretary Clinton that says "give my regards to Osama".


    It starts with this paranoid delusion (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 17, 2015 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    reinforced at every possible opportunity by the nutbar Tea Party-talk radio wing of the Right, that those liberals out there either don't care about national security, or else actually want this country to be attacked (because they hate America so much.)  

    I agree it is confusing (none / 0) (#103)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    How many emails really needed to be "record emails"?

    That billion emails sent does not really say anything - how many of the billion emails were duplicates (forwarded or resent email)?  How many of the billion were "work in progrees" (only final product emails needed to be recorded)?  

    This is an outsourced cyber security system contracted when the Bush Admin was throwing money at corporations with little thought to need or training.  


    The (4.00 / 3) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    point being that you are trying to retroactively impose "standards" as all the Hillary bashers are.

    Differences between Powell and Clinton are (2.67 / 3) (#63)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:31:22 PM EST
    that Powell is not currently running for president, the rules have changed since Powell was SS, and the government's computer systems and computer technology in general have changed significantly since Powell as SS. I know Rice didn't use email alot, and seem to recall that Powell didn't either (or maybe I dreamed that). While I don't think Powell violated any rules or laws, I assume statute of limitations would have run long ago.

    Some people don't trust Clinton. At a minimum, she seems to be evasive at times. Some of her prior statements and assurances now appear not to be fully accurate.

    And now, Clinton has the intelligence inspector general and FBI looking into this matter. Clinton and her lawyers have lost considerable control over the investigation and its timing. That can't be good for her.

    It will be interesting to see if the FBI can retrieve any of her emails from her server, i.e. whether the server really was wiped completely clean, and, if so, what they find, if anything.


    The rules changed after Hillary left the SoS (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    position.  Get your head out of your a** and deal with the facts, not what you think are the facts in the case.

    Which rules changed after Clinton (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    was no longer SS? Do they apply to her now or not? Feel free to point out which new rules are being improperly applied to her now.
    You need to deal with the facts. Bet you can't or won't answer these questions.

    Try (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:13:34 PM EST
    The State Department, in a statement, said that a rule requiring the preservation of personal emails did not go into effect until September 2013, after hClinton left the post.
    She archived them anyway.

    Last October, to comply with the 2013 ruling, the State Department asked former secretaries of state to turn over any personal emails used and now advises officials against using personal address for official business. "We are updating our processes to meet our obligations, but there was a need for clarity and that's why [the Records Administration] put out its 2013 guidance," a senior State Department official told NBC News.
    She turned over her emails. Note they still only "advise against" not ban the use of personal email.

    The rules changed after she left (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:27:36 PM EST
    office, and she complied with the rules that were then in place:

    State Dept: Clinton Preserved And Provided Emails In Line With 2009 Regulation And How We Handled Records At The Time. At the March 3 daily press briefing, State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf explained that Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of documents as part of the State Department's "process of updating our records management" and emphasized that Clinton is the only former secretary of state to have done so. From Harf's briefing:

    HARF: When in the process of updating our records management - this is something that's sort of ongoing given technology and the changes - we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they had. Secretary Clinton sent back 55,000 pages of documents to the State Department very shortly after we sent the letter to her. She was the only former Secretary of State who sent documents back in to this request. These 55,000 pages covered her time, the breadth of her time at the State Department. [State Department Daily Press Briefing,3/3/15]

    This is for Jim, if he reads this:

    MYTH: Clinton Is The Subject Of A Federal Criminal Investigation

    Fox's Chris Stirewalt: Clinton Might Be "The Subject Of A Federal Criminal Investigation." On the August 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, digital editor Chris Stirewalt claimed that Clinton might become "the first major party nominee that is the subject of a federal criminal investigation." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 8/12/15]

    FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

    Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over [the] Clinton emails":

    The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]

    AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

    The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

    One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. [Associated Press, 7/24/15]

    Any questions?


    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:22:32 PM EST
    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements - have been in place since at least 2009, when Clinton became secretary of state.

