home

Clinton and EGhazi: Did William Roebuck Violate 18 USC 1924?

The story that has captured the imagination of the Nation's Media - EGhazi! - has a new twist -- David Shuster of al Jazeera is reporting that:

This development could carry serious implications for William Roebuck, the career State Department official who was the Director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs at State and is now US Ambassador to Bahrain.

More on the flip.

Obviously, my preamble is tongue in cheek. No one cares about William Roebuck. Thus David Shuster call them the "Clinton e-mails." Well, the e-maiis in question are NOT the "Clinton e-mails." In particular the "TOP SECRET" e-mail was from Roebuck.

So what's Shuster's theory? His theory is 18 US Section 1924:

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) 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. (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

© In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. [My emphasis]

A simple reading of the statute demonstrates that Clinton is not implicated at all.

1. Clinton "knowingly removed" nothing. Hell, she didn't "unknowingly remove" anything. She was the recipient not the sender.

2. None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal.

3. As Secretary of State, Clinton could have determined the information was not classified and removed it. She had that power.

Now, it didn't take much more than reading the statute to figure this out. Shuster apparently could not do that.

So is Roebuck in trouble here? Of course not, unless some crazy Special Prosecutor is appointed, in which case well, yes he could be in trouble because politics does not care who is destroyed.

The Media and the politics take the innocent and the not so innocent alike. This is an untold part of the despicable insanity that is EGhazi.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Is "Foreign Government Information" Automatically Classified? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    sad they're trying to destroy someone else.

    But you have to remember, Ga, ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    ... it's all for a noble cause, which is the pursuit of the Clintons, any Clinton.

    What I find sad to see that the quality of David Shuster's work really hasn't improved one iota in the ensuing years since he was canned by MSNBC.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Or in (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:03:29 PM EST
    Gowdy's case he's lying for Jesus. It's okay to lie for Jesus because Hillary is the "devil".

    Parent
    A little collatoral damage is to be expected (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    Isn't that what Rumsfeld said?

    Parent
    In the event they were ever examined (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    the idea that every email I ever RECIEVED is a "CaptHowdy e-mail" is really to terrifying to contemplate.

    What happened to jokes? (none / 0) (#86)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    No one sends me any good jokes in a long time. I get a lot of emails but mostly payment receipts and sales ads. Maybe there were just so many good ones on GW. The ones on Trump are daily news items before you can hit send.

    Parent
    How about faxes? (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    remember those?

    I think social media killed the email joke.

    Parent

    Haven't we learned by now that (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    these investigations and prosecutions are highly selective?  And on the rare occasions (Petraeus) when they're kind of forced to "do something" because of an obvious breach, the punishment is perfunctory?

    There is nothing to be gained by going after Roebuck.  No one will care about someone they never heard of.  And it for sure won't take the hot lights off Clinton or satisfy those who probably think she belongs in a black site prison, just because, well...Clinton!

    Going after Clinton, though, really has the juices flowing.  And even if the government isn't actually going after her, as much as maybe they are "investigating" the practices of the State Department, the fact is that as long as the media does that for them, well, mission accomplished.  

    I don't know which is worse: the abysmally low levels to which the media has sunk over this, or how terminally stupid the public is for buying into it.  

    I was thinking yesterday (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    that the email of everyone in every department, plus congress, should be scrutinized because hey, maybe someone sent them something that was not classified at the time.  Why stop at Clinton? Well, I do know why, but really, why?

    that is the logical conclusion to this (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    Yup. Plus, the rules are that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    classified info should only be shown to people with a demonstrated 'need to know', even if they have the proper clearances. So if we are going to play the investigation game, let's play it.

    Security violations are among those rules that can be used at any time to get just about anyone that you want to get gotten. They are the 'suspicious vehicle traffic stops' of government/defense work white collar crime.

    Parent

    Being responsible for spam (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    If you are responsible for the emails your are sent, then you are responsible for the spam that is sent to you.

    Holy junk mail, Batman!

    Parent

    Gowdy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    apparently has classified mail in unclassified server or account. So yeah, this could morph into looking into everybody's email.

    Parent
    That's the argument they're going with now (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:00:28 AM EST
    Link

    Maybe the press will follow these breadcrumbs.

    Parent

    And what (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:07:44 AM EST
    if Gowdy actually sent it out? That's the bigger question. There's never been any indication that Hillary ever sent anything out.

    Parent
    What is Darrell Issa emailing around (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    Pertaining to all this? I'm very worried. Even the Pentagon has been hacked.  We need to check :)

    Parent
    If only someone would pay me to do FOIA requests! (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    Wait a minute, David Shuster of Al Jazeera? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    Gonna have to process that for a few brain cycles.

    He went with Olbermann to Current (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    which is now al Jazeera.

    Parent
    Here's my question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:03:15 PM EST
    What's taking so long to review these documents?  They've had these since August 11.  These docs are all or mostly all email - a decent doc reviewer could get through roughly 500 a day / 2500 in a 5 day week.  Put 10 reviewers to work and you could punch this out in a week.

    If this is of such vital national importance, people should be working on this 7 days a week.  But of course, there is something to be said for dragging this out and drip, drip, dripping information out.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    they have 5 people working on it. But thanks for the info.

    Parent
    New Reuters Article (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:20:44 AM EST
    Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest.

    State is now stamping many of her emails as classified.

    "The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go -- regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not. "

    "This sort of information [foreign government information], which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters."

    "Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government."

    State is disagreeing with some of what Reuters is saying.

    Drip, drip, drip.

    The fundamental problem (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:50:54 AM EST
    with your approach is the emphasis on political damage, rather than anything illegal that Clinton has done.

    The Chris Cilizza approach, where appearance is all that matters. The triumph of Reagan's reliance on a mythical world of make-believe.

    The problem here is that for decades people have been saying there sure is a lot of smoke surrounding the Clintons--where they were completely innocent.  The Clinton Rules.  

    So far, there is no wrongdoing.   That is a fact.  Sticking to facts is best.  But for political hatchet jobs, facts do not matter.    

