Records show Clinton received just one training brief on classified info

[w4rma]

Source: The Hill

The lone security briefing came on Jan. 22, 2009, just a day after Clinton was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the nation’s top diplomat, records released to the news organization under a Freedom of Information Act request show.

The single briefing appears to violate a portion of the department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, which declares that senior staffers receive training on “identifying and marking” classified material “on an annual basis.”

The lack of documentation does not preclude the possibility that Clinton received informal briefings and updates about government classification processes or that her subsequent briefings were not memorialized in writing.

But it is likely to further inflame ire from the Democratic presidential front-runner's critics, who have repeatedly alleged that her private email server jeopardized American security. Of the roughly 30,000 emails released by the State Department from Clinton’s server, about 2,000 were classified at some level. Another 22 emails were deemed “top secret” — the highest level of classification — and deemed too sensitive to release even in a heavily redacted form.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274304-records-show-clinton-received-just-one-training-on-classified-info

[onecaliberal]

1. Offs please don't even try to say she didn't know.

[leveymg]

13. She knew, and she signed a security agreement that day where the penalties were laid out. Linked

(poor quality PDF scan, I couldn't copy - hard to read, but decipherable) Maybe, someone can reproduce.

Linked as "Nondisclosure contract" here: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-sap-2016-1

It's a copy of a court document. The header reads:

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833712 Date: 11/05/2015

She signed it alright, and check out the second page that lays out the federal statutes that mishandling/disclosure of TS/SAP classified material would violate, many, including 18 USC Sec. 793. Unfortunately, they found 22 of these documents on her server.

[AgerolanAmerican]

38. Not only did she know

but she's on record saying she's well aware of classification requirements

of course, given who we are dealing with, she will maintain that position AND claim ignorance at the same time, with a straight face

[FreakinDJ]

79. As a Private in the US Army I had to sign off on that breifing

Everyone that ever handles Classified Information does

[leveymg]

84. Yes, so you know what would happen to you if you ran classified info on your own server

Levenworth.

[FreakinDJ]

85. Special Treatment for Hillary

She will be impeached on her first day in office

[leveymg]

87. But, isn't she the one who can "work with the other side?"

Yes, to pass another war resolution.

[Jarqui]

2. If she's claiming to be the most ready for the Oval Office,

why is this lack of training on classified information an issue?

As Secretary of State, who here believes that if she felt she needed more training or assistance with this, someone would deny it to her?

See paragraph 2:
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf
She signed off that she had received "security indoctrination ..

and she signed off on that again here:
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

So what is her pitch? "I'm still not ready to be Secretary of State when it comes to handling classified information but I'm all set for the Oval Office!!"

Don't they realize how lame this spin makes her look?

Lack of training for someone that high up in the government is not an excuse for someone that high up.

[pnwmom]

4. She's not using lack of training as an excuse. She has nothing to excuse.

It is her critics who are pretending that she didn't get enough training, not Hillary.

By Federal law, the agency head is the authority on what an agency needs to classify. The only person who could overrule her decision -- while she was in office -- was the President.

The reason some of those documents are classified now is because the decisions are subjective and she is no longer in office --and they have been "retroactively classified" by an analyst in another department. That happens virtually every day. Different departments have different standards and exercise different judgement in what should be classified -- and the whole system encourages over-classification.

The head of the national archives, who must store all this material, says that 3/4 of what he sees should never have been classified. But is.

[JudyM]

14. Sorry, no -- there are standards... she doesn't get to make them up at her own whim.

[pnwmom]

15. By law, the agency head gets to ESTABLISH standards for his or her own agency.

So in that sense, yeah, she did get to "make them up."

If she decided, for example, that everything her department wrote about the Zika virus in Puerto Rico needed to be classified, then that would be the standard. If she said, no, it no longer needs to be classified, then that would be the standard.

[JudyM]

17. By law, there are standard definitions - she can adjust particulars, but the idea that she can say

that nothing that goes through her server is classified in any way is I'm sure you would agree, ludicrous. Any government lawuer, particularly in State, knows about the importance of maintaining control of sensitive docs.

[pnwmom]

18. She never sent classified documents through her server. She used the classified system

for that. And she held the ultimate authority to determine which of her agency's documents needed to be classified.

[cprise]

63. If she always used it, we wouldn't know she relied on Sid Blumenthal

...for her intelligence:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/14/exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillarys-emails/

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1 A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

2 Increase French influence in North Africa,

3 Improve his internal political situation in France,

4 Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

5 Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

[Jarqui]

25. I do not agree with this whatsoever

The reason some of those documents are classified now is because the decisions are subjective and she is no longer in office --and they have been "retroactively classified" by an analyst in another department. That happens virtually every day. Different departments have different standards and exercise different judgement in what should be classified -- and the whole system encourages over-classification.

Neither do two Inspector Generals, the State Department (who eventually came around) nor the agents who sign depositions on what they found.

There is some retroactive classification - which is all the more reason why her server should have been secure - even if it really had nothing but unclassified info on it at the outset. But 2,100+ and not a single email Clinton ever sent or received was classified at the time? Nonsense. Don't be silly or naive.

This is something many seem to overlook: how was the secretary of state supposed to send or receive a classified email? She had no secure .gov email she was using. She banked on it never happening - even though she had no absolute control on what material got emailed to her. Emails between her and the President were exposed ... and nine have gone missing.

