home

The "Top Secret" EGhazi E-mails

Fox News is reporting that:

An email from a top Clinton adviser containing classified military intelligence information, and one from a top aide containing classified information about the Benghazi terror attack, were the documents that kick-started the FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information, Fox News has learned.

I went on State's FOIA site and found the e-mails. Here are links: November 18,2012 email from Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton forwarding e-mail chain and March 27, 2011 Huma Abedin e-mail to Hillary Clinton forwarding e-mail chain (the links require your to search the list. No direct link to documents).

The substance of the Abedin forwarded e-mail chain states:

Status update on the Chris Stevens mission to Benghazi:

The current game plan is for Mr. Stevens to move no later than Wednesday from Malta to Benghazi. He will stage off shore initially for a one day visit during which he will have meetings with TNC interlocutors and get a sense of the situation on the ground. The goal of this one day trip is for him to lay the groundwork for a stay of up to 30 days.

He will be accompanied by a DS team, a staff member from Embassy Tripoli and the leader of USAID's DART team. With the support of Ambassador Cretz and Embassy Tripoli, Mr Stevens is in contact with TNC members on the ground in Benghazi and elsewhere; the team is also in contact with other diplomatic missions and NGOs in Benghazi. We expect to get support in particular from the Turks who have a consulate in Benghazi.

Mr. Stevens team has been in touch with Africom planners on the details of the mission. We have made the official request for support from OSD but have yet to get approval. Once we have that and we hope that will be very soon -- we will be able to move forward with the planning.

Rena Bitter<

Director, State Department Operations Center

202 647 2522

BitterR@state

The e-mail was sent via State's unsecured systems by Timmy T Davis to Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Joseph Macmanus. Rena Bitter sent the e-mail to Davis, also via State's unsecured system.

There were no classified markings on the documents prior to FOIA review. A B-5 marking (deliberative exemption, not classified) was added to a note from David to Abedin and Sullivan.

The substance of Sullivan's forwarded e-mail chain states:

Post reports that Libyans police have arrested several people today who may/may have some connection to the Benghazi attack. They were acting on information furnished by DS/R50. [B7 REDACTIONS - LAW ENFORCEMENT] That may or may not materialize, according to David McFarland. [B1.4(D) REDACTION - CLASSIFIED] Overall, this could lead to something operationally, or not, and it could lead to news accounts from Libya saying, there is a significant break in the case, or not.

At this point, just FYI.

This document includes the following notation:

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 05/22/2015 Class: SECRET/NOFORN Reason: 1.4(D) Declassify on: 11/18/2032

The email chain was forwarded by Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton. Sullivan received the forwarded chain from Jones, Beth E, who sent it to - Burns, William J; Sherman, Wendy R; Sullivan, Jacob Cc: Dibble, Elizabeth 1; Roebuck, William V.

Jones received the original e-mail from Roebuck, William V., who sent the email to Jones, Beth E; Maxwell, Raymond D; Abdalla, Alyce N; Sidereas, Evyenia; Miller, James N.

This emails had no classification markings prior to FOIA review and were sent over State's unsecured systems.

This raises interesting questions. First with regard to the Abedin e-mail, how is this remotely classified? And if it was, who would classify it? How long would it remain classified? Who failed in their classification duties? As for Hillary Clinton, well, she did not forward it and its not clear what happened after she did. Finally, what would be classified about this e-mail TODAY?

The Sullivan e-mail is also intriguing. It was designated TOP SECRET NOFORN - which requires the following finding:

Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

Boy I'd sure love to see the description of the "exceptionally grave damage" disclosure of this e-mail would cause. Frankly I believe not a single word of it.

But assuming it is so, how did this information get in the unsecured State Department system?

Well it was first disseminated at State by Roebuck, the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs located apparently at Foggy Bottom.

But how did he get this TOP SECRET!! information? Did he transcribe it from a secured classified information system? This seems extremely unlikely. So where did this information come from? It appears that Roebuck picked it up from parallel non-IC based sources.

In any event, we can see why the State Department is not buying in to the IC on this one.

PLEASE NOTE that this is a Fox report and it is not necessarily consistent with AP reporting that identified the classified info as being related to a news article on drone strikes in Pakistan.

In any event, presented for your consideration.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton should hire BTD (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Coral on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:53:44 PM EST
    Most cogent, well-documented, well-argued responses to this entire scandal I've read so far.

    Agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by bison on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    Swimming in a sea of stupid... (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:00:29 AM EST
    is the only way I can describe what much of the comments in this thread indicate the writers are doing.

    Did any of you actually READ the post?  Check out the senders and receivers?

    Well, directly from the post, let's review:

    The e-mail was sent via State's unsecured systems by Timmy T Davis to Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Joseph Macmanus. Rena Bitter sent the e-mail to Davis, also via State's unsecured system.

    Sent via an unsecured system at STATE, by someone not named Clinton, to people not named Clinton who were also on STATE's unsecured system.

    There were no classified markings on the documents prior to FOIA review. A B-5 marking (deliberative exemption, not classified) was added to a note from David to Abedin and Sullivan.

    No markings to indicate it was classified; that didn't happen until after the FOIA review, which was after someone-named-Clinton had long left office.

    The email chain was forwarded by Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton. Sullivan received the forwarded chain from Jones, Beth E, who sent it to - Burns, William J; Sherman, Wendy R; Sullivan, Jacob Cc: Dibble, Elizabeth 1; Roebuck, William V.

    Jones received the original e-mail from Roebuck, William V., who sent the email to Jones, Beth E; Maxwell, Raymond D; Abdalla, Alyce N; Sidereas, Evyenia; Miller, James N.

    Clinton was one person among - let's count them - SIX people who received or sent the original e-mail.  There is no indication that Clinton forwarded it to anyone else.