    Parent

    Problem (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:42:44 AM EST
    Is Twofold.
    Classified information was  e mailed  to Clinton, and classified at that time. That offense is on the sender.
    Now, that information is stored at the Clinton residence, classified information being stored improperly.
    That seems apparent...for now.

    The Federal Judge...."We wouldn't be here today if this employee had followed government policy," said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan'
    Sullivan's said Clinton's actions had complicated the State Department's ability to respond to requests for records on various topics. He also ordered the State Department to contact the FBI to determine whether the private server Clinton used, which Clinton turned over to that law enforcement agency earlier this month, contains official records possibly responsive to the FOIA suit.

    Parent

    No (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:17:40 AM EST
    classified information was not sent to her at the time. Classified information comes over a separate classified server. The IG wants to retroactively classify information. The irony is that one he wanted labeled secret already got out and it was nothing but an email about a schedule.

    It was not stored at her house. The server was elsewhere.

    No, we would still be here if she followed policy. This is what most people don't understand. This is about FOIA requests that the press wants and the IG that people like you are backing do not want to fulfill them.

    Parent

    Classified (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:00:12 AM EST
    It is still classified even if it comes in a e mail. If the original was in a cable, or hard copy, or a staff briefing, the information is classified. If that information gets put in a e mail, it is still classified information.

    The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go -- regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

    In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

    Parent

    She has (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:11:19 AM EST
    the authority to deem something classified from her own account. Yeah, they retroactively classify them but now reuters has a hold of classified information. Who is leaking that to them? Isn't that illegal? Is Trey Gowdy leaking classified information now?

    Parent
    MKS, so far the investigations are not (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    complete. There is no way that you or anyone else on this site can know where the investigations are going, what all the emails say, who sent them or didn't send them, and what, if anything, will be recovered from the apparently wiped clean server. You are just taking the word/statements of Clinton, some from State, and Kendall (to the extent he's said much), and taken them as gospel. I don't. I wait for all the facts and all the important investigations to be conclude.

    I know what can happen when there are multiple investigations, many different players involved, and lots of information and laws to be considered.

    Parent

    I think you have already (3.50 / 2) (#69)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    made up your mind.

    Presumption of innocence applies--and not just in the technical sense.  I believe Clinton to be smart and competent, and her detractors to be basically dishonest.  This is the 25 year history of this.  

    So,  I give her the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.   Instead of breathlessly reporting every scintilla of news and concluding at every turn that it all looks very, very  bad.

    Your approach leads to guilt by rumor and innuendo....which works if the objective is to destroy her politically rather than ascertain the truth.  By your approach, she will be damaged politically before the process concludes, and an FBI report clearing her will be of no consequence.

    Parent

    MKS, no I haven't made up my mind at all (none / 0) (#72)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:07:31 PM EST
    However, you have. I'm waiting to get all the facts and for the investigations to be done. Don't think I have pronounced any guilt or even drawn conclusions on these subjects yet. Have just been pointing out that IF clearly classified information is found, or IF Clinton sent some of this information, or IF it's determined that the server was hacked, or IF there are State Dept. emails found on her wiped-clean server; there will likely be significant problems.

    Maybe you should inform the FBI, intelligence inspector general's office, and any other non-political body looking at this subject, that Clinton and her people have assured us that everything was done properly and in accordance with the rules, and they should stop their investigations.

    In the investigations I've been involved with defending (or conducting0, I've never used or come across this tactic. I wonder if I'd told the independent counsel pursuing my corporate client and its two founders/senior officers, that he should rest assured that everything was fine and proper, the IC wouldn't have charged my client and the two individuals with about 20 felonies. I could have avoided bringing in Ted Wells to defend one of the individuals.

    Parent

    What MKS said, Green. (3.50 / 2) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:19:52 PM EST
    You're concern trolling here -- that is, posing and phrasing questions in a deliberate manner which is clearly intended to portray Hillary Clinton in the worst possible light.

    In the course of doing so, you've repeatedly inferred that Mrs. Clinton is an untrustworthy woman who has likely done something awful, without every really asserting exactly what she's supposed to have done to undermine her veracity and credibility.

    And in that regard, your concern for actual facts and truth at best appears rather cavalier. At worst, any such concern has obviously taken a back seat to your determination to sully the woman's  reputation through unsubstantiated innuendo.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, I disagree with most of what you said. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:39:23 PM EST
    I do not try to put Clinton even in a bad light, let alone the worst possible light. Why would I do that to my leading candidate? I stick with the facts, don't let people get away with assuming facts that aren't yet established, and put out possible scenarios that I believe the investigators are likely pursuing. On occasion, I do the last thing in part to counter what a number of posters are taking as fact, i.e. that Clinton has done everything generally correct and nothing will come of the various investigations. While that may turn out to be true, I'm not so sure of that. Time will tell.

    As for Hillary's veracity and credibility, I do think she has a significant problem. While I can overlook her veracity problem--because I think she is smart, capable, experienced and tough, and knows at least a bit about business--I wish she would answer many questions and issues in a more straightforward, plausible and honest way. Some of her statements make me cringe. I don't know why she does that so often, especially when another approach would be just as good or better. Many Dems feel the same way.

    Does anyone believe she created her own email/server system just so she would have to carry only one device? There is no way that was the primary reason. I read that she is the only senior US official to ever set up her/their own email system (I'm not talking about using personal emails). I just don't believe she set up her system, so she could carry only one device. Unfortunately, there are way too many examples of dumb things like this that she says.

    Parent

    The problem at this point, Green, is that ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:18:32 PM EST
    ... your repetitious concerns about Mrs. Clinton's credibility have stretched your own to the breaking point.

    Again, you're alluding to possible wrongdoing on her part, without ever really coming right out with specifics. Rather, you posit with "possible scenarios" (your words and not mine), opine on them as though they were somehow real, and then use your overactive imagination as your justification for why she simply can't be trusted.

    And please don't get me started on your transparently concern trollish statement about "[wishing that Mrs. Clinton] would answer many questions and issues in a more straightforward, plausible and honest way," which serves only to underscore the strong likelihood that you're not even bothering to listen to a single word she's saying.