    According to Section 1236.22 of the 2009 NARA requirements, "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."


    And she complied with the rules (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    then, as the link I posted demonstrates beyond a shadow,of a doubt.  All her replies went into government servers, as the ones she received for official business.  You stated that she was required to have a .gov email addy when that was not the case, so your ability to be consistent on this issue is still subject to question, Trevor.

    Shadow of a Doubt (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:01:07 PM EST
    All her replies went into government servers, as the ones she received for official business, well, like me, you can make a mistake.   :)

    No, they didn't
    Anything sent to Huma Abedin missed government servers
    Sidney Blumenthal e mails did not go to government servers
    Any other e mails sent to any private accounts operated by government personnel.
    Probably Cheryl Mills also. She has been ordered by District Court Emmett Sullivan not destroy any Federal electronic records she has in her possession


    Were those e-mails (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:25:10 PM EST
    also cced to people who had gov. addys or not?

    But, to repeat from my link, there is no indication that she violated any of the 2009 rules, and when informed of the reporting requirements, turned over her e-mails, which presumably contained e-mails to the people you referenced, so that the requirement would've been met.

    You're not very good at this. You've yet to refute or demonstrate that Hillary was required to have a .gov addy from the rule changes in 2009, and you go on a side issue because you know you can't win directly on .gov issue.


    No, they weren't (2.50 / 4) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 06:58:26 AM EST
    Actually, No.
    The 2009 rules stated that if not using a government e mail, they must ensure  must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

    In the case of Sidney Blumenthal, 15 emails from Blumenthal are missing from the emails produced by Clinton.

    Abedin, Clinton's closest confident. If you seriously expect anyone will believe that Clinton cc'd anyone on all of her Abedin e mails, I have a bridge to sell you

    District Judge Sullivan has ordered Abedin and Mills to provide all of their e mail correspondence with Clinton.
    This will constantly be changing, the State Department is under duress from Judge Richard Leon regarding their non compliance with FOIA requests from AP for 4 years.

    Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's top aides, used personal email accounts to conduct government business in addition to a State Department email and an account on the controversial server Mrs. Clinton kept at her New York home, the State Department confirmed to a federal court Friday.

    The State Department admitted to the judge that it doesn't have control over those documents, and can't be sure it has all of the records from their time in the administration.

    The Justice Department and the FBI, 2 District judges, and Congressional Committees are all reviewing what occurred. Everything will eventually come out.

    The narrative has greatly changed since that March UN speech


    You still haven't shown anything (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 07:58:02 AM EST
    that states that any regulations, let's alone laws, were broken by anyone.

    Isn't this obvious? (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 08:17:13 AM EST
    15 e mails provided by Sidney Blumenthal to the Congressional Committee were never turned over by Hillary Clinton to the State Department.

    So those e mails, by National Archive regulation, should have been collected and stored on a government e mail address, were not. And were not provided to the State Department by Hillary Clinton.


    Isn't (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    it obvious that Blumenthal was not part of the government. Unless she was specifically conducting government business with him the regulations have no standing regarding their communications.

    No (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    No, any correspondence to and from the Sec of State is covered by the National Archives regulations.
    It is not strictly for government personnel.

    He was advising her on the Libya situation, providing her with info he obtained from a former CIA operative, now running a consulting business.
    She then forwarded those within the State Dept, removing any indication of the source.


    Are (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    you really asserting that that high level government have no right to any private correspondence?  Are you really asserting that that high level government officials do not have the right to privately seek the opinion of outsiders?

    Sidney Blumenthal is undoubtedly an unofficial advisor to Hillary, has been for years, by all accounts trusted confidants. I guess YMMV over which communications between them should be part of the official record, but Hillary apparently did archive and turn over a considerable amount,

    Hillary Clinton was in contact with unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal more often and on a wider range of topics than was previously known, a set of about 3,000 Clinton emails released Tuesday night by the State Department revealed.