So Hillary went into the job, knowing that emails from the President, on defense, diplomacy efforts, intelligence and confidential information on foreign countries is basically born classified - whether sent or received via email ... and she did absolutely nothing to protect this classified information for that contingency during her four years at the state department as evidenced by her server setup. That's very arguably negligence and brash stupidity. Negligence is against the law and against the standing Executive orders from the President linked in her non disclosure agreements.

The Obama administration may run out the clock on anything happening before the election but Hillary has a serious problem and folks will eventually cut through the smoke just like they did when Nixon was lying.

Now, they've just found more emails she didn't produce .. that and the nine missing emails from the President is flirting with obstruction of justice.

[pnwmom]

27. The SoS was supposed to send classified email on the separate, classified system.

WHICH SHE DID.

She only used her personal system for non-classified material, instead of using the clunky .gov server (which got hacked while she was there, but she was unaffected because she wasn't using it.)

So your whole post is built on a pile of pebbles.

[Jarqui]

37. Ok, please produce Hillary's .gov email address that received these

classified emails into the classified system. And that she used to send classified emails.

The problem you'll have doing that is that she didn't use a .gov email address. And that is a problem because her approach was was outside of what the State Department had set up. People trying to communicate confidential stuff to her may have assumed her private server was something else and probably couldn't imagine it wouldn't be secure.

Another problem you'll have is that in spite of Hillary's claim that the State Dept had 90+% of her emails, the Inspector General couldn't find them but a small fraction of them - less than 1% - yet nearly 7% of the emails on Hillary's private server were deemed to be classified. That's not good math for Hillary.

[pnwmom]

42. You want me to produce her CLASSIFIED address?

No .gov address is supposed to be used by anyone for classified material. They use an entirely different system for classified and don't filter their classified email through the .gov system AT ALL.

People who wanted to transmit classified info to her were required to submit it on THEIR classified systems which were set up to ONLY transmit to other classified systems.

You keep making comments about the Inspector General but all you really have are news reports about what RW sources CLAIM is being told them by former Republican appointees. No sworn or even public testimony.

[Jarqui]

44. Nope. What I am citing was an exchange of testimony in the House

Here's a transcript
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/

They bring up the Inspector General's Report, less than 1%, etc - back up a bunch of what I said in a transcript of testimony

Politifact looked into it:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Although some former secretaries of state occasionally used personal emails for official business, Clinton is the only one who never once used an @state.gov email address in the era of email.
...
Had Clinton used a @state.gov email address, every email sent and received would have been archived in the State Department system.
....
Whether or not Clinton’s email address complied with security regulations is a harder question. Clinton argues that she never emailed classified information, instead using other secure methods of communication approved by the State Department.

Still laughing? I doubt it.

[revbones]

55. ^^ BOOM ^^

You sank their battleship...

I'd almost put $10 down that they'd try to discredit the testimony by yelling "Benghazi" without realizing it was her own testimony.

Sheesh, and I've about had it with everything they don't like being "RW sources "

[ebayfool]

82. Bookmarking this - TY! n/t

[Laser102]

57. Nothing will ever come of any of this. Nothing.

[Jarqui]

64. I'm suspect CIA Director Deutsch and General Petraeus felt similarly or they

wouldn't have done what they did and pled guilty to violating the law on classified information.

If nothing is going to come of this, why should the Justice Department bother giving immunity recently to Clinton's IT guy? What is the point if they already know it's all for nothing?

Why bother having Intelligence Community agents sign depositions on their findings of evidence? Why should they go to that trouble for "nothing"?

Why are two Inspector Generals and their staff wasting 6-9 months or more on "nothing"? How come they, who are in a much better position to judge, couldn't figure it out as quickly as you have?

How does the director of the FBI constantly justify over the last nine months having as many as 150 agents working on this case? Is he so stupid, he couldn't figure out like you have that it was all for nothing 6-9 months ago or at least clued in before now?

Do you really expect "nothing" from the Senate and House investigations and the GOP lawsuits on this?

I'm not sure precisely what is going to come from this or exactly when but I suspect the odds for "nothing" are not very good at this point.

[MADem]

9. FREE BEACON? Really?

That's a step up from Stormfront...but not by that much.

Jeez. Don't you realize how lame using wingnut sources makes you look?

FWIW, your "Free Beacon" source document is the same document referenced in your first link.

You should check dates before you toss stuff up like that.

Also, all you've done is tell us that you read the "Free Beacon" with that link. Ewww.

But don't believe me--read the last sentence in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1411154

[Jarqui]

21. Sorry, I simply do not subscribe to shoot the messenger. I never will.

In a society that treasures freedom speech, I think it breeds ignorance. By all means, one might question credibility but I don't think automatically dismissing something because of it's source is wise. If we're ever going to get past us vs them, we sometimes have to listen to the other side and not perpetually have our fingers jammed in our ears.

Having said that, I don't read Free Beacon. I don't know what it is. I wouldn't know where to read it. I've never knowingly been on their site. The link for this document pops up on a google search for "Clinton non disclosure" and I didn't bother with the link beyond that because the document cites the case number, the document number (c05833712) and I'd seen both non disclosure agreements several times before.

Here it is on Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/288942974/Hrc-Sci-Nda1#scribd

But your complaint doesn't change the material facts.