    This emails had no classification markings prior to FOIA review and were sent over State's unsecured systems.

    Again, the original sender/receiver utilized THE GOVERNMENT'S unsecured server, and the e-mail was not marked classified until AFTER the FOIA review.

    But assuming it is so, how did this information get in the unsecured State Department system?

    Well it was first disseminated at State by Roebuck, the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs located apparently at Foggy Bottom.

    So, again: someone not named Clinton at the State Department was the original sender.

    It is my understanding that, despite the media's and the RW Noise Machines efforts to make this entirely about what-Hillary-Did and how-can-you-trust-someone-like-this, the real issue is an overall investigation of communications into and out of the State Department - one that likely would not have taken place AT ALL had Clinton been exclusively using the State Department's own servers.  You know, the ones that were hacked.  

    But instead of the Inspectors General having the completely daunting task of culling e-mails from within the vast State Department system, they were afforded the opportunity to review many, many fewer e-mails as a result of being given the government-related e-mails from Clinton's private server.  

    Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the outright Clinton-haters and a media that is wetting its pants in the hope of creating drama where none really exists, many of them so far do not point to Clinton as having a problem distinguishing between classified and un-classified materials.

    Please, I beg of you: take your heads out of your nether regions, engage the brain that resides in your head, not where you sit, and understand that this is largely a manufactured controversy, and you are allowing yourselves to be manipulated by it.

    One had only to watch the news last night to know why this is all happening: it is thrilling the media to be able to report that this is hurting Clinton, and her poll numbers are dropping.  It is giving a largely insane Republican field multiple orgasms, as well as hope that they actually could win this.

    Wake the fk up.

    Of the two BTD has provided (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:19:46 AM EST
    one is heavily redacted which leads to it needing to be classified. The other discusses travel plans and assorted chit chat associated with that. That definitely should have been classified.

    Anyone knows you don't broadcast where and when you are going to be/do in very unsecure environments.

    Parent

    But what does this have to do with (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    Clinton?

    The e-mail was sent via State's unsecured systems by Timmy T Davis to Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Joseph Macmanus. Rena Bitter sent the e-mail to Davis, also via State's unsecured system.

    There were no classified markings on the documents prior to FOIA review. A B-5 marking (deliberative exemption, not classified) was added to a note from David to Abedin and Sullivan.

    It started with Rena Bitter, who sent it to Timmy Davis.  Davis sent it to Abedin, McManus and Sullivan.  Abedin sent it to Clinton.

    And the State Department employees all sent and/or received the e-mail over unclassified servers.

    Again, what does that have to do with Clinton?

    If you want to make the argument that the State Department's policies with respect to the classification of communications and its enforcement of them is a problem, then discuss that.  But don't insult our intelligence by trying to conflate this into some huge scandal where Clinton, and Clinton alone, put the security of the nation at risk out of an inflated sense of her own importance or because she had some nefarious plan.  Especially when neither the State Department nor the originating agencies put classified markings on any of the documents examined to date.

    Maybe with your extensive service in Naval Aviation, you should offer your services to the government to ride herd on its employees and enforce the rules and regulations.

    Parent

    Again thank you (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:55:47 AM EST
    et al (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    MT, thanks for repeating my point. It should have been classified. It wasn't. So the parts that should have been were redacted. It was then marked unclassified.

    Anne, Nixon's great sin wasn't what he did. It was what he didn't do. He hid the illegal activities of his minions.

    So the question remains. Why didn't she take action?

    Nixon was forced out over his lapse.

    Of course if she didn't know....should she be President?????

    Parent

    I didn't make your point Jim (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    Whenever any government documents are being released they are gone over, whether they were classified or not.  Because situations change, agencies decide to attempt to classify things that weren't previously classified.

    Classifying something also means that those holding security clearances cannot speak about it openly in any way. A car bomb goes off somewhere in the world and everyone is allowed to talk about it.  As more information comes in though, suddenly members of the military and State Department can be restricted by it all becoming retroactively classified because saying anything about the situation at all can be taken as confirming or denying something about the event.

    Parent

    MT (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:11:54 PM EST
    I spent 10 years around classified stuff and my point was simple.

    The mail has contents redacted because the information was, or should have been, classified at some level. By removing that part it can be released.

    Simple facts.

    Parent

    But first, jim, the IG had to (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    apply a classified designation on documents that were not previously classified, and contained no markings indicating they kinda/sorta/maybe were classified at the time they were being sent and received.  How many years ago?

    Having now been classified, they were redacted.  Little blobs of impermeable black markings were pasted all over communications we've already seen without them.  These naked communications apparently did not result in the apocalypse, Armageddon or anything untoward, but the redactions help foster the impression that they could have.  And if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly, well, who knows how the course of history would have changed, right?

    Clinton hasn't hidden any illegal activity that I'm aware of, so once again, EPIC FAIL on the effort to turn Clinton into Nixon and this tempest-in-a-teapot turf war into something worse than Watergate (for what it's worth, we now see why Bob Woodward has been relegated to the level of just-short-of-batsh!t-crazy with his pronouncement that the e-mail [non] scandal is worse than Watergate).

    Tell you what - let's make it really simple for you and all the others who are drowning in pools of your own drool: we get it, jim.  You wouldn't vote for anyone named Clinton if a gun was put to your head.  You don't need to keep making stuff up and sharing the conspiracies you see in the patterns on your breakfast toast to drive that point home.  

    Go play poker. Go fishing.  Just go.

    Parent

    Bernstein has been finished (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    with Woodward for quite some time.

    Woodward is just another huckster--but with a good resume.

    He is constantly trying to ingratiate himself with Fox viewers....worst of the conventional- wisdom Brahmins in DC who peddle in shopworn rumors and memes.