    Joe, interesting questions (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    Sure, govt officials should be able to have private non-governmental communications on non-governmental email accounts and otherwise. However, when the private communication is done on government (or work) email accounts, the government can look at them. If there are separate government/work and private accounts, then this isn't a problem. Clinton's situation is a bit different because much of the government and private email communication was done and commingled on her private email account/server.

    As for private or confidential email communication with an unofficial advisor like Blumenthal, I would think the rules would be intended to include that type of communication as governmental email, and email subject to government recording-keeping and FOIA. If she really wanted to have confidential communication with him, she should have talked by phone or in person.


    The point (none / 0) (#105)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 16, 2015 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    being that Blumenthal and others would probably not be communicating with Hillary at a .gov address and it would be incumbent on Hillary to preserve the relevant ones whether she used one or two severs.

    The fact that government and personal communications were commingled on the same platform does not inherently change their contents.


    Why are you so concerned with who the (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    e-mails were sent to, and not who they were sent from?  Why isn't the responsibility on the sender, as opposed to the receiver?

    Anyone who was sending e-mails to Clinton or her staff using a non-state.gov address knew they were not sending it to a government server.  Why are these people not in the cross-hairs of hysterical media-types?

    Oh, right - she's running for president and well, because, Clinton.

    So much energy and time being wasted on this stupidity; I can't stand it.


    I don't believe I ever said she was required (none / 0) (#50)
    by coast on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    So I'm not sure why a link would be necessary.

    I'm simply making the point that since she chose to combine each into one account, it make the whole population subject to review,


    That begs the question (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    A decision is still made to send some emails using the government email address and others on a personal email address....

    Hillary just made the personal v. government decision at the end....others make that decision when they send the email....But a personal decision and personal discretion are used in both instances...

    Only Hillary has her decision on personal v. government questioned.


    National Security (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:04:20 AM EST
    Because the State Department found out when responding to FOIA requests, very tardily by the way, that they could not respond to the FOIA requests, against regulations set by the Obama Administration in 2009.
    To legally respond to FOIA requests the State Department has to review all e mails and deem which are pertinent to the request. The State Department never had the opportunity, they were handed e mails culled by Madame Secy, and said these were the only business related e mails. It should have been the State Department that had total control of those e mails from 2009 on, now, there is always doubt that the FOIA requests were not fully complied with. Additionally, now that the Intelligence IG has claimed classified information was on the server, the entire server is property of the Federal Government, thus the FBI now having possession of the server. And they will test the server to search for any erased e mails, signs of external hacking. The Obama Administration has been the most diligent Administration ever in prosecuting matters of mishandling classified information

    is the IC IG concerned with all servers that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 07:18:14 AM EST
    contain that email or just Hillary's?

    John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said "Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,"  "They were not marked as classified."

    You don't do links, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Can't blame you, with all those false claims in your post.  It IS easier just to make stuff up, though ...

    Cmon (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    linjs are hard

    Thank you (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    Thank you

    Recovering the emails (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 15, 2015 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    I wonder if recovering the personal emails will sate conservative voyeurism?

    Question: (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    Debates & disagreements regarding classifications among services must go on all the time. There must be a "chain-of-command" type of system as to how these are reconciled.

    So, legally, who is the final arbiter (like a judge and/or jury) empowered to settle these disputes?

    The Secretary of State actually (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    or, if it goes above that, the POTUS.

    I didn't know that was the law (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    But my gut told me that's how it should be.

    Makes the entire thing that much more ridiculous.


    Thanks, Big "T" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    Then, of course, why doesn't our mute CIC not step into this imbroglio, and do his Solomon thing?

    I don't pretend to know all the ins & outs of handling this dispute, and, I'm sure that for every suggestion on how to fix it there will be a million reasons as to why it can't be done, but who said "Presidenting" would be easy?

    Oh, that's right; that would be Obama.

    Never mind.

    I'm snarking of course, but really, shouldn't he be involved?


    Naw (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    I honestly think this is something DOJ can resolve and be done with.

    And this story should prove how ridiculous the whole email thing is.