Regardless, it's all a bunch off smoke because:
- Clinton signed the documents 22 Jan 2009
- in those documents (and we only really need one of them but two underscores there was no mistake), she signs off on having got up to speed on classified info, etc
- thirdly, when I last checked, she is still running for the Oval Office. If she really hasn't got a clue on classified info, then she should withdraw.
- fourthly, as Secretary of State, she was in a position of high enough authority to get whatever training she needed whenever she wanted it - on darn near anything - including how to classify information. Not doing so is a pathetic excuse.

Whether Free Beacon has a copy of these non disclosure agreements on their site or not, it does not change any of those facts above that my original post pointed out. It's a nonsense smoke excuse - probably dreamed up by the renown liar on her payroll, David Brock - who you evidently take seriously.

[MADem]

22. Well, maybe you should follow the idea of

"Pay atttention to the terms of service at the website where you post."

You were googling for garbage--you wanted to come up with an argument to support your idea, and you used a website that pushes wingnut trash to make your case. "Screw the source, this works" is never a good idea--because you become associated with the source as a consequence.

I'll take the guidance of a site admin here, who has been a known quantity since 2001, before I'll take any advice from you, a newcomer, an unknown, and someone coming here out of the blue with right wing sources.

The point I made--that you keep ignoring--is that the document AND your first link are all of a piece. One isn't "in addition" to the other.

And you (as well as the GOP and angry wingnuts who keep shoveling this shit) also keep treating Clinton like she's a seaman apprentice in the admin shop of a destroyer, having to check blocks and fill out paperwork--that's just not true. She, as First Chair in the Cabinet, has the ability to CLASSIFY -- and DE-CLASSIFY-- pretty much anything she wants, so long as her boss doesn't disagree (and he hasn't complained, so there's that).

She just doesn't have to follow the same rules with regard to these matters, as has been explained in this thread.

This is a right wing meme, straight from the desks of the "Whaaaaaah-BenGHAZI!!!" Team in Congress, and you are aggressively prosecuting it.

I can only wonder why.

[Jarqui]

35. Once again, you're wrong.

Googling for widely published nondisclosure agreements is not googling for garbage. Those widely published non disclosure agreements show Clinton signing off on her being informed about classifying documents. That's her signature. That's a real court case. And those non disclosure agreements were posted all over the net by left and right wing media.

They came out in a Nov 5, 2015 release of info from a court case - with a whole bunch of other stuff
link

Those documents are not created by Free Beacon. I'm not aware of any rule against posting nondisclosure agreements signed by Hillary Clinton and produced as the result of a court case. Please direct me to where such a site rule states that.

The right nor left created those documents. Hillary Clinton and the State Department did. And a court case helped to get them into the public domain.

Unfortunately for you, they refute your spin because it's a little tougher to make stuff up for court than it is for you to spin stuff in a post on DU.com - trying to shoot the messenger who merely passed a copy along while pathetically hoping we will all ignore the substance of what Hillary really signed off on.

It's not going to work. You need to dream up a new line of attack.

[MADem]

36. No, I'm not. You were looking for anything to "prove" your assertion.

Your two links say the same thing--they do not advance the conversation at all.

And you plainly don't know the difference between an office worker and a principal who is also the most senior member of the cabinet.

And it shows.

Speaking of 'new lines of attack' you shouldn't even have started down this road. It did reveal a lot, but maybe not what you intended.

[Jarqui]

43. Here's a problem with this reasoning:

"She, as First Chair in the Cabinet, has the ability to CLASSIFY -- and DE-CLASSIFY-- pretty much anything she wants, so long as her boss doesn't disagree (and he hasn't complained, so there's that).

She just doesn't have to follow the same rules with regard to these matters, as has been explained in this thread."

CIA director Deutsch agreed to plead guilty for doing something similar - having classified information on his computers at home. President Clinton pardoned him.

General Petraeus was convicted of it.

Now if you are really so smart to have dreamed up that Hillary had the power to deem classified information unclassified at her whim, maybe you can explain to the class why the high priced attorneys for these equally top level government officials couldn't sell that to the Attorney General convicting them.

The simple reason is because your reasoning is absurd. There are rules and laws for the classification of material and the safeguarding of such material that even the top level folks serving in the government cannot ignore.

However, you're probably in good company because it appears Hillary was as equally stupid or thought herself above such a thing as her predecessors.

[cprise]

54. That is party-hack logic

It really doesn't matter if he links to official documents on a left or right wing site.

Speaking of "Whaaaaaaah....!"

[MADem]

56. His two links said the same thing--the 2nd one was from the wingnut server.

I know people by the company they keep.

[cprise]

58. Finding a govt document on Google is 'the company you keep'

OK

[MADem]

60. When you have a choice of sources and you "choose" Free Beacon my thought is that this is where

you saw the thing in the first place.

[pnwmom]

3. She wasn't some "senior staffer" -- she was agency head. As such, Federal law makes her

the ultimate authority on whether agency material needs to be classified -- with the President himself the only person with greater authority.

[MADem]

10. This is the absolute truth. She is the most senior cabinet official.

There are only two people who have the authority to override her decisions in this regard, and they're both in the executive branch. She is senior to Defense and Homeland Security and all of the cabinet--she is "First Chair," in effect.

But hey, that's no fun, is it? This peripheral, right wing, pile-on bullshit has to continue, with the help of her primary opponent's supporters, too, using wingnut sources (in this very thread, too)...!

smdh!!!

[Yo_Mama]

47. But much of the really sensitive classified material found did not originate at State

That's why other agencies get to say whether it is classified or not. She had nothing to say about it.

