BREAKING: State classifying 7 email chains as "Top Secret" ... Hmmmm... Emails strike again...

[ChisolmTrailDem]

Breaking on TV.

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails with material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus will investigate whether any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of one of Clinton's primary defenses of her email practices.

The State Department will release its next batch of emails from Clinton's time as secretary of state later Friday.

But The Associated Press learned seven email chains are being withheld in full from the Friday release because they contain information deemed to be "top secret." The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

...snip...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-clinton-emails-top-secret-20160129-story.html

[floriduck]

1. And there you have it folks.

She never did anything wrong.

[Voice for Peace]

98. Too sloppy to be president

[Arazi]

2. K&R

This needs to go away NOW or come out completely NOW.

The drip drip drip is so destructive.

[jfern]

35. It was supposed to come out completely today

Today was the deadline. The State Department now says it needs another month, after the first 4 states vote.

[retrowire]

96. how fucking convenient.

I'd like to know for a fact whether or not she's bad.

You know what? Maybe there should be a law where if you're under federal investigation for anything, you're just disqualified to run for president until the whole case is resolved. Because this is bad for voters, no matter how you look at it.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. That would have unintended consequences.

[MrChuck]

106. Agreed.

To believe that the right high-level person couldn't simply open an investigation on an upstart candidate is having too much faith in the process.

[Hiraeth]

163. NO ONE should seek any elected position while under investigation, not even dog catcher.

[Health Wagon]

3. This is why I don't trust her with security.

She'll screw it up and endanger America.

Nope, has a President ever managed to serve a term without security clearances?

[Jarqui]

4. CBS: 22 "top secret" Hillary Clinton emails won't be released

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/22-top-secret-hillary-clinton-emails-wont-be-released/

But The Associated Press has learned seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be "top secret." The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" - a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

The Halperin and Issa email stories of this morning spreading too.

Once again, the Sunday talk shows are going to put some more bruises on her.

Could all three happen the same day just before Iowa without the GOP having their finger on the scale? I have my doubts

[Uncle Joe]

9. Are the Republicans in control of the Obama Administration?

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

The State Department will release its next batch of emails from Clinton's time as secretary of state later Friday.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-clinton-emails-top-secret-20160129-story.html

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. This explains why he had to have a private mano-a-mano with Bernie a couple days ago. Bernie...

...will now be our nominee.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Bernie said they talked some about politics but I have no idea what that entailed. n/t

[Jarqui]

13. Apparently, the meeting was scheduled when they saw each other

at a social event in late December.

Did they give Hillary a heads up? Probably.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. My bad, Jarqui. You're right, I forgot about that. But, yes, it probably came up. nt

[thereismore]

48. That seems likely. I think Bernie knew this yesterday from the President. I think Hillary was

informed too, earlier. She chose to press on with the campaign, putting her interests ahead of the party, ahead of the country.

[restorefreedom]

14. i do find it interesting that it could not be handled in a phone call

whatever it was, it was important enough for a face to face.......and now this news

[CoffeeCat]

160. Oh yeah, that meeting was not about exchanging pot roast recipes

Something big is going down.

Sanders meeting with the President five days before the Iowa caucuses...

I think we'll know fairly soon what that "something big" is.

[Jarqui]

12. The FOIA court case dictated Friday release of emails

These 22 couldn't be released so it's part of that.

So in this case, circumstances caused this.

Did they have to do it today, before Iowa? I wonder.

But I do not think Obama and his team are trying to knock off Hillary.

It may be some department had to publish whatever for the court - there was an appeal for delaying the balance of emails heard recently.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Apparently there is no dispute that they were top secret or higher as the Obama Administration

has now admitted.

Personally if I was President Obama I would be somewhat put out by Hillary's actions in setting up her own private server out from under direct Presidential supervision.

[senz]

26. I never understood why Obama let her do it.

Must be very complex up there in the higher realms.

[Jarqui]

29. I'm not sure Obama knew

[awake]

34. I do not think that Obama knew that she was using a home server

[senz]

57. Would you want someone like that on your cabinet?

It's sneaky and insubordinate.

She's lawless. No wonder Trump likes her.

[passiveporcupine]

101. I really don't think there was anything sneaky or insubordinate about it

She did not have access to a secure e-mail server. That's already been documented. It's a government failure, not Hillary's. l think everyone is making way too much out of this and it won't (or shouldn't) affect her campaign.