    Parent

    anne, thank you (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    for making my point.

    The IG did review the emails and the one in question, and there are others yet to be known, was deemed to contain information that should have been Classified and never sent over an unsecure email system. The IG redacted the offending parts and made it available as Unclassified. The questions are:

    1.    Who wrote the offending part,
    2.    Who sent it over the unsecure network.
    3.    Why didn't ANYONE, including Hillary, recognize it contained Classified information and take action.
    4.    Who received the email and who forwarded it to who?

    You write:

    These naked communications apparently did not result in the apocalypse, Armageddon or anything untoward, ....

    Again we have a qualifier. "apparently." Neither of us knows whether or not bad things came from this email, or some of the hundreds, perhaps thousands like it. But we can be assured that intelligence gathering is not, a la "24," someone beating up some poor terrorist to find where he has planted the nuke to destroy DC. But rather it is the careful collection of bits and pieces which are then put into the picture to solve the puzzle. That is why we hire people to oversee various functions and actions.  

    What we do know is that Hillary had a personal unsecure system in which emails that the IG considers  should have been Classified were intermixed with Unclassified and Personal. That is a major no no. What we do not know is listed above in items 1 to 4.

    What else we do know is that when the issue of personal emails and personal servers came up Hillary acted in a most suspicious manner. She failed to cooperate and has wiped the server clean. Her joke that she did it with a rag is either arrogance to the max or an attempt to deflect questions by humor. Either way it has failed.  A judge is now ordering State to coordinate/cooperate fully with the FBI and her approval ratings are falling.

    You write:

    Clinton hasn't hidden any illegal activity that I'm aware

    Again you use qualifiers. "that I'm aware." Actually that is the problem and why her supporters are trying to circle the wagons, play the paranoia card, and play the sexism card and, in general, confuse and redirect.

    Has she committed a crime? Time will tell. But her disregard and lack of common sense as shown the world that she isn't qualified to be President.

    Parent

    lotta words (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    to erroneously thanking someone for making your non-existent point. I mean, I get why you do that. Since your comments (whether originating or responding) have no real point other that to blog clog, you need to act as if there was substance by glomming on to the substance contained in the comments of others.

    And, now that I've been drawn into feeding you, I am going to implore others to let you remain unfed as you scream from under your bridge.

    Or hope BTD just gets tired of it all and deletes all the bull$hit pouring out of your a$$.

    Parent

    And here I thought you had read (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    Jeralyn's admonishment that we stop all the personal attacks.

    I guess some people just don't get the word.

    And before you start making wild claims, I invite you to read:

    MT, thanks for repeating my point. It should have been classified. It wasn't. So the parts that should have been were redacted. It was then marked unclassified.

    And then we can see what Anne wrote:

    Having now been classified, they were redacted.

    Now having established that point I moved on to the items/questions in 1 through 4.

    Which you appear unable to answer.

    Instead you complain.


    Parent

    Wev (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:35:19 PM EST
    You have no point based on any sort of reality. You are just blog clogging with things you have said dozens of times before.

    Whether I answer or not, you will repost them dozens of times in the future.

    If she wants to consider my pointing out the obvious as a "personal attack" that's entirely up to her. Naturally you are free to do your usual running and whining to her.

    Parent

    My final word (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:58:36 PM EST
    I made a point and MT and Anne and I had follow on discussions.

    You don't like facts and questions that oppose your political position.

    So you attack.

    We all get that.

    Parent

    Yep, they're still hurting about Nixon (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    after all these years.

    Parent
    Redaction does not lead to being classified (4.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:23:32 AM EST
    Jim. Redaction is done so items can be declassified.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:55:04 AM EST
    Against the tide in a sea of stupid (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    watch this.  You will feel better.


    Hillary Clinton, emails, and the press
    Chris Hayes talks to MSNBC National Correspondent Joy Reid about the disconnect between what voters want to know and what the press cares about.


    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:23:05 AM EST
    the comments to this clip are pretty funny.  

    Parent
    funny thing about that segment (none / 0) (#109)
    by mm on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    on the Chris Hayes show.

    He begins by showing a clip of Bob Woodward from Morning Joe where Woodward introduces Watergate into the conversation.  I think this happened on Monday.

    "So, you've got a massive amount of data. It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes," he said. "Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his. Hillary Clinton initially took that position, `I'm not turning this over, there'll be no cooperation...'"

    "This has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty," Woodward concluded.

    This was before Secretary Clinton's press conference and before Woodward even knew that she had already given her emails to the State Department and had already given them permission to release them to the public.

    During the press conference Hillary Clinton had repeated what she has been saying for quite some time, that she wanted the American people to see all of her State Department emails.

    On Wednesday Woodward returned to the Morning Joe show and expressed his surprise that she was letting her emails be made public.  There were several awkward exchanges between Woodward and the others because everyone was confused by what Woodward was saying and then they hustled him off the show.

    The point is, everyone keeps showing and quoting Woodward comparing this to Watergate, without understanding that Woodward thought at the time he made that statement that Clinton was resisting the release of her State Department emails, similar to Nixon fighting release of the tapes.

    This might seem like nitpicking minutiae, but I think it's important and it's frustrating that both Hayes and Reid didn't realize this.  

    I do appreciate Chris Hayes for at last providing some sorely needed perspective on this hysteria gripping the media.

    Parent

    Not sure where that clip was from (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    but Woodward has been everywhere for days saying the same thing.  I saw him say the same thing on Mourning Joe yesterday I think.

    Parent
    yes, I know (none / 0) (#117)
    by mm on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    But somebody needs to find the clip or transcript from Wednesday's show where he reveals how totally confused he was on the facts.  That's all I'm saying.  I wish I could do it but I'm not good on that kind of thing.