Cabinet heads don't get to declassify information classified by other departments. I can't tell whether you believe what you have written here through a misunderstanding or whether you are trying to spin the rest of us, but I agree with the person who wrote that it won't work.

It won't, because it can't. State has conceded that many of these emails contained classified information.

[rtracey]

5. grasping for the life preserver

[Major Hogwash]

6. If this is true that . .

. . . she only had 1 training brief on security issues, that's not good.

[pnwmom]

8. Why? She was the head of the agency. She was the one who determined

agency policy regarding classified documents -- each head of an agency is in charge of that for his or her agency.

She did need to be oriented when she arrived -- but after that it was her job. There was no special office in charge of telling her how to classify documents.

According to Federal law, the absolute authority on classifying documents is held by the President and the VP, with the next level of authority being all agency heads. There was no one in between, telling Hillary what she must do.

What should she have done every year? Instructed herself?

[Yo_Mama]

48. Classified info arises from any departments, and she had to follow rules on that info

This is not mysterious.

Very obviously a Secretary of State sees a lot of classified info from other departments. That does not give the Secretary of State the authority to say that what has been classified by the originating department is not classified.

If a Secretary of State DID order that information classified at high security levels by other departments should be treated as unclassified, that Secretary of State would be committing a federal crime. And that's why she was given the disclosure form to sign.

[pnwmom]

49. Right. And handling that is simple, too. Classified documents from other departments

arrive on the classified system, and anything she does with them goes out on that same classified system.

There is no evidence at all that she ordered other department's info to be treated as non-classified.

Just a bunch of RW's blowing their hot air and Hillary-haters sucking it up.

[snagglepuss]

80. What is the "classified system" you refer to?

[MADem]

7. L. O. L~!

The lack of documentation does not preclude the possibility that Clinton received informal briefings and updates about government classification processes or that her subsequent briefings were not memorialized in writing.



What was that, again?

The lack of documentation does not preclude the possibility that Clinton received informal briefings and updates about government classification processes or that her subsequent briefings were not memorialized in writing.

The lack of fact-checking and research does not preclude media outlets from publishing suppositions and pushing them off as facts as to what Clinton did or did not do, absent any additional questioning or checking!

They just can't HELP themselves! Rather than do the work, they publish the "some people say/we read this but couldn't be bothered to fact-check" type of story, and then, if there's anything more to say about it in future, like, e.g. "Oops, nevermind...." that will be buried in a back page or inserted as an added footnote. It's just so typical at this point in time!

[bluedigger]

11. I had to do it annually as a lowly government contractor.

And it was all duly documented.

[pnwmom]

19. Right. Because you were a lowly govt. contractor. She was the Agency Head,

and Federal law rests classification authority in the Agency Head.

[bluedigger]

20. A good leader doesn't ask their subordinates to do anything they aren't willing to do.

Takes less than an hour.

[pnwmom]

50. Nonsense. She had some duties that were HERS and not theirs.

She was the person in charge of deciding what was classified. If she said purple unicorns would be classified in State Department documents, then they would be. If she said they wouldn't, they weren't.

[Yo_Mama]

52. ONLY FOR THEIR OWN INFORMATION. Get it?

Somebody gave Blumenthal CIA docs. That's being investigated.

There was a LOT of classified information on that server that she had NO AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY.

[pnwmom]

53. Prove that with something other than RW hysteria based on rumors

and anonymous sources.

[MADem]

23. And if you were a lowly enlisted member of the military, or even a senior officer,

you would have had to do it as well.

But if you were the SECDEF, you wouldn't have had to do it.

[Cryptoad]

12. Ohhhh NO,,, EMAILS,,,,, Oh the horror of it all!,,Drink!

[man of few w]

26. What a bullshit story

What's next? Accusing her of not flushing the toilet every time? Jesus!

[MGKrebs]

16. I think she had security clearance as a senator too, so

it's not like she would have needed the freshman course.

[MADem]

24. She got a classified material control brief as FLOTUS, too.

She also got a high level clearance in that non-job job as well.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

28. This is a GOP story, period. This story exists to destroy Hillary, period.

[MADem]

61. Of COURSE it is--that's why the "proof" comes from The FREE BEACON.

Some things are just so damn self-evident.

[monicaangela]

29. But....She's so experienced

I'm surprised she even needed that one. I mean after all, First Lady, Senator, (Member of the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009), Secretary of State..Let's see, how many times do you think she's had an opportunity to learn about classified material? Willful ignorance? Or something else?

[Darb]

31. She's way more experienced than Bernie, for goddamned sure.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[monicaangela]

32. Bwahahahahahahahahaha

[Darb]

40. Lots of people laugh at the truth.

Are you gonna post now how you are not voting if it isn't Bernie? Read that about 20 times today so far.

[monicaangela]

65. Experience?

It would be hard for Bernie to gain experience as "first lady" Senator? Bernie is a Senator. Secretary of State? Check out what really happened during here appointment to secretary of state...and then repeat she is more experienced. Experience at what? Hawkishness, doing whatever to gain personal wealth and power. I don't think Bernie wants that kind of experience, most people don't. I always vote, too many people have died so that I have the privilege to do so. You evidently don't understand what the movement behind Bernie Sanders is about. It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination or not, the movement will continue. I would never stay home and not vote, neither would I ever vote for someone I feel would not be good for the nation, so don't start with that what is your alternative question. There are plenty of alternatives.