This reeks as much of desperation to me as all the crap being thrown at Bernie lately.

[senz]

107. She "didn't have access to a secure email server?"

I can't find anything about that. I do find reference to

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ap-finds-hillary-clinton-used-private-server-official-email/

and that her motive was convenience, not a lack of access to a secure email server:

“I saw it as a matter of convenience,” she said during the 20-minute press conference. She couldn’t do personal email on her government-issued phone, so instead she set up her own server, using the clintonemail.com domain, and a server that appears to have been running out of her Chappaqua, N.Y. home

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-says-email-secure-cant-know/

Passiveporcupine, there isn't anything to back up your defense of Hillary.

[passiveporcupine]

109. The Secretary of state has never been set up with secure e-mail server access.

The CIA and other departments have been. This is known (and has been discussed here) and other Secs of state have used non-secure e-mail too.

This is something that needs to be fixed and I'm pretty sure this will be done now, because of the exposure and attacks on Hillary by the republicans.

[askew]

112. Secretary Kerry exclusively uses .gov email and uses government issued equipment to do

His job. There was no excuse for what Hillary did. It was not necessary and even Hillary isn't foolish enough to try that excuse.

[senz]

113. Do you have any links to back this up?

I must be pretty lame today.

But it's great to know Hillary did nothing wrong, it's entirely the federal government's fault, this is all a well-known, widely discussed fact, the only problem is Republican attacks on Hillary, and we Bernie supporters who take an interest in it "reek of desperation."

Oh, and ... Go Bernie?

[askew]

111. What? That's just not true.

Hillary chose to set-up her email server for convenience and never notified the WH or DHS as required. She turned down a .gov email. She turned down the encrypted Blackberry and bought one off the street with no security on it. She also used an iPad which was against regulations because they weren't secure enough. She most certainly would have access to a secure server within the government. She made the decision to go outside normal government channels and is now paying the price.

[senz]

116. Thank you, it was getting a bit strange

for awhile there.

Bernie certainly has an interesting assortment of "supporters."

[askew]

129. Yeah, I have no idea if they really support Bernie or not,but they definitely have their facts wrong

[cui bono]

151. I'm, uh, interesting.

Or so I've been told.



.

[senz]

155. Well, yeah.

I'd try, but it's pretty much useless.

[passiveporcupine]

153. I'm not sure where you are getting your information

everything I've just spoken about came up here on DU and the evidence was there to support what I say. I don't have the time or energy to search for old info on this now, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[840high]

148. I don't agree with you.

[passiveporcupine]

154. Perfectly fine with me. n/t

[peacebird]

65. Home server with files "in the cloud"

[TipTok]

39. State makes the claim that the info wasn't classified at the time...

... but was deemed sensitive during the review process.

According to the talking Fox head I heard earlier.


edit: Scratch that... Same old line about not 'marked' classified as opposed to the information itself was not classified. My bad...

http://www.wcvb.com/politics/urgent-state-department-will-not-release-22-clinton-emails/37713206

[Uncle Joe]

41. Actually they're investigating that aspect per the OP.

Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus will investigate whether any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of one of Clinton's primary defenses of her email practices.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-clinton-emails-top-secret-20160129-story.html

[thereismore]

51. That defense is no defense in legal sense, I hear. Classified is classified. This is getting really

interesting.

[draa]

86. Even if they weren't classified at the time she received them

I think having them on that server after they were classified will be the issue. Considering it wasn't secure and those emails were on it, that will be a problem.

[farleftlib]

20. I don't get it

This seems like she's caught red-handed. She lied about what was on the server. They can't honor the FOIA req because the emails were top-secret.

What am I missing here?

[Jarqui]

27. There was a FOIA request for all 55,000- pages

The State Department needed to review them before sending them out under the FOIA. They couldn't do them all at once so they agreed with the court to do a batch at the end of each month. Today, is one of those days.

In today's release, the State Department had to declare that 22 of the emails couldn't be released because they were top secret.

She is not necessarily guilty of anything yet (beyond innocent until proven otherwise).

It could be that the emails were not classified when they were originally sent and since then, became classified. The problem believing that is that it would have had to have happened about 1300 times (# of emails with classified info) that way and never a wrong way.