    I can see exactly what you're doing, and so can most everyone else here. So, please don't keep peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, I have made only 2 posts (none / 0) (#93)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    on Clinton's credibility. The one above and another one that was almost exactly the same. The posts were made only as examples. Don't know why you can't you stick to the facts. Perhaps you have to exaggerate and make up stuff to try to prove your point. You appear to be another poster who, when he can't debate or refute a point, resorts to calling someone trollish or a troll.

    The what-if's relate directly to the investigations that are occurring. If you want to take as gospel what Clinton and her people have said, go for it. But I'm approaching this more from a investigation, legal, legal defense, etc. point of view. This is how investigations are conducted, and defense and prosecution are done. Not once have I said or even hinted that the what-ifs were true. If you can't stand what if's or hypotheticals on an internet blog site, that's your problem not mine.

    Parent

    No, Green, you are not just pointing out facts (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    You are speculating and talking about what ifs.

    And you use a lot of words to shroud what you are talking about.

    In terms of good legal writing, I would refer you to Jeralyn and Armando.  Clear, succinct, and persuasive.   Not words, words, words......

    Parent

    "Peeing on our legs..." (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    Is that a legal term of art?

    Parent
    the premise is wrong (none / 0) (#90)
    by mm on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    Does anyone believe she created her own email/server system just so she would have to carry only one device? There is no way that was the primary reason. I read that she is the only senior US official to ever set up her/their own email system (I'm not talking about using personal emails). I just don't believe she set up her system, so she could carry only one device

    She didn't set this server system up, President Clinton was already using it.  She just tagged on to the existing private server that the ex POTUS was using.

    She said she used one smartphone for convenience.  

    Parent

    No, MM, you are not correct (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 10:21:00 AM EST
    The server set up for Hillary in her home before she became SS replaced Bill Clinton's server, and was a server that had been used for her presidential campaign.

    "For instance, the server installed in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home as she was preparing to take office as secretary of state was originally used by her first campaign for the presidency, in 2008, according to two people briefed on the setup. A staffer who was on the payroll of her political action committee set it up in her home, replacing a server that Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, had been using in the house."

    "Those briefed on the server setup say the device installed for Bill Clinton was deemed too small for the addition of a sitting Cabinet official. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home."

    WaPost article.

    I have read this several times previously. If you have credible information to the contrary, feel free to provide. Also, note that this article contains a Hillary quote on the subject, and her quote appears not be correct, based on this article.

    Parent

    I think you are making (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by mm on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    a distinction without a difference in an attempt to make what she did sound more suspicious and sinister.

    There already was a server in existence at the Chappaqua home handling President Clinton and his staffs email. "guarded by Secret Service"

    CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches
    .

     OK, so they upgraded it because the storage capacity of the one President Clinton was already using would be too small.

    Denver Post:
    Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he said.

    "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. [The Denver Post, 8/19/15]

    The way I read that, the server was handling both Clintons and their staff.  

    Parent

    No, MM, I am correcting your misstatements (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Green26 on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    You said that this was Bill Clinton's system/server, and that is not correct. Now you are repeating Hillary's incorrect statement and probably making more misstatements. The time in question is when she was the SS; not 2013 when Platte River was used. Note the reference in the below quote to the reason Platte River was hired in 2013, i.e. concerns about security.

    "The server itself had been purchased for her unsuccessful 2008 run for president. Initially, it was run by a former Senate aide, who was then hired by the State Department. Later, amid concerns about reliability, she hired Platte River, the Denver company now subject to FBI questions." Atlantic article.

    Platte River was hired in June 2013. A guy named Justin Cooper is referenced in articles as being involved in 2008. Other articles say that the new server was run by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the IT director on Clinton's campaign before joining the State in 2009.

    The FBI is investigating matters relating to the server, including its security, so we'll know alot more about this subject eventually.

    Parent

    Green26, here's what you wrote; (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by mm on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 08:55:17 AM EST
    This is specifically the statement I challenged.

    Does anyone believe she created her own email/server system just so she would have to carry only one device?

    Maybe what you wrote there was carelessly phrased. You appear to be conflating two different issues.  What she said was,

    Why did she use her own email account?

    As the Secretary has said publicly, when she got to the Department, she wanted the simplicity of using one device. She opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience; it enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule. That is the only reason she used her own account. Her usage was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent. To address requirements to keep records of her work emails, it was her practice to email government officials on their ".gov" accounts. That way, they would be immediately captured and preserved in the Department's system

    That doesn't seem so crazy to me.

    There is another factor that some former colleagues say puts Mrs. Clinton's decision in a more reasonable light: the archaic, dysfunctional computer systems at the State Department. Only a tiny fraction of emails sent on the State.gov system in recent years have been permanently archived. And former State Department employees describe the unclassified email system in 2009 as frustratingly inadequate.

    Using State Department email outside the building involved "incredibly unreliable software," said one former senior official. "If you had to write a priority message that was more than a paragraph long, it could leave you streaming sweat and screaming at the screen. And that's when people would turn to their private accounts out of desperation."

    Another official described landing in foreign capitals late at night and having to go to the American Embassy and wake people up simply to check his unclassified email. He called the situation "ludicrous," though he said the system slowly improved, especially as more people got government BlackBerry devices.   LINK

    And this:

    The law, in fact, requires federal officials to use outside mail services. This isn't optional. It isn't the result of a desire of our leaders to hide their email. The law, in the form of the Hatch Act of 1939, officially "An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities," specifically prevents the use of federal resources (originally, specifically postage) for political activities, and email is now considered one of those resources by the Justice Department.

    Here's how that works. Let's say that while Secretary Clinton was in office, she wanted to talk to Bill about whether Chelsea would make a great president one day. That's a political activity. If that message were sent using government email services, it would violate the Hatch Act. Even if Mrs. Clinton sent that message to James B. Steinberg, who was her Deputy Secretary of State, it would violate the Hatch Act.  