[Darb]

66. She is more expeerienced. Happy?

Bernie is a Senator from a tiny state. Not much pressure nor much exposure. Most of the US didn't even know who he was until a few months back. Face it, Hillary has been under the gun for decades, Bernie has been anonymous.

You are entitled to your opinion. But don't try to pretend that Bernie has been exposed to international events while having real live responsibility. And shove the bagger talking points please.

[monicaangela]

67. LOL!

Ever heard of wool? I have, and believe me you'd stand a better chance of pulling that bit you have over your own eyes than mine. I know what type of experience your candidate has, and how the exposure has helped and harmed her. I look at the record. I don't know Bernie or Hillary, so have nothing personal against either of them. The facts prove that what you say is true. Bernie doesn't have international exposure in the manner that Clinton does. Thank God for that. If he did we would be blaming him for coups in Honduras, helping to overthrow governments, flip flopping over and over again, getting caught in lie after lie and having the M$M try desperately to clean it up, being a shield for Wall Street and so much more. Sometimes experience can be a bad thing. In the case of Clinton, I believe it is.

[Darb]

70. He a nobody, period.

A socialist nobody who has little or no experience on the national or international stage. Quit pretending he has had ANY, and I mean any, real global responsibility, because he hasn't. How many countries has he visited as the official representative of the United States of America? I'll tell you, not a goddmaned one.

Pretend all you want to. He hasn't done anything but gripe.

[monicaangela]

72. And yet he's giving the person

with ALL THAT EXPERIENCE a run for her money. Evidently all that experience isn't helping her as much as you would like. Have your feelings about Sanders, however; don't take it personally. And, it is about time somebody griped about the poor state of affairs in this nation.

[Darb]

74. He's getting beat soundly, except in

the bernies world. It is all over but the shouting. Promise stuff you cannot possibly deliver and many will vote for you too.

[monicaangela]

76. Okay Darb

I've had my say and I hope you have had yours. Have a nice day.

[Darb]

77. Have a nice day.

[MGKrebs]

98. I'm trying to think of someone else who served in the Senate and went on

to become President with little foreign policy experience. I know there must be one... it's right on the tip of my tongue...

[Darb]

71. And there you go with the

bagger talking points again.

[monicaangela]

73. My points are my points

It appears you have some type of obsession with baggers, believe me if what I am saying seems like talking points, maybe you should take a look at the facts, that would help you understand that those "talking points" are truth.

[Darb]

75. Whatever you say.

Just keep telling yourself that. I cannot help that the bernies sounds like baggers a lot. They are your guys gripes.

[Fairgo]

101. I think it is more appropriate

to comment on the vacuous nature of your post. The dialogic equivalent of packing peanuts.

[840high]

45. I trust Bernie. Hillary - not at all.

[Darb]

59. Good for you.

I trust them both. I will vote for either. Politics is an ugly business. It's much easier in the safe confines of Vermont than the glaring spotlight that Hillary has had to deal with for 30 years. Nobody knew who Bernie was this time last year. You and I did, but for the most part, Bernie has had an anonymous role in American politics. He has faced nothing like Hillary has. He has not had nearly the responsibility that Hillary has had. Secretary of State is a thankless, difficult job with incredible responsibilities. Senator from Vermont is easy by comparison. Mentally and physically.

[Darb]

30. This ought to rile up the teabaggers.

Among others.

[saturnsring]

33. it's sad to see dems salivating over the hounding of the dem front runner

spare the" it's sad to see hillary blah blah blah" oh so clever retort

[farleftlib]

34. Good grief. She didn't know better?

And why do they always bring "her critics" into it? What she did was illegal! There is no dispute about that. It has nothing to do with her critics, it has everything to do with her flouting the law and national security because she's secretive and paranoid. Cripes she's married to a former POTUS. They both know this stuff and so there is no excuse. Especially not a pathetically weak one like this article is trying to claim.

[SoapBox]

39. And this is going to be her excuse?

Puleaze.

[Zira]

41. She was a lawyer, and had been first lady and a senator. She KNEW her emails were public

record and she intentionally obfuscated that record. She is culpable.

[840high]

46. .+1

[pnwmom]

51. She was a lawyer and knew the law. So did Obama's Department of Justice

and they have confirmed that she acted within the law at the time.

The law changed only AFTER she left office.

And she didn't obfuscate any records. She stored them more securely than the .gov server, since that server was subject to massive and successful attacks.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Crumbles As Justice Department Says No Laws Were Broken

“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

[MADem]

62. +1,000! nt

[creon]

68. Correct

There were no laws broken by Clinton.

[leveymg]

99. The USDOJ has made no such determination. That's an Oped from last September.

The author doesn't address the felony charges which were Petraeus' original indictment, 18 USC Sec 793. He pled down to 1524, which was a lesser included charge. What HRC did is a felony under the the statute in effect when she signed her security agreement. Just like Petraeus, but the Oped says nothing about that. The author is the former USA who let Petraeus plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time.

[creon]

69. There were no laws broken.

Nothing further

[MGKrebs]

100. Not so sure about that...

It's possible that HRC didn't actually read every email she received. I could easily imagine a staffer going through her messages and either summarizing them and/or forwarding them to her. That way she could focus on messages coming from only a few sources. If that staffer was taking stuff from the classified system and re-sending it on the non-classified system, they could be in trouble. I would imagine HRC would have 'plausible deniability" though.