The classic Clinton deception may have been applied "We never sent anything marked classified" (which could very well turn out to be like 'I never had sexual relations with that woman&quot

There has been a recent theory that her staff accessed a secure network, cut and pasted what classified into they needed into an email that wasn't marked "classified" So Hilary can do what Bill did and maintain she didn't lie and be technically true. But obviously, if that's what they did, like Bill, she was being deceptive because she wasn't forthright. Maybe there's an obstruction of justice charge there. I don't know. She should have waited until she was president like her husband before pulling this if that's what she did.

If that's what happened, her candidacy is over. You can't fix that.

[farleftlib]

32. Thank you for the explanation

MSNBC trying to spin this as no big deal, RW talking points, she will be vindicated, yadda yadda. But I sense a whole lot of parsing and deception going on here.

I appreciate you taking the time to lay it out for me so clearly. I should have been paying more attention earlier on than this.

[Jarqui]

43. I'm reliant on media like everybody and they're not the greatest

I appreciate you remarks but take mine with a grain of salt too. I typed quickly and I could have been misled here or there.

It has been an issue I've followed including the "dark side" right wing media. I think that helps the good and the bad.

It may be that her employees are in more trouble than she is. They're going through their emails and there are FOIAs out for them, etc. And the Senate Committee is going after them. Maybe one of her employees is going to try to take the fall but it will be tough with digital fingerprints.

I followed it because I believed it was a long way from going away - it was serious and threatened her candidacy. You do not have the FBI, Inspector General, (Senate and House) all over it for months and it's all nothing. Senate and House one might pass off as partisan. But the FBI this long? They had to have signs or clues of something amiss in order for them to stick around. So that's been the thing that scared me about this.

The one blessing if this is it? At least it didn't happen in the general election.

[thereismore]

54. So you're saying 1300 emails are deemed to have contained classified info, and 22 of them

are top secret?

[Jarqui]

60. 22 in this batch of 2,000 pages were deemed to be top secret

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/state-department-says-22-of-clintons-emails-contain-highly-classified-information-2016-01-29-16103369

So far, more than 1,300 of Clinton’s emails have been redacted, with portions blocked out, due to the presence of classified information, but this is the first example of emails being entirely withheld from public release.

There have been serious breaches reported

[thereismore]

64. So one IC guy said there was TOP SECRET information in her emails back in August. The second IC guy

still hasn't gotten back to McCullough on any of this. It seems this leaves a small window for Hillary to claim that there is "no agreement" in the IC circles about the classified status of these things.

In any case, job well done, Sec. Clinton, you managed to keep the lid on it since August. But now I think she's done.

[Jarqui]

66. I have doubts it's done

She doesn't quit.

It's hard to say who has gotten back to who because apparently a few of these were so secret, the people they had investigating the security breaches weren't authorized to look at it. Therefore, no one is going to comment much further on stuff they're not supposed to have looked at.

How much of this her employees can do - to fall on their sword for her, i don't know.

I just can't believe the FBI would work for months and months on nothing. Something is amiss.

[thereismore]

68. Agreed. She will be lucky to get out of this without an indictment. She should suspend her campaign

now.

[Jarqui]

83. Unless she's in really really hot hot water, suspension is not in her DNA

They have to have her dead to rights and I'm not sure they do yet.

They haven't even gone through all the emails yet and they're tracing the classified info on about 7,000 more pages. Then there's the deleted ones they recovered, Humas, other employees, Bryan Pagliano, other documents requested by FOIA and maybe the Clinton Foundation to get through.

Maybe her assistant did a bunch of this - honestly carries a lot of the blame.

This is the Clintons. They're like trying to get a freshly caught fish to lie still. They're going to wiggle and squirm and spin or pass the buck before they'll take the fall. The FBI have to have the equivalent of the blue stained dress. I'm not sure they do but I do know, computers leave all sorts of clues and evidence folks don't think of.

I'm for Bernie but I will not drive a stake into her until we have rock solid evidence she's guilty. I don't feel I've seen that. I hope she campaigns her ass off tonight (prefer honestly for a change)!

The thing I don't know is how damaging this is going to be to her campaign. After all the stuff they put America through in the 90s, the Clintons are not going to get as much patience this time. It may be time for America to put them out to pasture.