    She could send it to Mr. Steinberg via Gmail or AOL. That would be legal. But to send it (or any other political correspondence whatsover) via federal email systems is a crime.

    That means federal officials almost always have one or more personal accounts. George W. Bush had GWB43.com, which was operated by SMARTech Corporation in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In fact, in my book, I estimated that 103.6 million email messages were sent by the Bush administration via the SMARTech infrastructure and were never recorded or preserved.

    I consider that to be one of the greatest losses of historical documentation the U.S. has yet suffered.

    Therefore, the fact that Mrs. Clinton had a mail server in Chappaqua is not surprising. In fact, given the Hatch Act, a substitute email solution would have been required.

     LINK


    You are arguing about the physical hardware that was used.  That's not my point.  I will accept your representation that it came from her 2008 campaign.

    I am saying that the concept of putting a server in her Chappaqua residence was already in place for the Ex President of the United States.  GUARDED BY SECRET SERVICE.

    And by the way, doesn't an Ex-President retain some level of security clearance?

    Your own source from the Washington Post article confirms my point.

    "Those briefed on the server setup say the device installed for Bill Clinton was deemed too small for the addition of a sitting Cabinet official. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home."

    I really don't know what we're arguing about anymore.


    Parent

    one final point (none / 0) (#116)
    by mm on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    I realized that Platte River was hired in June 2013.  The point I was trying to make is that a close reading of the statement I posted shows that the data on the server belonged to both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton.

    "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. [The Denver Post, 8/19/15]

    Supporting my point that the private server was already in existence.

    Parent

    Good stuff, mm (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    This is why I like this blog.

    Parent
    Green, your link (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    to the WaPo article....not to that article....

    Parent
    I do no believe you (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    are remotely considering voting for Hillary.

    I think you are deliberately trying to fill this blog with anti-Hillary rhetoric.

    You cloak your accusations with "concern."   Thus, you are a concern troll.  See Donald.

    And, your lacing your comments with legalisms such as "assuming facts not established" is tedious.  Yes, we all know you are a lawyer at a "big" firm.....I would be happy to discuss what I think about "big" firms, but that is a topic for another day.    

    Parent

    Sarcasm (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    Well I made the effort to engage meaningfully.

    I don't care how many investigations you have been personally involved in.  That is irrelevant--and sheds no light on the current issues.    

    In terms of the actual investigation, nothing has been determined.  That is the truth.  One you tend to shy away from in making your pronouncements.

    My comments were about drawing any conclusions, and giving the benefit of the doubt to Clinton.  I think we should pending any actual adverse determinations.  You clearly do not grant her that benefit of the doubt. That is all about politics....

    Parent

    I think the reference is to 12 FAM 534.1 (d) (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:20:05 AM EST
    Employees must handle foreign government information (FGI) in the following manner:

    (1) Safeguard North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) classified information in compliance with U.S. Security Authority for NATO (USSAN) Instruction 1-07;

    (2) Protect foreign government information, other than NATO, classified by the originating government in the same manner as U.S. information of a comparable classification; and

    (3) Classify foreign government information, other than NATO information, that is "Restricted," "Designated," or "unclassified
    provided in confidence" as U.S. Confidential to protect it from unauthorized disclosure. When adequate to achieve the agreed-upon
    protection requirements of the providing government, this type of FGI may be handled under standards that are less restrictive than
    the safeguarding standards that ordinarily apply to U.S. Confidential information, provided that it is marked Confidential/Modified
    Handling" or "C/MOD." (See 5 FAM 482.6).

    the problem with the story is that ignores the agreement with the foreign govt component

    Parent

    Three false assertions (2.33 / 3) (#27)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    1. Clinton "knowingly removed" nothing. Hell, she didn't "unknowingly remove" anything. She was the recipient not the sender."

      She removed documents at the very least when she left government office with documents belonging to the government, if not earlier since she may have possessed government documents on her private server that were not properly preserved in government control.

    2. None of the information was "determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security." at the time of removal.

       SEZ You, and a  handful of Clinton lackeys. This will obviously have to be determined by an investigation rather than by the self-serving assertions of partisan hacks , especially since it is contradicted by people whose job it is to make such determinations and who work for the Obama Administration.

    3. As Secretary of State, Clinton could have determined the information was not classified and removed it. She had that power.

       No, she did not have the power to unilaterally decide information deemed classified by other agencies was not classified.


    Oh, man this is getting tiresome... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:14:43 PM EST
     
    She removed documents at the very least when she left government office with documents belonging to the government, if not earlier since she may have possessed government documents on her private server that were not properly preserved in government control.

    So far, none of the materials reviewed were classified at the time they were sent or received, none of them were marked in any way that indicated they were classified.  It is also worth noting that there are two phrases that bear on this matter: "containing classified information" and "without authority."  Are you certain that (1) retroactive classification required Clinton - or whoever else sent or received the documents - to treat everything as classified in order to stay within the law and (2) that any "removal" was done without authority?

    SEZ You, and a  handful of Clinton lackeys. This will obviously have to be determined by an investigation rather than by the self-serving assertions of partisan hacks , especially since it is contradicted by people whose job it is to make such determinations and who work for the Obama Administration.

    The materials did not begin to be examined until fairly recently, but long after they were sent/received and long after Clinton left her position.  Absent the FOIA requests, it's not clear to me that they would ever have been reviewed.  For what it's worth, making reference to "Clinton lackeys" and "self-serving partisan hacks" telegraphs a significant level of bias itself, does it not?  One does not get the impression you will be satisfied by any result that does not flay the skin off Clinton.  I am still waiting for you to tell us how Clinton or anyone was supposed to determine whether something was or should have been classified when it was sent or received with no visible indication of such.

    No, she did not have the power to unilaterally decide information deemed classified by other agencies was not classified.

    So, wait - you want to claim that she had the power to classify material - in fact, you and others have repeatedly stated that she had an obligation to classify these materials that she "should have known" were classified, but no authority or power to remove a classified determination?  Are you asserting, then, that this was a one way street?