I have no info that this happened, just me speculating.

[creon]

122. makes sense.

That could be how it worked out.

[winter is coming]

107. Seems we spend way too much time hearing that said about the Clintons. n/t

[creon]

121. That is as may be

Hillary Clinton is smart enough to stay within the letter of the law.
Her husband? Not so much.

She is vulnerable on matters concerning her judgements; questions can be raised on that.
But, breaking the law?
Personally, I doubt it.

My own view is that Bill and Hillary Clinton should have left political life in 2000.

[riversedge]

78. As the article said-this is sure to be red meat for her critics. YUP--the Sanders

fans smelled it and came to pile on. Shameful

[JudyM]

81. What this says to me is that compliance with the Department's own rules was unimportant to her.

Unless the group responsible for her briefing was not sending out reminders to have the training -- and that would be easy to find out.

If they were reminding her of the rule and she ignored it that sends a message throughout the agency.

[pnwmom]

86. President Obama knew and didn't object.

He also knew she was using the classified system as necessary, and that the antique .gov system was unwieldy, as well as turning out to be very hackable.

[leveymg]

88. Obama didn't ok it - he just gave her enough rope to hang herself.

She probably assumed that she had head of agency immunity for her own emails, but where did that leave her staff and others who had to use the uncertified system to communicate with her? But, that wasn't really her concern, was it?

Obama told Steve Croft on 60 Minutes last December that he did not authorize Hillary's use of a private email server for Departmental business.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-60-minutes-syria-isis-2016-presidential-race/

Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of private email server--

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: --while she was Secretary of State?

President Barack Obama: No.

[pnwmom]

89. Obama repeatedly said her use of the server did not pose a national security problem.

Which is the bottom line. He also said the reason this issue has been "all that's spoken about" is because of politics.

From your link:

Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?

President Barack Obama: I don't think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged and-- you know, as a general proposition, when we're in these offices, we have to be more sensitive and stay as far away from the line as possible when it comes to how we handle information, how we handle our own personal data. And, you know, she made a mistake. She has acknowledged it. I do think that the way it's been ginned-up is in part because of-- in part-- because of politics. And I think she'd be the first to acknowledge that maybe she could have handled the original decision better and the disclosures more quickly. But--

Steve Kroft: What was your reaction when you found out about it?

President Barack Obama: This is one of those issues that I think is legitimate, but the fact that for the last three months this is all that's been spoken about is an indication that we're in presidential political season.

SNIP

Steve Kroft: You think it's not that big a deal--

President Barack Obama: What I think is that it is important for her to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the American public. And they can make their own judgment. I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.

[leveymg]

90. That was before 1/22 when the FBI confirmed there were TS/SAP classified materials on the server

Too many people assume too much about the President's omniscience at any given moment about matters not immediately before him. Note, he hasn't repeated that statement. That decision is now for the FBI Director, and then the AG. In the end, come January 22, we will know what Obama really thinks, and whether like Bill Clinton in the case of CIA Director John Deutch, he decides to issue a pardon.

Most people who have signed a security agreement know what the consequences would be if they, too, decided to host classified information on a private server. They know she broke the law. Here are the thoughts of one of them:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/266477-the-smoking-gun

Special Access Programs (SAP) is a game changer. It is now undeniably clear that the results of the FBI investigation will be the end of one of two things: Hillary’s bid for the White House or the legitimacy of the FBI—at least when it comes to prosecuting cases on the mishandling of classified material.

. . .

As more information from Hillary Clinton’s server has been made available, it is clear that the contents of the server contained Imagery Intelligence (IMINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), and Signal Intelligence (SIGINT). Understanding that much of the information has been retroactively classified, there are a few facts that are tough to grasp—at least from the perspective of an intelligence practitioner.

First, when imagery that is classified SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign national) is viewed, regardless of the absence of classification markings, it is distinctly evident. Second, any documents that contain or reference HUMINT is always classified SECRET, and if specific names of sources or handlers are mentioned, they are at a minimum SECRET//NOFORN. Third, SIGINT is always classified at the TS level. It’s not uncommon for some SI to be downgraded and shared over SECRET mediums, however, it is highly unlikely that a Secretary of State would receive downgraded intelligence. Finally, SAP intelligence has been discovered on Clinton’s private server, and many are now calling this the smoking gun. SAP is a specialized management system of additional security controls designed to protect SAR or Special Access Required. SAR has to do with extremely perishable operational methods and capabilities, and only selected individuals who are “read on” or “indoctrinated” are permitted access to these programs. The mishandling of SAP can cause catastrophic damage to current collection methods, techniques and personnel.

In other words, if you have worked with classified material for more than a day, it seems highly implausible that someone could receive any of the aforementioned over an un-secure medium without alarm bells sounding. However, reading about a Special Access Program on an unclassified device would make anyone even remotely familiar with intelligence mess their pantsuit.

[pnwmom]

91. The FBI has never confirmed there were documents classified AT THAT TIME

as opposed to retroactively classified.

That writer you linked to is a clever-sounding but no-nothing right-wing blogger and you're being duped. Or else why would you link to him?

Didn't you notice the name of his blog? Exceptionism? The only people he hates worse than Hillary are Bernie and Elizabeth Warren -- who he calls Fauxcahauntus and pictures wearing Indian feathers.