[cui bono]

152. She will never, ever suspend her campaign.

She will fight tooth and nail to get the presidency no matter what the consequences.

.

[askew]

114. It doesn't matter if it wasn't marked classified.

She signed a non-disclosure agreement when she started at State that she understood the handling of marked and non-marked classified material and that she understood how to identify it and how to report breaches of that material. The marked nonsense is just Hillary's spin to justify why all this information was found on her server.

And quite frankly, we should all be more worried about the emails she deleted that the FBI recovered. They could be a lot more damning.

[Jarqui]

141. I mostly agree

Except in the case where it hadn't been determined by anyone that it should be classified and they had a reasonable explanation on how they concluded that. If they emailed that under those circumstances, I don't see how someone could claim "even though there was no way for you to know it was classified, you're guilty of transmitting classified material or material we classified later!!"

Here's her evolving claims:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-statements.html

March 10, 2015 “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton

July 2015 After the F.B.I. had determined that Mrs. Clinton had received “Secret” information in her account, the second highest classification of government intelligence. In response to that disclosure, her campaign said that sensitive national security information was sometimes upgraded to classified at a later date if the State Department or another agency believed its inadvertent release “could potentially harm national security or diplomatic relations.” The campaign insisted that none of the materials were classified at the time she received them. — Clinton campaign statement

September 2015 According to multiple media reports over the summer, an inspector general’s review found that some contents of emails that Mrs. Clinton received were classified at the time she received them, though not marked as such. In the Sept. 7 interview with The A.P., she emphasized that the material she received did not carry classification labels but did not directly take issue with the inspector general’s finding. “I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so,” Mrs. Clinton said.

But they found:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

that was signed off by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and the Inspector General, Department of State - both inspector generals.

Since the referenced 25 June 2015 notification, we were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton. We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network. Further, my office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed four contained classified IC information which should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level.

And then they found "several dozen" emails containing classified info with some at higher level top secret or beyond:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2693832/Letter-by-the-Intelligence-Agencies-Inspector.pdf

This sentence "I did not send or receive any information marked classified" reminded me of Bill's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" because one literal interpretation of those words is arguably true but like the Lewinsky statement, it's not forthright and deceptive trying to cover up improper behavior. Can't impeach her but her application for the top job in the government can be declined by the people.

Those claims refute Hillary's spin. At least one person at the State Department is probably in trouble. The FBI is just going about it's business nailing down their evidence.

[Jarqui]

156. Here's a little more that came out today from the State Department

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251855.htm

As to whether they were classified at the time they were sent, the State Department, in the FOIA process, is focusing on whether they need to be classified today. Questions about classification at the time they were sent are being and will be handled separately by the State Department.

So the FBI and Inspector Generals of Intelligence and the State Department found classified material in the emails. They're working on answering which ones should have been classified at the time they were sent. As part of that effort from what I've read, the FBI is tracing the path of the information and they'll find out if it got classified along the way.

[Paka]

133. Thank you so much for that clarity of understanding.

[thesquanderer]

162. So let's say there can be confusion about whether or not something is classified.

Maybe something intended as "unclassified" unintentionally includes copied-and-pasted info from something that was. Maybe something includes information that the sender does not think would be classified, but in later review, it is determined to be classified. I understand there are openings for ambiguity.

But if all that correspondence had been handled properly in the first place (and not on a private server), NONE of that would be an issue. Handling it properly is what precludes these issues from coming up in the first place.

[magical thyme]

99. additionally, there is the email found where Sullivan couldn't send her something over secure fax

so she told him to strip the headings and send it unsecure.

But they don't know what document was being discussed, so don't know if it was classified or not.

[ChiciB1]

135. My Question Too... n/t

[jfern]

37. They were supposed to release all by today

But ignoring the issues with these 22, there are thousands that they aren't releasing yet.

[Jarqui]

45. They went to court to asked for an extension of a month

The FOIA person challenged them. I haven't seen the decision but from their actions, the State Department prevailed because they're only releasing 2,000 pages later today and still processing 7,000 before the end of next month.

[senz]

24. Obama would sabotage Hillary's first primary??

If she did to me what she did to him in 2008, I'd do it too and feel incredibly clean and righteous afterward. Plus, working with her, he cannot have too many illusions.