    This may be immaterial since it appears from the documents reviewed that there was no classified designation to remove, and she certainly could not have removed something that wasn't there, could she?

    Oh, wait - it's Clinton, so the answer is always the same: guilty, guilty, guilty.

    Parent

    No response Recon (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:24:15 PM EST
    It will be deleted.

    No replies to him anyone.

    They will be deleted.

    Parent

    You're banned from my threads (4.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    I'll leave this ridiculous, ill informed and idiotic comment up but if you comment again I  will delete it as well as the subsequent ones.

    You were given every opportunity to abide by my thread rules, including taking a one day suspension after repeated warnings and you decided you did not have to abide by them.

    Well, you do and did.

    You remain and will remain banned from my threads.

    Do not comment again in my threads.

    Parent

    If he posts in your threads again (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    and I see it, he will be put in timeout or banned from commenting. You may ban whoever you like in your threads.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    know BTD a lot of this just tea party writ larger. They have pretty much said they hate the country the way it is and would rather pretty much blow it up and start all over again.

    Has anyone answered (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    Shuster on Twitter? When military spouses go after John McCain on Twitter for trying to cut Veterans benefits, he gets real upset with himself and walks it all back.

    I understand (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    that some of the press has blocked Clinton supporters on twitter.

    Parent
    I'm not blocked yet :) (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    You go girl (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    David Shuster has a bunch of folks (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    Following him.  But not much happening with that tweet :)

    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    it's just more of the same stuff except they've moved on as Hillary as the target onto some anonymous person in the state department.

    Someone posited a theory that Hillary herself is driving so that the GOP will think she's a "weak candidate" and they'll nominate a big time clown and go down in a landslide.

    The GOP is cracking up though. And reporters are now treating Donald as a serious candidate. That has to burn the chaps of a lot of Republicans.

    Parent

    Donald looks serious (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    He's toasting the Jebinator...easily. Doesn't matter that he doesn't make sense.  Fox News hasn't made sense in over a decade, the right wing base doesn't care if anything makes sense anymore.

    Parent
    Something's spamming my tweets (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    I have a Kohls ad in the middle of my tweet.  What the hell!

    Parent
    Wasn't Shuster the guy (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    that made the anti-Chelsea comments in 2008?  Got a little timeout from MSNBC....

    Parent
    I just remember (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 01:22:51 PM EST
    now that Shuster was the one that called Hillary a madam and Chelsea a prostitute and had to take a leave of absence back in 2008 due to it.

    Yep (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    While serving as substitute host for ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:52:41 PM EST
    ... Tucker Carlson on the latter's MSNBC show in February 2008, David Shuster was discussing Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign with his guests, when he asked rhetorically:

    "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

    The immediate public reaction to that flippant comment was visceral, and Shuster was compelled by the network brass to issue an on-air public apology to the Clintons the following evening. He was then suspended by MSNBC for a rather lengthy period.

    In obviously retrospect, Shuster's "pimped out" remark certainly appears to have caused substantive damage to his career prospects at NBC News, given that he had been considered one of MSNBC's rising stars up until that point.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Pardon Hillary now.

    You mean Roebuck right? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    Watergate Envy runs deep (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    Several comments and questions (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    1. Regarding removal, some commentators have said that giving the server to the IT firm in Denver and even giving the thumb drives to her lawyer Kendall could constitute removing the information? Of course, if nothing is classified, or clearly classified, this wouldn't matter.

    2. Some commentators are saying that the Petraeus statute doesn't require any "knowing" or intent aspect, other than knowing that the classified information was removed or provided to someone else. Don't know if this is true.

    3. BT, what's your knowledge or source on saying that Clinton could in effect change the classification? While I understand that different agencies/people can disagree on classification, I don't think Clinton could definitely declare something that is or should be clearly classified, as not being classified, especially in this type of situation and where the information wasn't generated by her or the State Department.

    4. I am still curious to see/learn what the other almost 80% of the emails provided to State say or contain. I believe I read that only 23% had been reviewed so far, by some agency/group looking at them.


    If the State Department (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    Independently came across information that the CIA or other spy agency had found and deemed classified, State is under no obligation to follow their decision.

    Parent
    If true (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    That sounds very disturbing.

    Again, if true, there had best be a process to contest the classification rather than just blatantly ignoring it

    Parent

    that seems to be (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    quite an elusive question to get, unequivocally,  answered.

    We understand that an Agency Head is the primary, at least initially, decision maker regarding classification. But, what if there is a truly, major dispute?

    Again, to emphasize my dilemma, please allow me to ask an admittedly extreme hypothetical:

    Suppose an Agency Top Banana (CIA, NSA, State, whatever) writes in a personal email some references to, irrefutably, top secret information, troop movements & positions, for instance. Obviously, no one would accept the rejoinder, "it's o.k. I'm the Chairman of ABC, and, it's my right to write anything I want."

    Who, what agency, in the law, would take the lead in settling this problem? My guess would be The Justice Dept., but, it's only a guess.

    Secondly, and, unrelated to above, why is it taking so long to find out what level security clearance David Kendall has (had?) And, same question for everyone else who had access to the server in question?

    Parent

    Everything (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:44:17 PM EST
    Regarding the reporting on this story, and the claims from the Hillary camp has been suspect.

    Going back to the March UN press conference, the story has changed.

    And the race to be the first out with "new info" has resulted in many reports that later need to be backtracked.

    I think a good week is required to let the dust settle on any "new info" before it can be accepted.

    Agreed, some questions, which have been posed in the press, would seem fairly easy to respond to, are yet to have answers. Either there is stonewalling...or it's complicated.

    No clue as to Hillarys final disposition here ,  I have my leanings, but the State Department , imo, will get reamed over the FOIA non compliance in addition to cavalier safeguards of classified material.

    Parent

    The thing (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 07:00:07 PM EST
    the press seems to have missed is that all of these emails they are screaming about were sent from the State Department to Trey Gowdy. So apparently if you go with the same story line about how all these emails are so important then you have to believe Trey Gowdy should be indicted for disseminating classified information.