    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    Obama and the DOJ getting involved would only elevated the conspiracy/cover-up.

    There is no solution since there is no underlying issue, it's all wingbat mania, and no matter what is done, the crazy will not go away.  That's like Jim conceding he was wrong, same people, same mentality.

    The only solution is locking HRC up in Leavenworth for life or hanging her ion the public square and desecrating the body.


    Well, at least (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    it's obvious now it's all a wingnut conspiracy theory cranked out of the nut farm. The 39% that thinks there's still something there is never going to be satisfied. But hey, they desperately wanted to be fleeced and the GOP is willing to oblige.

    Yes, your comparison (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    to the chronically  nettlesome commenter is instructive.  Comments are not intended for dialog and facts are irrelevant--either ignored or rejected, because, well, they are facts.  And, you cannot reason people out of something that they have not been reasoned into.  Best to save your breath to cool your soup. And, if moved to correct records, do so,  with well-earned bad marks.  Truth is not a valued commodity with Republicans these days.  It is a serious situation, really.

    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    the IG that is wanting to classify BS as top secret is also the one that was sent by Clapper who abhors any FOIA request and hates releasing anything to the citizens of the country. So when you look at all this from that perspective it completely blows up everything.

    Two books on drone program (none / 0) (#24)
    by Coral on Fri Aug 14, 2015 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    Whittle: Predator

    Cockburn: Killchain

    These are both available on Amazon, and both are well worth reading. I fail to see how a discussion of an article on drones can reasonably be considered classified. There is ample discussion of the origins of the programs and US intelligence agencies in both of these books.

    Too bad BTD (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    hasn't been around to monitor the intelligence quotient on this thread.

    Responding to Big Tent Democrat's (none / 0) (#147)
    by paulhager on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    "interesting questions":

    I've been a defense worker for the better part of 30 years, initially as a contractor and in recent years as a civil servant with the Department of the Navy (DoN).  Given my experience, I think I can answer your questions about the Abedin letter of 27 March.

    I will stipulate at the outset that I agree with you that the US Government over-classifies - I've been railing against this at least since Reagan's first term.  That said, the general issue of over-classification doesn't apply in this instance.

    Also, a caveat: although I'm fairly knowledgeable in the Department of Defense (DoD) and DoN regulations, I've had no occasion to look at Department of State regulations.  However, there are laws applicable to all of these as well as general principles that all should follow.

    The essence of the 27 March message is a rough itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, including groups in his entourage and people he will be meeting.  The email is dated 8 days after the U.S. and allies attacked Libya on 19 March.

    Question 1: How is the Abedin email "remotely classified"?  Stevens was traveling into a war zone.  Normal operational security (OPSEC) considerations would apply.  This information could be useful to terrorists or insurgents in planning an attack on the person of Stevens and/or his party, or identifying those with whom he is meeting.  Were Stevens going to Luxemburg these considerations likely wouldn't apply.  Here's a thought experiment: imagine that Secretary Clinton were traveling into a war zone.  Would her itinerary be made available ahead of time?  Of course not.  In the DoN we receive yearly refresher training in all aspects of security including OPSEC.  I can't imagine that the rules are different for people in the State Department.  The apparent lackadaisical attitude revealed in this email toward security is very disturbing.

    Question 2: Who would have classified the email?  This question suggests a possible misunderstanding about what classification means.  Information can be classified because of its nature, even if not so marked.  The person bearing the initial responsibility to mark the email as classified is the originator.  The signature on the forwarded email is of someone named "Rena Bitter".  She is probably the originator.  Bitter included information that had to have violated guidelines for maintaining OPSEC in order to protect State Department officials from becoming the targets of terrorist actions.  In the parlance, this would have been a classified "spillage" - sending out classified information over an unsecured network.  This single incident could lead to a formal reprimand, loss of security clearance, and/or possible termination.