Uncle Joe, you're my favorite uncle, but you are a master of understatement, and simple folk like me need plain speaking.

[Uncle Joe]

33. The slow blade penetrates the shield.

[senz]

44. Ah, maybe so.

A David Lynch film I haven't seen. Still, I think subtlety may be lost on this crowd. But it is undoubtedly wiser.

[MuseRider]

72. There are so many apt quotes

in that book. This one I had most certainly forgotten. Good one Uncle Joe, as always a very good point.

[ChiciB1]

134. IF This Information Is Going To Be Something That Can

really put a nail in her coffin, there may be another reason Obama has done this. JOE BIDEN. I never thought there was much love between the Clinton's & Obama, but we all know how very close Biden and Obama are. I'll still be a Bernie supporter if Biden should enter the race and my FEAR about having Hillary as our nominee will help me sleep better, but I'm not sure I understand what's really going on.

Obama has very close ties to Goldman Sachs and there are other issues that I can't give my support to Obama for, so I'm sure Biden is on board with him too. This is weird to say the least. We'll see, but the timing is VERY suspicious to me. I don't know much about this as yet, but was it Obama who put this out there??

[glinda]

56. Short answer "yes".

[napi21]

63. The administration doesn't control what the intelligence agencies classify.

From what I've heard, many of these agencies constantly argue about classification issues. ABOUT ALL ISSUES! To them, this isn't aimed at Hillary, but is an internal fight.Fortunately, (or not) we rarely have to contend with their fighting. I say OR NOT, because if we heard about all of them, this would be no big deal.

[840high]

147. I didn't know Obama was Republican.

[pinebox]

5. It's 22

She's in trouble guys. Big trouble.

[restorefreedom]

18. yup, they are trying to hold until after the first few states

my theory....they think she will win enough delegates so that when the shit hits the fan, they can award the delegstes to biden and screw bernie out of the nom. that presupposes that bernie will lose (i doubt it), joe agrees (doubt it), and thst there will not be a MASSIVE backlash against this theft, which of course there will be.

bernie is lookin more and more like the nom.

[leveymg]

6. HRC (7/25/15) - "I did not send or get classified emails in private account"

DRIP

Clinton: I didn't have a computer in my State Dept. office
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-no-computer-state-department-benghazi-hearing-215053
Politico
Oct 22, 2015 - Hillary Clinton said at the Benghazi hearing that she did not conduct most of her official business as secretary of state via email ...

DRIP

Clinton: I did not send or get classified emails on private ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0PZ0S920150726
Reuters
Jul 25, 2015 - U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that she did not use a private email account to send or receive classified ...

[Ed Suspicious]

52. It depends on what your definition of the word is is.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ChisolmTrailDem.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. My pleasure. Hillary can't win against rethugs if she's not trustworthy or is preceived as such. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. especially for Commander in Chief

[ChisolmTrailDem]

23. Bernie won't be able to protect her now. nt

[Fairgo]

15. Be sensible, woodchuck

There has to be an explanation. I'll pop over to the cave and find out how long it's going to take to come up with one.

[Autumn]

21. Why is Obama picking on Hillary?

This shit is going to drip out until she drops out of the race or loses the GS if God forbid she wins the nomination.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Good grief.....

It's time for her to bow out - gracefully, while she still can.

If she puts this country through another scandal needlessly, pitchforks are going to come out.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[glinda]

59. All I can thin about is Bill and his issues.....both of them. Geese!

[Nanjeanne]

25. Isn't this all Bernie's fault

after all . . .

BUTTONGATE

LOGOGATE

AARPGATE

QUOTEGATE

Those scandals are so much more damaging. And Clinton's campaign people are saying that Bernie is running the most negative campaign any Democrat has ever run.

Surely this too is Bernie's fault.

[frylock]

28. Thanks, Susan Sarandon.

[dorkzilla]

115. LOL!! DAMMIT, JANET!

[libdem4life]

30. I think the Obama-Hillary relationship never really changed. She got SOS and I think

it may have been a kind of a deal. They had to act like they respected each other, but I can not for the life of me imagine why PBO would just brush off the horrible things she said.

Now, he's most interested, as he should be, with his legacy, even more so as the first AA President. So he's a bit in a bind himself.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

36. Either a deal or a shrewed acknowlegement by Pres. O that she would actually be good at that job...

She was. No doubting that. But she should have had better judgement with regard to her email setup.