    Parent
    The truth (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    is it seems that realistic information is slow to be put out by the press.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:39:24 PM EST
    is no extreme hypothetical. Cheney already made that claim in regard to the outing of Valerie Plame.

    Parent
    Response (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    1. If the private server did not belong to State, as it did not, how was it "removed?" Are you positing removing from her private home to a 3rd party contractor constitutes removal from the govt? Even Reconstructionist has not been brazen enough to try that one on.

    2. It is not true. And in fact Petraeus DID KNOW he was passing designated and marked classified information to an unauthorized person. People believe what they want to believe. Hope you aren't one of those.

    3. As head of an agency she is the classification authority for State. She has th power to overrule every classification decision made at State. In fact, she did not have to as nothing was designated classified in her emails.

    This is not in dispute.At least no by any reasonable person (for other types, see Reconstructionist.)

    4. Hillary Clinton is eager for you to read them as well I assure you.

    the people standing in your way are the IC and their repeated violative conduct (See EO 13526 and ROCA), including that if the IC IG.

    Parent

    BT, (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:18:10 AM EST
    1. Interesting point or argument. Never thought of that. However, I would think that a Sec of State providing classified information to a third party who had no clearance would be removing within the statute. There's nothing wrong with Clinton receiving classified info, obviously. Again, not saying there was any classified information involved.

    2. Yes, I know that Petraeus admitted the info was classified and that he gave it to his friend. However, that is not what I was saying/asking. The question is whether, under the statute, does there have to being any knowledge or intent, other than knowingly providing the info to a third party. I don't know the answer. Just asking the question because I have seen several people quoted/saying that intent is necessary.

    3. Yes, it makes sense that Clinton would be able to overrule or decide decisions made at State. However, if something was clearly classified and the classified decision had been made at some other intelligence agency, would she be able to overrule that? I assume not, but don't know the answer. If the classification was questionable by the other intelligence agency, I assume she could disagree with it. This seems to be what State and the intelllience inspector general are doing now.

    3A. How do you know that nothing was classified in her emails, other than what she has said? I'm not saying that what she said isn't true, but I can't imagine she has read all 30,000 of her emails, in recent history. It's not clear to me whether State has read all of them either, but maybe they have. State certainly hasn't released all of them yet. State also hasn't redacted all of them yet. State asked the inspector general for help in analyzing the emails and doing the redactions, is what I read. What if some associate at Kendall's firm goofed up at Kendall's law firm, and some of the emails were marked as classified? Obviously, the intelligence inspector general thinks that a number of them should be considered to be classified.

    4. Clinton has said she wants people to see her emails. We'll see what's in the emails. Perhaps nothing from a legal point of view, but I can't imagine there won't be significant political issues. My view is that if Clinton didn't care about people possibly seeing her emails at some point, she would have used the government email system. The convenience of one device reason she has given is not believable to me. Jeez, i'm a lowly lawyer in a big law firm and I carry 2 devices.

    Parent

    You are reading way too much into all of this (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:54:18 AM EST
    green26: "However, if something was clearly classified and the classified decision had been made at some other intelligence agency, would she be able to overrule that?"

    How could something have been considered "clearly classified" over two years ago, when it's only now being classified as such by the IC?

    Further, the State Dept. has taken considerable exception to the IC's current findings, such as they are, and holds fast to its own position that these emails were and are unworthy of "classified" or even "top secret" status.

    And finally, your personal impression that Mrs. Clinton's explanation of personal convenience is not "believable," that's evidence of -- well, of what, exactly?

    You appear to be chasing your own tail here, counselor.

    Parent

    Donald, I don't think we, the public, know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 10:15:03 AM EST
    all the facts yet. My view and my questions are based on what appears to be the fact that the emails are still being read and analyzed by multiple agencies. One government agency said on Monday in a court filing that 23% of the emails given to State had been read for FOIA purposes. The FBI appears to have been brought in only recently, so they can't possibly have done all of their analysis.

    In situations like this, when people are self-interested, I don't rely on what they or their lawyers have said or indicated. I wait for all the facts to be reviewed and provided by all of the main bodies and authorities.

    I don't take as gospel at this point that no info/emails were classified at the time, and are only being "reclassified" now. While that may be true, it may also be spin, misrepresentation, over-statement, or not accurate. I also wonder if anything else will turn up on the server. Not saying it will, but that's one more place to look and analyze.

    As for State, they are apparently the ones that brought in the intelligence inspector general, to assist in analyzing and redacting emails, as the IIG has more expertise in classification than State. This is what I read. Assume it's true, but don't know. If so, perhaps State isn't going to be the final, or even an important, player in making the determinations. Not saying they won't be, but it's possible.

    Parent

    Knedall reportedly had a security (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    clearance....if this were even relevant.

    Parent
    Incoming Emails (none / 0) (#41)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:38:31 PM EST
    Would Clinton have been under any obligation to provide a secure environment for incoming emails?  I don't see how that is possible with her server setup.

    She was Secretary of State.  I would assume people would SEND her classified emails.  While she could control what she personally sent out, she certainly couldn't control what's sent to her.  I would think most people would just use the email she used to email them.

    I know I never think about what and where the server is when I send people emails.   Seems like a big security hole.

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 06:05:19 PM EST
    think that there would an assumption of due diligence on her part to insure reasonable security. I am guessing that her security went way beyond reasonable. SD.gov was hacked, there has been zero evidence hers was.

    There can be no assumption that she would be sent classified emails, that's a no-no , perhaps even criminal on the senders side, this would apply even if it was a .gov account. The assumption would be that she would not be sent classified material.  

    Parent

    Exactly - classified data should not have even (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:28:22 PM EST
    made its way off of a secure system. And by secure system I don't mean a .gov email account, I mean a computer system on a locked down network with the necessary security parameters to hold classified data. If she received classified emails, the problem started way upstream of her own server.

    Parent
    Classifed info (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    should only be sent by secure systems.

    your assumption is weird.

    Parent

    The fact is (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    government servers were hacked.  Hers was not.