    Parent
    Woodward again (none / 0) (#126)
    by mm on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    I found the video of Woodward on Scarborough I was talking about:

    At around the 1:15 mark Woodward starts talking about what he defines as the "headline" from Hillary Clinton's press conference.  According to Woodward, the headline was the fact that Hillary Clinton said she wanted the American people to see her emails from the time she served as SoS.  Mass confusion ensues.

    It seems clear to me that Woodward was dumbfounded by Clinton's statement and didn't know she has been saying this for quite a while.

    LINK

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    nd the reason they used that clip is because it is being used 20 times a day of FOX.  Strangely they done show the other part, which I also saw.  
    Woodward says its Watergate is the message and the meme.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    it's Fox and now that Trump has made them bow down I wonder exactly how effective they are anymore.

    Parent
    Watching Squint and the Meat Puppet crew (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:48:00 AM EST
    react to Carvills little rant yesterday saying the whole thing is a bunch of stupid people talking to each other was pretty awsum.

    It almost seemed like they took it personally.

    Did you expect (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    Fox to ever be accurate about anything? I for one was cheering the Donald on for taking them down.

    Lots of differing reports (none / 0) (#2)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    may be the result different sources describing different emails.  

    I have seen so many talking heads with so many different claims about possible violations my head is spinning.  One thing for sure the Obama administration seems to have been more aggressive in prosecuting sensitive data violations than any other administration.

    But the bottom line still is that Clinton is taking hits from every side about maintaining a personal server that one would reasonably expect to have sensitive information.  To make matters worse that server did not seem to have adequate security.

    Hillary seems to be tone deaf in responding to questions about the issue.  Her comment about using a cloth to wipe her server in response to the question about her wiping it was silly and there is no way to sugar coat it.

    I saw an interesting comment about how when you try for public office it is assumed you put your self out in public.  A comparison was made between Donald who seems to revel in being in public and Hillary who seems to distain it.

    I am still standing by my bet that Hillary will not be nominated for prez.

    So you made a bet? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    What odds did you get?

    I'm thinking of putting a big bet on her winning the nomination and the presidency right now as the odds are better for her than before.

    Parent

    Great balls of fire! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    Where does Armando find the time to dig this stuff up?  

    This is perfect. The super duper secret emails that will destroy Hillary are already part of the public domain????

    Parent

    Of course she will (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    And her debate with Sanders will be so depressing we'll want to jump off a bridge. Cuz he has twice the personality she has and tons more political imagination (and, to be honest, even he really doesn't have all that much to start with) and that isn't saying very much at all. I already want to suck on a propane tank thinking about it. But she'll be the first female president. Love that. I really do. I just wish, well, know the rest...

    Parent
    Why would two very intelligent people debating (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    want to make me jump off a bridge? I agree with one on some issues and the other on some - should be an interesting and civil conversation, if the moderators let there really be some give and take. I don't see how I can lose.

    Parent
    I don't respect Hillary or Bill anymore (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    Corporate shills. Top to bottom. That is why.

    Very simple.

    Same problem I have with Obama.

    We live in a fully free corporate kleptocracy, and the Clintons cannot bring themselves to speak the truth about their terrible errors in enabling it.

    That's why. But I don't see Bernie as any savior. A pasty white guy representing a pasty white state forever, pfft, good luck. But at least he isn't as tied at the wallet to Wall Street as the Clintons are, and inexcusably so.

    And her hawkishness, really a need to "look tough," makes me want to vomit.

    Peace.


    Parent

    Who would be (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 25, 2015 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    your candidate?

    Parent
    YOU might want to jump off a bridge, perhaps. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    As for the rest of us, though, maybe not so much. Just sayin'.

    Parent
    We have 42 bridges in the keys. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 04:34:09 PM EST
    I remember that. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:31:54 PM EST
    We drove down there in 1972 when I was eleven, right after Hurricane Agnes passed through. And The Spouse and I were in Key West in 1992, but we cheated by flying there rather than driving.

    I will say in that regard, though, the runway at Key West Int'l is REALLY short when you're landing in a B-737. (We flew on Delta.) We hit the runway so hard and braked so abruptly that I actually bumped my head on the seat in front of me! I loved the sign on the terminal, "Welcome to the Conch Republic."

    That said, I'd sure like to go there again -- only next time, I think I'll drive. That runway should've been classified "top secret." It's freaky.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A lot to choose from.. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:36:39 AM EST
    but they're all too low.

    Parent
    jondee, the channel five bridge (none / 0) (#90)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    is 65 feet above the seven foot deep water.  It's very near my house and quite awe inspiring when you pass under it.  I wouldn't want to jump off of it.  You're right all the other bridges are too low.

    Parent
    Seven Mile Bridge (none / 0) (#97)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:23:39 AM EST
    is not really seven miles long, but it is high enough that my 54 foot mast with a 2 foot VHF antenna easily fits under it.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    You are usually better at keeping up with the odds.

    A couple of months ago I seem to recall the odds were along the lines of 1 to 4 on Hillary, now they are even or even worse.

    Parent

    Not a bettor? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:47:46 PM EST
    think abt it

    Parent
    Let us know when you make that commitment (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:00:21 AM EST
    I think I want to make this bet too but I never formally gamble. Wouldn't even know where to start trying to work the odds or make that move.

    Parent
    better yet, i've read that Ms. Clinton deleted (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    30,000 emails from her private server. this leads to the obvious question: if they were deleted, how do you know how many there were? then there is the issue of them not actually being deleted. when you delete something on your pc, it only wipes it off the top most layer of your HDD, they remain embedded on the drive's inner layers. any halfway competent IT person, with the appropriate utility application should be able to easily extract them. now, this leaves two possible options:

    a. there were no 30k emails deleted, the number was just pulled out of someone's butt.

    b. that drive was examined by the world's most inept IT professionals, unable to accomplish what any tech at geek squad could do in a day.

    so, much sound and fury, signifying nothing. as usual.