    Question 3: How long would it remain classified?  It depends.  I know about DoD and DoN regs and the duration varies.  I would expect that the itinerary information would be analogous to time sensitive information that must initially be kept secure.  For example, the Germans knowing about the Normandy Invasion on 7 June 1944 could not adversely impact the course of the war.  In contrast, their knowing about the Normandy Invasion on 7 May would have been a disaster.  Some information about Normandy likely remained classified after the war.  Some information was released only a few hours after the invasion began.  After Stevens' visit much of the information would no longer need to be classified.  For details, you'll need to investigate State Department guidance on this.  I know the DoN has such guidance - the State Department must also.

    Question 4: Who failed in their classification duties?  Everyone in the chain.  Ignorance is NOT an excuse.  Everyone had to be trained and retrained on a regular basis in order to retain their clearance.  If Rena Bitter initially screwed up, that in no way absolves people up the chain.  It is drummed into us that if we SUSPECT a spillage, we should contact our resident Security Officer.  What this email reveals is a POSSIBLE systemic problem with security in State.

    The next statement is confusing.  It says that Hillary didn't forward the email then seems to say that she did.  It doesn't matter whether she forwarded - she had a responsibility to consult with the Security Officer if she suspected a spillage.  We assume she didn't see anything problematic about this email.  Without more header information that would allow us to know when Secretary Clinton read it, it's hard to draw further conclusions.  Maybe she didn't see it until a month later.  Maybe she saw it on 27 March.  Maybe she didn't look at the dates.  She may have deniability.  If she saw it on the 27th, then she is just as culpable as the people below her in the chain.

    Question 5: What is classified in the email now?  More than four years after it was sent, nothing.  Just like information about the Normandy Invasion released in 1948 was no longer damaging.

    The real issue, which is obscured by the general level of journalistic ignorance along with partisanship on BOTH sides, is that Secretary Clinton seems to have presided over an organization that was very loose - perhaps dangerously loose - on security matters.  In the attack on the compound that took the life of several Americans, including Stevens, it is fair to ask if the success of that attack was facilitated by lapses in OPSEC in the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton.  The attackers certainly evinced considerable knowledge about when and how to conduct their attack.

    Best case scenario for Clinton is that all that emerges is a systemic problem with OPSEC that didn't produce any adverse consequences.  Maybe the issue goes away.  Worst case?  Clinton loses her security clearance, her competence becomes a political issue, and she's out of the race.  I think there's a 50% chance that she's done.

    Oh, and chance for some sort of conviction?  Epsilon above 0.0%.

    Oops, Responded to wrong post (none / 0) (#148)
    by paulhager on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    I intended to respond to EGhazi emails with this post. Typed it out then pasted to wrong post.  In any case, basic argument applies.  The March 27 email should have been classified.

    You (none / 0) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    make some good points but you try too hard to force  the State Department into a Military mindset. To you Stevens' trip is a Military operation needing a high level of OPSEC to State it's just business as usual.

    State has been sending staff into dangerous places during war and peace since day one, they should be able to choose what level of OPSEC they choose.

    Historically State has marched to a different drum with agendas and methods often quite different then DoD or the intels. They have often been accused of being loosey goosey by other agencies regarding intel.


    some clarifications . . . (none / 0) (#150)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    BTD writes, "The idea that an email discussing a news article could be deemed "Top Secret" is ludicrous of course. But the IC is nothing if not ludicrous when it comes to classification issues. The story continues: . . ."

    1. An email which includes a discussion of a news article may also contain other information.  The news article is presumably not top secret, but other information in the same email may in fact be or reflect what is top secret.

    2. BTD says that the allegations of problems and classification come from the "IC" or intelligence community.  He speaks as if the IC is some vast amorphous body with vague and arbitrary and contradictory views . . . and the way to hang Clinton is to go by the most extreme and outrageous of the views held by any nut in the IC.  In fact, in at least one news article on a major media news source, I have read that it is the  state department's own IG who regards the information as being top secret . . .

    If so, rather than attribute the allegations of the use of top secret classified info to the "IC," BTD, to be more honest and fair, should in fact attribute the allegation to "IG of the state department."

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 04:32:56 PM EST