[libdem4life]

50. There were a number of people who would have been good at that job.

Now, maybe he didn't want to have to chance a run against her in 4 years...that might make sense. Because you know she would have been there at the ready.

[rpannier]

100. That may be true

But the Clinton name carried a lot of good will in 2009.
Giving her the position made a lot of countries in this end of the world (East Asia) quite happy as Bill is/was very popular
Even in North Korea it was seen as a positive step
You likely would not have gotten that kind of positive initial reaction with anyone else

It was an excellent choice

[libdem4life]

104. And that may be true as they had not been up front and center in the US. Too bad she ruined it.

[askew]

117. She got the job in large part because the Dems in the Senate didn't want her back.

She was making demands of wanting senior leadership role and chairing big committees. They didn't want her mucking stuff up in the Senate with her plotting her run in 8 years nor did Obama want her messing around and making trouble for him. He gave her SOS role and let her travel the planet and keep out of his hair. The heavy lifts on FP during the first term were orchestrated largely by Biden and Obama - Russia nuclear deal, etc. Then, Kerry came in during second term and has racked up win after win - Cuba, Iran, climate deal, etc. He is showing what an excellent SoS is. There's a reason Hillary doesn't spend a lot of time listing her specific accomplishments from State. She doesn't have a whole lot of them.

[frylock]

138. Best theory I've seen yet.

[senz]

136. She was not a good SOS.

She made a mess out of Libya and used her position to make quid pro quo deals with weapons manufacturers for huge donations to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.

Kerry is a much better SOS than she was.

[840high]

149. Better judgement on other things, too.

[thereismore]

38. I am sure it was a deal for supporting him at the Convention the way she did.

Very accurate, that about his legacy. He wants the ACA to last forever. Single payer would not carry his name.

[Fumesucker]

40. Two phrases come to mind

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

[libdem4life]

53. Pretty much covers it, IMO, also.

[tularetom]

89. The SOS thing was just to avoid a floor fight at the 08 convention

There were people in the Clinton camp urging a revolt and Bill Clinton was one of them or at least paying attention to them. Obama had the nomination wrapped up but he wanted to avoid a demonstration of disunity at the convention. IIRC he also urged his supporters to help the Clintons pay off their campaign debts.

In my opinion, the Clintons got the better of the deal.

[libdem4life]

93. I remember a bit about that...and yes, she would have gladly torpedoed the Democrats then

as now. Just different circumstances.

HRC needs a fight, and if there is not one, she'll make one. I have a sister like that. No matter what, she'll find something to fight about to act as subterfuge for whatever real issue is up.

That's why she's hawkish, can't wait to be CIC so she can order "boots on the ground" somewhere. She's said as much. She needs a fight.

I think she needs to go into retirement and be an abuela to her grandchildren and find her inner female. I'm a Boomer woman, too, and we had to pretty much put that away to get ahead. So I'm not slamming her on that, this is just not the right fight, and it's the wrong time, and she's overstayed her political time, IMO.

[bkkyosemite]

31. Judgement is more important than experience....also

heard one of the channels (MSNBC or CNN) say something about some of the emails were between Obama and Clinton. Don't know if true or not.

[thereismore]

42. What's this nonsense about finding if they were classified at the time?

I was told, and I believe, that it does not matter how it's labeled. All that matters is: Is it classified. And we got the answer to that today.

[onenote]

87. You've twiced posted that you've been told or heard that it doesn't matter that the documents

were not marked as classified.

I'm curious who told you this?

Here's what an expert has had to say about it:

http://time.com/3977063/hillary-clinton-emails-laws-rules/

[thereismore]

46. Why release emails when the top secret ones are so top secret they can't be released?

I guess just the fact they are top secret is bad enough.

[PoliticAverse]

47. "It is like a drip-drip-drip"...

"It is like a drip-drip-drip, and that's why I said that there's only so much that I can control," Clinton said.

(from Sept. 2015)...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-meet-the-press/index.html

[Helen Borg]

49. And she bitches about Snowden?

...