    Parent

    Good questions, cp. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    This story has reeked from the get-go.

    As for wiping a drive clean, anyone can do it with the right utility.  BCWipe is the one I use.  It does its job by overwriting the physical hard drive sectors which contain the blocks of a file or partition being wiped.  Paranoids do seven overwrites with random data.  One's enough for me.

    Wipe utilities don't play well with all solid state disks, btw.

    Parent

    I was Just Wonderring That... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 04:23:34 PM EST
    ...and while this amount of data surely wasn't on a SSD, and surely by deleted they don't mean someone hit the delete button.

    If I am not mistaken, originally she handed over a thumb drive which would only include the deleted data.  Then later the server.  I would think she at the very least asked someone who knew, and more than likely had it actually cleaned.  But I want to say I read the FBI said they could retrieve 'deleted' data, but I can't remember if that was in general, or specific to the HRC drive.

    Not related, but can you actually delete data from an an SSD drive or a thumb drive, effectively ?  I can't imagine formatting it would do the trick since that take about 5 seconds.

    Parent

    Well, you seem to have it all figured out. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    Why don't you offer your services in helping to get to the bottom of this? Unless, of course, you're just blowing a lot of right-wing smoke up people's a$$es.

    To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there's clearly no there there.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    cpinva is positing that the whole story has been a hoax from the beginning and that probably the 30,000 number is a lie too.

    Parent
    That's how I read it. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    I didi have to read (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    this email twice though.....First time through it read as Donald concluded.....

    Parent
    It depends upon (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    How they were deleted.  When you delete something from your computer, it's not necessarily "gone."  It can be retrieved by someone who knows what they are doing, unless you take extra steps to delete stuff.  There are ways to do this, both for emails and for files on your computer.  But just hitting "delete" won't do the job.
    Or, you can always trash your hard drive.  ;-)

    Parent
    I can hear it now... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    I wuz cleaning mah gun and it went off.  A forty-five caliber slug went right through mah hard drive.  Glory beeeee...

    Parent
    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:01:38 PM EST
    Or possibly, "Gee whiz, I just happened to drop my sledge hammer on it.  Several times."

    Parent
    It is pretty easy if you know how many emails are (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    on a server you are about to turn over, you delete the private ones before you turn it over, see how many are left, and subtract from the number you started with. I'm supposing that is how they got the 30k number. I doubt anyone counted every time they hit the delete key.

    Maybe the IT professionals are indeed locating the deleted emails in the innards of the server - it was just turned over this weekend, right? I 'm not up to date enough on this 'scandal'.

    Parent

    E-mail chain (none / 0) (#8)
    by bison on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    Were the people in the email chain State Department or government employees? What were their offical capacities?

    Well, now you have something to do. (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    Please let us know your findings when you're done.

    Parent
    He could read the emails linked to by BTD (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    which contain names, dates, titles, state dept. desk names, etc. etc. etc.

    But that would be too easy.

    Parent

    Fox talking head (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    just said a while back he thought it would snow in h3ll before DOJ would go after Hillary, but now he was thinking about entertaining the idea of climate change.

    The number of emails with potential (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 06:49:26 PM EST
    questions is expanding. This is from a Monday court filing related to FOIA.

    "Out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails, the [Intelligence Community] reviewers have only recommended 305 documents -- approximately 5.1% -- for referral to their agencies for consultation," Justice Department lawyer Robert Prince wrote in a court filing related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News." Article.

    It would seem that the more emails with potential problems there are, the higher the likelihood that one or more with bigger problems will be found, or whether she forwarded any of those emails. Also, it looks like we're going to see how carefully Clinton's lawyers (and perhaps her people) reviewed these emails, and whether Clinton's prior comments and assurances were accurate and precise. I assume no third party or foreign power tapped into the emails or the server, but I've read that the FBI will, or is likely to be, looking at that too.

    It remains to be seen whether any of the "wiped clean" emails from the server will be retrievable.

    Like the linked article said, this is like "drip, drip, drip".

    P.S. While trying to determine classification or similar types of issues is way beyond me, BT's analysis continues to make sense to me. Also, I keep thinking of the Petraeus situation in which clearly classified info was given to his girlfriend for 5 or so days (but not publicly disclosed), and he got the misdemeanor. I read that his lying about the situation made his situation considerably worse. Obviously, not the same facts, but if there really is top classified stuff, Clinton gave the emails to the IT company and to her lawyer. Lots of seemingly little technicalities, but sometimes prosecutors/government agencies still go after that stuff, in my experience.


    Educate (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    yourself here

    PS. There is nothing in common with the Petraues case and this is from a legal expert.

    Parent

    I had previously read this article, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:38:54 PM EST
    as well as some similar ones, and I don't agree with your conclusion. I believe there are, or could be, some similarities in the situations, if some of the emails turn out to be larger problems than what has shown up and been made public so far. Also, I am a legal expert. So there. Ha.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:49:31 PM EST
    that's your opinion and I think I would value a legal expert over yours in this case.

    I know you are desperate and I guess I would be too if I had the candidates you have running for president.

    Parent

    Man, Ga 6, you need to pay more attention (none / 0) (#62)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:10:29 PM EST
    I've said that I would vote for Clinton if the vote was today. So, there's my candidate. I supported her when she ran last time. Jeez, pay attention.

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:20:13 AM EST
    right there in the executive order where it talks about agency heads. Hillary was the agency head who got to decide this kind of thing. So there is no way she could have "mishandled" anything if she is the supreme determiner of classifications as would be any other cabinet member.