From your link, about the RW writer who wrote the hit piece:

DeChristopher is a 9-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces. He holds an M.A. in Strategic Security Studies from National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs with a concentration in Irregular Warfare. He currently works as an Independent Intelligence Consultant and blogs at exceptionism.com. Follow @exceptionism

http://exceptionism.com/category/politics/

It’s not a coincidence that Senator Elizabeth Warren has yet to endorse a candidate. In a recent CBS interview, she repeatedly dodges questions that require her to offer favorable opinions of one candidate above another. She knows by now that her like-minded leftist has no chance of being the nominee, and she will eventually offer a full endorsement for Hillary, but not until Bernie’s baiting game has been completely exhausted.

Come July, Hillary is likely to take the stage in Philadelphia wearing a bluish/blackish/brownish pantsuit, a classy “feel the bern” brooch, and thank the Democratic party in a boisterous Brooklyn/Jewish/Southern accent—while Fauxcahontas discreetly gives Bernie well deserved pat on the back—or whatever the Cherokee equivalent is.

[leveymg]

93. There are no TS/SAP documents on the server - the information was stripped out of other agency docs

that were stamped at various classification levels, and incorporated into emails. There is information in some emails on HRCs server that the CIA has identified, and others that are verbatim NSA materials. All these materials that originated with CIA or NSA are classified Top Secret.

The act of incorporation of classified information is just as illegal as if the original classified documents had been attached in their entirety with their originating agency classification headers and sent as email attachments. But, that's not how it was done. We know that on at least one occasion Hillary ordered a subordinate to take a classified document off the secure system, strip off the classication header, and transmit the contents in an email, "send unsecure" was her instruction.

You may have gotten misleading information. About 2000 emails were reclassified by DOS after the other agencies had examined them and determined that some contained classified information. That DOS reclassification of the emails is what is being referred to, but it does not mean that the contents weren't previously classified. Just the opposite, it just confirms that the emails on her server, of which Hillary Clinton, herself, sent 104 emails containing classified materials.

[pnwmom]

94. You are quoting from a hit piece by a guy who calls Liz Warren "Fauxcahauntus."

And you have never had any real links, just rumors and right-wing anonymous sources. And now this guy. Mr. "Exceptionism."

Whatever credibility you think you have is circling the drain.

[leveymg]

95. No, you are misinformed. the source for that is CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

On the campaign trail, the presidential candidate has insisted that no classified information was sent or received through her private email server.

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Play Video
Clinton: " I did not email any classified material"

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

On Friday, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Brian Fallon, denied that the information was classified.

"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.

And State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system.

Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.

In another email conversation, Clinton expressed surprise that a State Department staffer would use a personal email account.

On Feb. 27, 2011, Clinton asked Sullivan where John Godfrey, who had sent an email with the subject line "Libya: Thoughts on post-Qadhafi Assistance & Governance" from a redacted account, currently worked.

Sullivan responded that he worked for the State Department.

Clinton then replied with another email. "Is he in NEA currently? Or was he in Embassy? I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State," she wrote.

The department released a total of 1,262 messages in the early morning hours, a week after it failed to meet a court-ordered target to publish 82 percent of emails by the end of 2015. Sixty-five of those emails were upgraded to "confidential," the lowest level of classification, though they were not deemed so at the time they were sent. One document was subsequently marked "secret."

On Thursday, the State Department's Kirby noted that the latest release would "meet the 82 percent mark." In a briefing with reporters, he attributed December's delay to a "variety of reasons," including the holidays.

The Republican National Committee was quick to slam Clinton for the slow email releases, saying the Democratic front-runner's documents were "getting buried by her friends in the Obama Administration."

"In the interest of transparency, Hillary Clinton must call on the State Department to commit to a more open process - releases in the middle of the night and on holidays are an obvious attempt to hide the truth," RNC chair Reince Priebus said in a statement Friday.

All 55,000 pages of emails stored on Clinton's homebrew server from her State Department tenure must be released by Jan. 29, according to the order by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras.

CBS News' Nancy Cordes contributed to this report.

[leveymg]

96. And, if you don't like CBS News, here's the 1/9/16 report in The NYT

The Times even posted the a copy of the original email, here:

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05787519 Date: 01/07/2016
RELEASE IN PART
B5,B6
From: H <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:21 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: Re
If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 08:17 AM
To: H
Subject: Re:
They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/hillary-clinton-email-state-department.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

But that and other messages provide a window into Mrs. Clinton’s approach to handling email and other communications, at times cavalier, at times calculated to ensure information would not fall into the wrong hands. She even seemed taken aback upon learning that an officer, like herself, had used a personal email address for official business.

In February 2011, senior aides sent Mrs. Clinton a dispatch from the officer, John Godfrey, analyzing the situation in Libya. She asked whom he worked for. When told he was a State Department employee, she responded, “I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”

In January 2010, she admonished two officials not to forward a message she had just sent them, and to “delete after reading” because she had failed to remove the email addresses of the original senders.

The instructions were sent to Rajiv Shah, then the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, and Cheryl D. Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, five minutes after she had forwarded them email messages from her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, and son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky. Her daughter had written under the alias Diane Reynolds about an outbreak of diarrhea and measles in Haiti.