    Parent
    I have seen reports the (none / 0) (#55)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:31:33 AM EST
    FBI is investigating, among other things, if Hillary's server was hacked.  That Guiciffer guy hacked Sid's account and leaked his emails from/to Hillary which is how general knowledge of Hillary's personal server came to be.

    Do you have definitive links that Hillary's server was not hacked.  I am sure the FBI would be interested in that.

    Parent

    Capt, no one knows (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    if her server was hacked.

    Given that our enemies had to know about it then we can assume it was hacked.

    Parent

    ... but your own self-propelling paranoia about "enemies" and your own obvious political biases.

    And so, because there is otherwise no basis for assuming any such thing, once again you (a) are trafficking in misinformation; (b) don't know what you're talking about; and (c) are simply parroting the empty rhetoric of the professionally outraged GOP provocateur class.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, part of the task of a good man is to (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    insure that truth is not drowned out.

    My note to Howdy was just doing that.

    We can assume that Hillary's server was hacked by our enemies. It would be a real disservice to the country to assume otherwise.

    And then we have this stretch of logic.

    How could something have been considered "clearly classified" over two years ago, when it's only now being classified as such by the IC?

    We have no idea if it was or was not "clearly classified" over two years ago. That is one of the points of the investigation.

    But since the only actual example provided has been heavily redacted before being released as Unclassified then it appears obvious that it should have been classified two years ago.

    Youall have a nice day now, you hear??

    Parent

    All (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    you Hillary haters make me laugh, you insist she is the most devious woman since Lucrezia Borgia, yet you turn around and infer she is dumb enough to have a server that is easily hacked.

    Parent
    Just saw some emails that were marked (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    Classified.

    Keep on digging.

    Parent

    looks (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    like you already found the mushrooms.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    was according to Issa who then said they were not. LOL.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    About 70 of Clinton's already-released e-mails have been blacked out to protect classified information. One has been classified at the middle level by the FBI because it apparently contains information about the Benghazi attack.

    Link

    "It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

    "If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

    Link

    According to State Department regulations in force in 2009, department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher. Confidential information is considered the lowest level of classification for information that could harm national security if leaked, behind "Secret" and "Top Secret"

    Link

    Parent

    Do you realize (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    those emails came from the Benghazi committee? And a while back Gowdy was screaming about the FOIA requests and saying he wasn't getting any emails and now that he's getting them he's releasing them to the press. So you must think Gowdy is guilty of disseminating classified information.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    now that he's getting them he's releasing them to the press.

    Sounds like they have been reviewed, redacted re classified and then released. That's no violation.

    You're really grasping for straws.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    Meanwhile the top GOP candidate presides over rallies in which the crowd chants White Power! White Power!

    Heh

    As the GOP once again reaches out an inspiring, Lincolnesque hand to all frightened and frighteningly ignorant Americans..

    As it stands today, the Republicans themselves represent Hillary's best chance for remaining a viable candidate  

    Parent

    Now you have claimed that Hillary (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    is not responsible for the actions of her staff.

    Yet you claim that Trump is responsible for what someone in the crowd says.

    Really????

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    then you're conceding that Hillary did nothing wrong either. Thanks for finally admitting it.

    Parent
    Debating with someone (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    who would find something illegal about the way Clinton butters her toast..

    Guaranteed he was one of those Vince Foster people; not that he'd ever own up to it..

    Parent

    Nope, you're claiming (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    that Hillary didn't receive and resend the messages before they were redacted.

    We know that's not true.

    Sorry, GA. I know you are a true believer, although I can't imagine why.

    And, BION, I wish Hillary well.

    Just as I did Nixon and then Carter and even Obama.

    But they were terrible Presidents just as Hillary would be.

    And all four because of the same defect.

    Arrogance. They can't bring themselves to believe that the rules apply to them.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 04:27:18 PM EST
    the state department sent these emails directly to Gowdy. Do you not think that Gowdy has a security clearance where they don't have to be redacted? He got the emails directly with them not going through a review process on his unclassified computer. The moron is apparently leaking them to the press unredacted directly.

    You guys said the same thing about Bill Clinton too. Anybody who doesn't bow down before the sorry conservatives is considered "arrogant". It seems like George W. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst in the history of the country but you apparently think he's great.

    Parent

    If what you claim is true (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    and frankly I wouldn't believe you on a stack of Bibles, then charge him and put him in jail!

    Right next to Hillary.

    But, and this is what galls you, the story is about Hillary and her emails, not Gowdy.

    BTW - On a national level The Donald is now just 6 points behind Hillary.

    Sweating, ain't ya! Lol

    Parent

    You want it to be about Hillary, which (none / 0) (#120)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    puts you right there with the media, but it appears - from what I've read - that the actual investigation isn't one that is focused on her, rather, it is focused on the more overarching questions about how the State Department is handling communications.  It is complicated by the fact that the State Department does not agree with the intelligence community about what is and isn't classified.

    Were it not for the fact that Clinton wanted the e-mails released, we wouldn't be having any of these conversations, because there would have been no reason for the IG to even be looking at them.

    Of course, we would surely be having some kind of conversation about whatever other made-up, constructed out of whole cloth "scandal" the right would be ginning up against her.

    It's more predictable than the sun rising in the east.  

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    Actually, I believe the State Depart. sent a letter out requesting all  emails from 4 former Sec State's.
    In Hillary's case, the State Department had multiple FOIA requests, and had no .gov account for the Sec State  with which to respond to the FOIA requests. That is why Hillary sent then 55k pages of e mails. State Dept knew they were in trouble, and 2 Federal judges have recently lambasted the State Dept. for their FOIA response.violation of

     An October 2014 letter from the State Department to former secretaries of states.

     Harf said the letter was part of a routine effort to update record preservation and asked former secretaries to turn over emails containing state work conducted on personal accounts.

    A couple months after the request, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails and documents from a personal email account created on a self-operated server, according to the New York Times and the State Department. Clinton has since requested (via Twitter) for those emails to be released.

    Parent

    Most people caught doing wrong (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 09:15:27 AM EST
    It is complicated by the fact that the State Department does not agree with the intelligence community about what is and isn't classified.

    don't agree with the cops.