    Your concern trolling is duly noted.

    Parent

    Ga6, see the below quote, which (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    is from a legal expert. The State Dept and intelligence inspector general, and certainly not the FBI, have not yet gone through all the emails--which has also been my point. None of those agencies know what's there, other than what Clinton and her people have said. If there's nothing problematical in a big way there, then I agree it won't be anything other than perhaps a political problem for her.

    "The public doesn't yet know the content of the classified emails, and the State Department and the inspectors general have tens of thousands still to review. If evidence emerges that Clinton knew she was handling secrets on her private server, "She could have a problem," says William Jeffress, a leading criminal trial lawyer at Baker Botts who has represented government officials in secrecy cases." Link.

    I trust view of this legal expert much more than J. Tobin, by the way.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    are not understanding what is going on and apparently don't want to.

    Do you realize that Hillary gets to determine what is classified when she was SOS according to the executive order Obama wrote.

    And positing a theory that someone took classified information and sent it to her means that person is in trouble and there is nothing about a private server. The government had no regulation against that. And according to you if someone sends you classified information you are at fault.

    You're just reeking of desperation.

    Parent

    Classified (none / 0) (#34)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:10:22 PM EST
    Not sure I follow..
    So, if the CIA analyst writes a brief, and it is marked classified, and either sent to the State Department by secure cable or hardcopy, it is no longer classified until the SoS deems it so?
    I would think it still is classified.

    As to the server issue, I believe all classified information has to be sent via secure means, a special cable set up, or hard copy. And I do not believe it can be stored at someones house, either on a laptop, PC, or server.

    There is a long way to go here, and won't end until the FBI reads the last e mail, and finishes their analysis of the server

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:16:17 PM EST
    if something is written classified it is sent out over the classified system and printed out. Those are not in regular emails. Anything in regular mail that Hillary wants to be deemed classified and in that case classification means nothing more than not for public consumption she has the right to do so. She makes the ultimate decision on that kind of stuff.

    There are a number of different systems operating and email is just one of them. Yes, the DOJ is going to go through all of this and then the GOP will start talking about something else.

    I love how conservatives who have whined about "bureaucrats" and the "bureaucracy" have now come to love and embrace it.

    Parent

    Classified (none / 0) (#42)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:31:20 PM EST
    I believe that may be the problem here, that someone took classified information, and placed it in a e mail. Anyone can read a classified cable, or go to a meeting where classified information is discussed, and then either carelessly or in error, inform someone by e mail what was said in the meeting. To my thinking, that would be a breach by sending classified information via e mail.
    Right now, the Justice Department, and the main stream media are driving this, Republicans will pipe in later, right now there is no need to.
    Clinton has a date with Gowdy in October, Paul Begala said he is confident that will help Clinton.
    Just my opinion, this brouhaha has helped Sanders climb, and tarnished Clinton, especially in her trustworthiness numbers.
    Other than that, no one can say how much damage there will be, not right now. The drip, drip , drip cannot be helping, and I see no sign of it ending.

    Parent
    Career Employees (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:32:01 PM EST
    Anyone can read a classified cable, or go to a meeting where classified information is discussed

    No, only those with the proper security clearance can read a classified cable, or go to a meeting where classified information is discussed.  

    , and then either carelessly or in error, inform someone by e mail what was said in the meeting.

    I find it hard to believe career employees with at least a Confidential clearance, carelessly or in error, disregarded all classification responsibility and wrote 300+ unclassified emails about that information.  

    Parent
    Now that (none / 0) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:54:04 AM EST
    Is exactly what the FBI is looking into.
    #00? That number is on the low end, still more mails to cull through.

    Although it is not just carrer employees that had security clearance. I am sure Abedin and Mills also had clearance

    Parent

    Given Hillary's comments (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:33:31 PM EST
    at her press conference, she will be just fine at the Congressional Hearing.

    She is damn smart, more so than the political hacks who will be asking her questions (or making speeches.)

    Parent

    Eh... (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:39:02 PM EST
    I know you will not concur, but the consensus among the "talking heads" the press conference was a complete disaster.
    From reading Daily Kos, I got a totally different picture of the press conference.

    Parent
    Daily Kos (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    is full of misogynists and Bernie supporters. I wouldn't take anything from their diaries as anything but their own opinion.

    Parent
    shhh (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:45:10 AM EST
    We're not supposed to mention Kos here.

    Post all the completely discredited fringe scientific theories you want, but don't mention another liberal blog..

    Parent

    Ha ha (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:53:00 AM EST
    From reading DailyKos?  From Kos' own mouth, the site is very pro-Sanders already.  The Bernie supporters have lost their minds though.  I see now that they have attacked new FP Shaun King for not being black enough to claim he is black. It's a sad bunch involved in all that.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:57:48 AM EST
    the current democratic version of Trump supporters.  


    Parent
    That's not fair, Howdy... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    DK does not represent the totality of Sanders supporters, anymore than they represented the totality of Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012.

    I suppose what bothers me most is that by making this correlation between the supporter base, you run the risk of extending the correlation as between Sanders and Trump.  You know what the problem is with that: Sanders isn't nuts.  His ideas, his philosophy, his platform, are not about hate and racism and misogyny and squeezing the poor and fracking the crap out of the country.

    Just my two cents.


    Parent

    I don't feel DKos represents the whole (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:10:13 AM EST
    Of Sanders supporters.  But they are certainly not doing him any favors.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    Anne I think it's a credit to this blog and to people like you that the Sanders supporters here ARE NOTHING like those over there.

    Parent
    I was not talking about (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    the totality of Sanders supporters.   I am personally a Sanders supporter.   To a point.  I was talking about the crazy ones.