The 1,262 documents posted online early Friday were part of a monthly disclosure ordered by a court after the revelation that Mrs. Clinton had used a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Document
Hillary Clinton Emails Released by State Department

The State Department released about 3,000 pages of documents in the continuing disclosure of emails from Hillary Clinton’s private account that she used while secretary of state. Below is a selection of the released emails that provide a window into Mrs. Clinton’s approach to electronic communication.
OPEN Document

[pnwmom]

103. As the State Department Head, Hillary had the authority

to decide whether her own "talking points" needed to be classified secret or not.

She had the legal authority to decide to classify or to declassify any State Department document, with only the President having greater authority.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President;

SNIP

PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;

[leveymg]

108. That is simply one example of many how classified docs "bleed"

across from the classified to what people assumed was an extension of her unclassified .gov State Dept email system. Everyone was acting that way, including Hillary. But, she knew it wasn't a government system at all. What game was she playing? Is this all because NSA refused to clone Obama's phone and hand it to her? Maybe, they don't trust her. Why?

[pnwmom]

114. There was no law that required she use her .gov account for non-classified govt. emails.

The law was enacted AFTER she left office.

She used her own system because the antique .gov system was so slow and clunky to use. And it was also not as secure as the system set up for her.

It's funny to see you quoting from Rethug sources who didn't make a peep when Colin Powell and other state department people used the Republican party server instead of the .gov system, and then destroyed millions of emails when they left office.

As long as the source hates Hillary, you're good with it.

[leveymg]

116. That was a DOS regulation that changed. It has been a crime since 1917 to mishandle

classified material. That hasn't changed at all in recent decades. She broke the law. Period. Over and out. Good night. Read up.

[pnwmom]

118. She didn't mishandle it, unlike Colin Powell who destroyed millions of emails.

She kept it safe and handed it over when they asked for it.

[pnwmom]

102. So you are disavowing your own post? This is the one I was responding to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1392336

The writer is the RW blogger named at the end.

[leveymg]

109. I don't know what you're getting at, but you"re full of shit.

By full of shit I mean you've been shown to be expressing a half dozen pieces of misinformation on this thread. Either you are terribly misinformed or intentionally spreading disinformation on this board.

Trace it back and you will see, if anyone else is interested.

[pnwmom]

119. Are you having trouble reading your own post, displaying the writings

of the man with the "Exceptionism' blog?

[LiberalElite]

83. Ignorantia juris non excusat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

snip
Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
snip

[pnwmom]

92. The Justice Department said she didn't violate the law. n/t

[leveymg]

97. Link? Or are you just posting falsies today.

[pnwmom]

104. You're the one who specializes in posting RW falsies.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/11/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-crumbles-justice-department-laws-broken.html

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Crumbles As Justice Department Says No Laws Were Broken

[leveymg]

105. That's a falsie from last Sept. Kinda hoped you had fresh

Material. See my comment where you posted that same misleading piece earlier.

[pnwmom]

106. See my response earlier. Nothing has changed. There is still nothing

but RW rumors based on a lot of hot air.

[leveymg]

110. You can hold your breath and stamp your feet all you want.

But, that doesn't make it so. She did it, and there's going to be a price to pay. It's as simple as that.

[pnwmom]

111. You can post Rethug rumors all you want. It doesn't matter where you get this stuff,

it's all just wishful thinking from you and the haters.

[leveymg]

112. There has to be a germ of truth for disinformation to work. Yours are completely

lacking in anything but a desperate grasping at old lies. Get some new material or just get off it. Hillary broke the law. None of us know how this will turn out. But she broke the law.

If you want to contribute to this dialogue in a meaningful way, learn the facts, and speak from facts. Don't accuse everyone who criticizes Hillary of being a Rightwinger. That only hurts your own credibility and makes you look naive.

[pnwmom]

113. Disinformation doesn't require a germ of truth. For example, the Salem Witch trials.

In the modern era: the Obama birther claims.

You have never posted a bit of actual proof -- just rumors spread by Grassley and other Rethugs. For some reason you have made yourself a conduit, too.

[leveymg]

115. The Salem Witch trials wasn't disinformation. It was mass hysteria.

The birther lie wasn't effective disinformation. It only appealed to the already convinced. Your similes aren't apt. Try harder, or don't.

Good night.

[pnwmom]

117. The Salem Witch trials was disinformation promoting mass hysteria,

and at the foundation was a fear of strong women. And sometimes, some farmland to gain.

And the birther disinformation campaign is still believed by many Rethugs, even though it didn't have a germ of truth.

http://historyofmassachusetts.org/salem-witch-trials-victims/

Many historians believe that a number of individuals in the colony, particularly the Putnam family, quickly took advantage of this witch hunt and mass hysteria by accusing rival neighbors or other colonists that they disapproved of or wanted revenge against.

Puritans were very hostile towards colonists who didn’t follow the strict religious and societal rules in the colony. As a result, it is not surprising that many of the accused witches were outspoken women, Quakers, slaves, colonists with criminal backgrounds and/or prior witchcraft accusations or colonists who criticized the witch trials. According to the book The Societal History of Crime and Punishment in America:

“A number of historians have speculated as to why the witch hunts occurred and why certain people were singled out. These proposed reasons have included personal vendettas, fear of strong women, and economic competition. Regardless, the Salem Witch Trials are a memorial and a warning to what hysteria, religious intolerance, and ignorance can cause in the criminal justice system.”

[dchill]

120. But EXPERIENCE.

[cpwm17]

123. Apparently Hillary's securuty training didn't take.

What she did was blatantly illegal.