    Parent

    Your analogy (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    is way off, Intel has no jurisdiction over State. This has always been more of an interdepartmental squabble then any individual malfeasance. If Hillary was not involved this would never been any kind of story.

    Parent
    Of course not (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    But that doesn't mean they aren't the keeper of Intel and how it should be handled.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 24, 2015 at 05:33:32 PM EST
    the Intel agencies are tasked to gather intel not police the other agencies. State has it own intelligence and analysis divisions, they have thousands and thousands of front channel and back channel sources world wide, as an agency they have 200+ years of dealing with intel and "secrets". It just seems they are less anal about it.

    Parent
    You need to read who may (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 07:58:17 AM EST
    change classifications.

    Obama's EO

    You aren't going to like it.

    Parent

    It's a 27-page order that covers a lot of (none / 0) (#128)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    territory; please cite the specific section that addresses who can and can't change classification.

    Parent
    Since you haven't read it yourself (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    how would you know that?

    Maybe she will like it.

    Parent

    Why don't you two read (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 26, 2015 at 08:18:54 PM EST
    the threads.

    Parent
    Born (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    classified by butt. Take the example from the Reuters article  
    In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

    Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

     If this information was "born classified" then it was delivered  on an unsecure email server in the first place. The originator obviously did not expect a higher level of security then the email being forwarded to the Secretary herself. Now when for obvious reasons the content is redacted people scream foul. Redactions are a fact of life for any FOIA releases, rarely is there ever malfeasance involved.

    Parent
    Doesn't matter what (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    the originator expected.

    The originator obviously did not expect a higher level of security then the email being forwarded to the Secretary herself.

    The rules are the rules.

    And then we have another qualifier

    , rarely is there ever malfeasance involved.

    And the sensitive nature, which is why the contents were redacted.

    He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

    There is no longer any doubt.

    Hillary and her minions violated the law.

    Parent

    Heres (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    the rules as BTD posted(my emp.)
    The receiving agency, or a receiving U.S. contractor, licensee, grantee, or certificate holder acting in accordance with instructions received from the U.S. Government, shall provide a degree of protection to the foreign government information at least equivalent to that required by the government or international organization that provided the information.

    When adequate to achieve equivalency, these standards may be less restrictive than the safeguarding standards that ordinarily apply to U.S. Confidential information.

    Huma's email falls squarely within those parameters, as the eventual redaction also was.(ie. The originator expected the email to be forwarded as an email, the originator expected the contents to not be released to the public, thus the redactions).

    Even Hillarys latest tormentor admits

    Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize,
     frequent but ignored if you are not named Clinton.

    Then

    though more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.
    I guess we give those .gov guys a break but surely those responsible for the
    "atypical" cases have been rounded up and prosecuted for their "crimes". I hear crickets, rare is rare.

    On the other hand these "improprieties" are so common they even have a name for them,

    The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.

    His main beef seems to be having the job being bit harder by private server issue. Maybe we should start a go fund me site to pay these guys overtime for the burden Hillary has put on them and we could all put this nonsense behind us.

    Parent

    How about this?? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    Maybe we should start a go fund

    to hire a person to walk behind these US employees and chant, "You are not a god."

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    sounds like a good career path for you.

    Parent
    Okie Dokie (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 23, 2015 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    Tell you what.

    I'll take Donald (Trump,not "in Hawaii')and you take Hillary.

    lol

    Parent

    Born Classified (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 22, 2015 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    The originator obviously did not expect a higher level of security

    In this case the originator was from another country, and the information did not become classified, or "born classified" until it was received.

    I would gather, once received, it then be treated as classified and only forwarded to the appropriate people, in this case Madame Sec., through proper channels, either hard copy or cable.

    Parent

    The FBI investigating (none / 0) (#71)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    is what is driving speculation that the server may have been hacked.  Clearly Gucifer hacked Sid's account and leaked emails to/from Hillary related to Libal and other SD issues.

    Once Gucifer leaked Sid's emails it was like blood in the water for sharks.  Questions have been raised about what the SD did, or did not, do once Gucifer leaked Sid's emails.  Did they change any passwords or take any other measures?  Same goes for Hillary's security precautions.

    If you found out one of the peeps you were exchanging emails with got hacked what would you do?

    Parent

    the what ifs just keep snowballing (none / 0) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    what if the IC IG says Blumenthal's email are now classified.  Does that mean that Guccifer's hundreds of recipients including  aides to Senate and House members are now compromised?

    Parent
    My understanding is (none / 0) (#91)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    Gucifer could be charged with violation hacking laws and leaking stuff.  Once the stuff is in the public domain court cases have found reporting on it is not a crime.  I am not aware of any cases where pols doing basically the same thing but suspect doing that would not be a crime.

    If a pol investigating Hillary, or who ever, leaked sensitive stuff he got using a security clearance there might well be charges.

    But as I posted earlier on other threads DOJ has lots of flexibility in who they do and don't charge.  This is why I doubt Hillary will be charged under the Obama administration, or any administration for that matter.  For better or worse America has a long history of letting even very unpopular pols off the hook.

    Parent

    Chunky, I wondered about this too (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    I think I read that this was the only email system that Clinton had/used. Would it be possible that no classified information was ever emailed to her? Maybe there's an explanation that I'm not seeing.

    Parent
    Most likely (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:27:26 AM EST
    Cables, etc.

    Parent
    Federal ditrict judge in D.C. weighs (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 09:42:01 PM EST
    in.  (Appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton.)

    He's poorly regarded FWIW (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 20, 2015 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    And frankly, based on what I read, rightly so.

    He's like that Texas judge on immigration.

    Loose cannon.

    That happens especially with older guys who are probably bitter that this is the end of the road for them.

    Parent

    Same data as a highly Recc'd (none / 0) (#54)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 21, 2015 at 12:30:15 AM EST
    diary on dKos. Diametrically opposed conclusions....

    The more things change the more the stay the same. Thanks for being my anchor to sanity. It's like mob rule over there.