    And Kos is a good place to find them.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:36:35 PM EST
    I'm not sure it has made much of a difference in the primary unless Bernie goes over 30%. No the GOP is driving this. Grassley is writing letter after letter demanding stuff.

    Nobody trusts politicians. Have you looked at the numbers for the GOP lately? If you only think Hillary has problems in this area think again.

    Well, you're positing the same thing Fox news is that someone sent her classified information but that would be on that person. And also that type of thing would be on the State Department servers already if it came from someone else at state.

    Parent

    Polling (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:31:32 AM EST
    This issue is driving the polls



    Parent

    Ga6, every other thing in your posts on this (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    subject is wrong. No, Clinton doesn't get to decide what is classified. That is patently wrong. You are making Trevor, who made one or mistakes earlier, look like an all-star, by the way. Like I said before, everyone makes mistakes, but you are way over your limit.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    she did link

    While she was SOS she decided on what to classify then based on the above link. What they are doing now is trying to RETROACTIVELY classify stuff to avoid FOIA requests.

    You are being deliberately obtuse on this subject. You should read more and BTD has broken this down on this very site but you apparently refuse to read what he wrote or click on the links. The fact that you are misinformed by whatever wingnut sites you are visiting is not my problem.

    Parent

    Jealous with Envy (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    How does BTD have the time and get the scoop?

    Parent
    Ga6, nothing in your linked document (none / 0) (#63)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    says that Clinton decides what is classified. That is just plain not true. Ask some other poster to support you on this. They won't.

    Parent
    If Hillary had authority as SOS (none / 0) (#101)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:47:55 AM EST
    to say what is classified and what is not classified why is it that Petraues as director of the CIA did not have authority to say his daily schedule (that is the classified information he leaked) was not classified.  

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:10:25 AM EST
    Patraeus ADMITTED to "unlawfully and knowingly" removed classified documents. Clinton  had authorization to use a personal email account.

    This should help.

    Parent

    Heh, and somehow the code names (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    For undercover agents and covert operators became "sensitive" information instead of classified :) How does that magic happen?

    Parent
    Ummm... "sensitive" IS classfied (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    It is a level of classification. A thing doesn't have to be "secret" or "top secret" to be considered classified.

    Parent
    Why is Ga wrong? (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:48:13 PM EST
    She has cited an Executive Order that would seem to give Hillary classification authority....

    Declassification authority also exists in a number of people.  How do you know it does not include Hillary?

    Parent

    MKS, because the order (none / 0) (#65)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    doesn't say that Clinton gets to decide on classification. Generally, it's the person/agency creating the information who decides on classification in the first instance, is my understanding. There is/are rules guidance for what should be classified. Jeez, do some research. Give us some citations saying that Clinton gets to decide whether the information in her emails is classified. Most of the information in emails mentioned so far, came from other agencies.

    Parent
    Do some research yourself (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:46:31 AM EST
    You are the one making the assertion.

    Ga cited material supporting her position, and you ask us to just accept your assertions without support or citation. Come on.  

    Parent

    The Order talks about agency heads (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:47:56 AM EST
    As Secretary of State, and fourth in line to the Presidency, she is the premier agency head.

    Parent
    MKS and Ga6, very generally speaking, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    the agency or agency head (actually the person or people designated by them) determine whether intelligence/information created by the agency (not other agencies) is classified. The State Dept and Clinton don't determine whether other agencies' information is classified, or the level of classification. Of the specific emails made public so far, and deemed to be potentially problematical, they are all or mostly from information/intelligence generated by other intelligence agencies.

    Feel free to point out any reputable source that is saying, or interpreting the cited order as saying, that Clinton or the State Dept  gets to determine whether the emails currently being mentioned are classified. As BT as pointed out, it appears that State Dept doesn't necessarily agree with the inspector general or some of the other intelligence agencies, but no one is saying, to my knowledge, that the State Dept gets to make that determination, or make that determination by itself.

    Parent

    Green (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    Please stop the lectures--I am not going to grant you credibility without supporting citations.

    And who the hell is "BT?"

    Parent

    MKS, that is pretty funny (none / 0) (#116)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    BT is Big Tent, who created this thread. Who is MKS?

    Parent
    Never heard of "BT" (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    Actually, Green (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    While it is true that State has the responsibility to keep CIA or other governmental spy agency information classified, if State collected the same information independently, then they are under no such obligation, regardless of the views of other agencies.

    Parent
    Aren'r we talking (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    about, at least in one of the two emails, the so-called itinerary of a State Dept. employee?

    Sounds like State Department business....

    Parent

    I think Green usctalking about (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    The other email which discussed Ambassador Stevens' potential exit plans from Benghazi to Malta in the case if trouble.

    Don't know if that's what you mean by "travel plans".

    Parent

    Everybody (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    seems to forget that has their own intelligence agency
    The Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy. Drawing on all-source intelligence, INR provides value-added independent analysis of events to U.S. State Department policymakers; ensures that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the State Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities around the world.

    State was doing secrets long before CIA was even born, they have always had their own agenda, they have always marched to a different drum and they surely do not consider the Intel agencies to have the final say on what and how info must be classified in their house. It was that way long before Hillary came along, it is still that way now.

     

    Parent

    You need to read this (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:32:47 AM EST
    What is classified when tends to get pretty ambiguous at times.  Remember that Air Force General running off at the mouth about all of our ISIS attack procedures and processes a few months back? That dude was verbally pouring classified information at a faint worthy rate :). But nobody arrested him.

    Parent
    Your link (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    goes to media matters debunking everything you have just posited. LOL.

    Parent
    No, I took the quote from the criminal (none / 0) (#35)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    defense lawyer out of the linked article. He says if some of the emails turn out to be big problems, then Clinton may have big problems (other than political). The article says there was debunking, but because all emails have apparently not yet been read, those who wrote the article, or some of those quotes, can't possible know the answer to these questions. They are just speculating. You need to read a bit more closely, and think a bit more.

    Parent
    There is (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:23:36 PM EST
    no link. I guess you want to keep the hope alive. This is all about retroactively classifying stuff. There's going to be nothing in those emails. We've been here a million times before. Remember when every week we were hearing that Bill Clinton was going to be arrested for Whitewater? Never happened did it?

    You're the one making baseless speculation. Look she was preparing for this run and I'm sure had someone go through everything.

    And we've already seen conservatives moving the goal posts around on this issue.

    Parent

    Ga6, I am basing nothing on (none / 0) (#64)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 11:15:12 PM EST
    reclassifying. I am basing my comments on the fact that only a small percentage of the emails have been read by the main agencies looking at them, and determining what may be problematic.

    Parent
    If you are a legal expert, (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    then you know that your comments are complete conjecture and speculation.

    Not admissible for anything.....

    I can speculate that everything will be fine and the Republicans will nominate Trump, Trump will get less than 105 of the Latino vote, and Hillary will win by 10%.  I think my speculation is far more likely to be correct than yours....

    Parent

    will get less than 10% of Latino vote (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    Or maybe actually ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Nemi on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:44:11 AM EST
    105? ;)

    Parent
    Yes, that is right (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Donald will get a total of 105 Latino votes....

    Parent
    Wiped (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    Clinton's attorney admitted that the server was wiped per ABC news

    Though they didn't say when it was wiped, which will be interesting as to the timing , and to the time frame of when the e mails were specifically requested

    Parent

    The stated intent (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    would have been to wipe personal emails.....

    Nothing wrong with that....so lookie loos like Woodard won't snoop into her personal life.

    Parent

    No, it won't be interesting, ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    ... at least not to those of us who choose to live in the real world where facts actually matter. But for you and your fellow wingbats, hey, knock yourself out.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:29:45 AM EST
    The FBI will be looking at when the server was wiped, and the dates will be compared to the official requests for the Clinton e mails,
    And those rabid wingnut papers such as the NY Times and Washington Post will be all over it.

    So you might not be interested, but many others will be.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:37:56 AM EST
    Trevor how many of these conspiracy theories have blown up on the GOP in the past? I think about all of them but somehow this time it is going to be different. The breathless announcements from the NYT or the Wa Po that Bill Clinton was going to be indicted for Whitewater never came to pass. A lot of us have been here many times before and it always amounts to a hill of beans but the GOP buys into it every time. So when this is all over we can make fun of the press and the GOP.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 07:57:18 PM EST
    the only dripping is from the sheets of the bedwetters.

    Parent
    The travel plans of US officials (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    in foreign countries are classified.

    I trust you can understand why.

    The email discusses them.

    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:09:56 PM EST
    then the IG let that one through instead of classifying it. Are you going to have him arrested or something?

    And frankly no, it's not classified anymore. It's all old news.

    Parent

    Nope, look at the actual email (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    And the issue isn't what is classified NOW but should have been classified then.

    Parent
    Knock (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:28:31 PM EST
    yourself out with this silliness Jim.

    Parent
    So you think the travel plans should be (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    public.

    Okay. Your call.

    Parent

    Jim, last week you told us (none / 0) (#94)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:22:37 AM EST
    Hillary's emails were about signal intelligence and satellite/drones.  This week you're saying they are about classified travel plans.  How is it that you are the only person who knows about this?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:26:53 PM EST
    Jim, this was a State Department employee. I would expect the State department to be the arbiter of how and when they describe the movement of their staff. The movement of diplomatic personnel is very often publicly announced and obviously is not considered secret by the agency and therefore open to discussion on unsecure systems.

    I know you are trying so hard to find a crime but quit making stuff up.

    Parent

    "I would expect" is a qualifier (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    it is also incorrect.

    Parent
    Unlike you (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:02:04 AM EST
    I use qualifiers when I am talking about issues I am not pretty well versed in.

    You always pull ridiculous definitive statements out of your nether regions,

    The travel plans of US
     in foreign countries are classified.
    If that case is the case we should be investigating dozens of White House staffers over the "leak" of the Presidents plans during his recent trip to Africa.

    I need no qualifier to call you absolutely wrong.

    Parent

    Try to understand (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    the President's overseas travels are highly scripted and a huge amount of pre arrival security takes place because one of the purposes of the trip is PR.

    Contrast that with DOS types with a minimum of security traveling around a highly unstable region in which radical islamists exist.Perhaps you are unaware of how many DOS people have been killed and kidnapped over the years.

    You can also look at the other email that is now Unclassified per the IG. It is heavily redacted which means that it contained information that was Classified and was redacted for release.

    Parent

    I am (none / 0) (#100)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    sure the SD is acutely aware of the dangers to their staff, they have been at this game for a very long time. You presume to be so much smarter then them and declare they are wrong for what is apparently SOP for them.

    Parent
    18 minute gap (none / 0) (#60)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    We'll never know what emails were "wiped clean" from the server, now will we?  Sort of like if Nixon said that half of the white house tapes were "personal" and erased them, and no one would have known if there were an "18 minute gap".

    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    First, Nixon's gap occurred during a crucial conservation that was specifically targeted by investigators. There is no specific target in Hillary's case, people just want to go fishing.

    Second, erasing the tape destroyed the evidence completely. No matter how many times Hillary wiped her server her Emails still exist somewhere, she knows that, everybody knows that.

    Parent

    Face it folks. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:36:23 AM EST
    Whether or not there is any there, there, this is going to dog HRC all the way through the 2016. It doesn't need to be true for low information Americans to believe it. And Hillary is proving herself to be a horrible candidate. Much like 2008. I'm all in for Bernie.