[thereismore]

69. Boom goes the dynamite. nt

[Maedhros]

91. There is one set of rules for Hillary, and another for everyone else.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

[840high]

150. Imagine!!!!!

[MondoCane]

55. Here's a conspiracy theory:

Anybody else not seeing any articles about this in their facebook feed? When it first broke it was all over my facebook feed, and now there's not a single Hillary article in my newsfeed... Earlier had a marked a Hillary ad as "Spam" so I'm wondering if it has to do with that... Anyone else?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. She could shoot someone an email on 5th avenue and not lose any supporters.

[pnwmom]

61. As Secretary of State she was the ultimate authority on whether a State document

needed to be classified or not. The only person with more authority was the President.

This is only happening because outsiders are now reviewing the documents due to the FOIA request, and each agency has its own standards. And so now these non-State people are using something called "retroactive classification" to decide that, in their opinion, various emails should not be released in response to the FOIA.

But it was entirely within her judgment as SoS to make the determination of whether emails sent by or to her were classified in the first place.

So we're being sucked into Rethug lies.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

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

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. I remember when there was a document dump of emails and dispatches under Bush...

Some of the stuff was considered "classified" because it was embarrassing. Not because of national security.

These days countries don't go to war because some prince got caught cheating at cards.

[pnwmom]

70. The director of the National Archives has said that in his opinion

more than half of what is marked classified doesn't deserve the classification.

In any case, Hillary was agency head, so she was the person with authority to classify or declassify a state department document.



http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

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

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

[Fumesucker]

71. If the documents are declassified then why can't they be released?

[pnwmom]

74. Because it is SOP, apparently, to review every FOIA release.

And now, since these judgments are subjective, and different agencies have different standards for classification, some of her agency's decisions are being second-guessed; and individual emails subject to a decision of whether they should be retroactively classified.

[Fumesucker]

77. But they aren't classified, Hillary declassified them..

And she has the ultimate authority.

[pnwmom]

79. Exactly. So this is, as the one writer said, a pile of bullcrap. What else is new? n/t

[Fumesucker]

81. So why aren't they being released?

Did the White House lie about them being Top Secret?

[pnwmom]

85. Because that is standard operating procedure for FOIA request, out of an abundance of caution

I suppose.

Hillary has repeatedly asked for their immediate release, but the bureaucracy is doing its bureaucratic thing.

The White House didn't lie about anything. Some of the outside reviewers think that, in their opinion, and in retrospect, some of the emails may deserve "retroactive classification." Not that she did anything legally wrong -- because it was within her authority to make the determination when she did.

Anyone who has worked with a clearance can tell you how subjective the whole process is. They actually took an historical document off a government website -- an article that had been up for years, free for anyone to download -- and declared it retroactively classified. The head of the national archives said that in his opinion, the majority of classified documents don't deserve the classification.

In any case, while she was in State, she was the ultimate authority, with only the President to overrule her.

[askew]

119. Hillary doesn't have the authority to declassify them. This person doesn't know what they are

Talking about. No one with any knowledge on this, including the Hillary campaign, has ever said she had the authority to declassify this information. The classification is determined by the agency the Intel originated with and is not subject to being overruled by State. It doesn't matter what State says, if the Intel came from the CIA or NSA, they get to set the classification. Those are the rules.

This information was most certainly not declassified by Hillary. Hillary's camp is arguing that there is overclassification in our system, which may be true. But, that doesn't give her the authority to declassify the material or to house that material on an unsecure server or share that material with people who don't have the appropriate clearance levels (her attorneys, her IT server companies, etc.). You don't get to ignore the law just because you don't agree with it. She signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 that states she understood this and would abide by the rules.

[pnwmom]

123. There has been no proof offered at all that any of the documents

were classified, whether they were State Department documents or from other departments.

Hillary had the ultimate authority to classify AND to de-classify within the State Department. Outside of it she didn't. But there's been no evidence so far that she had any documents marked classified from ANY agency.

The issue now is retroactive classification, which is only being considered because of the FOIA request.

And if you don't believe the person who wrote the post, believe the wording of the regulations. It's very clear.

[askew]

125. I give up. You are so woefully uninformed that there is no point to arguing with you.

I suggest you go out and read some articles from when this first came up. There is a clear explanation that shows why it doesn't matter what State says and that the CIA/NSA get to set the classification because the Intel originated with them. Hillary only would have authority to declassify material that originated from State. She would have no authority to declassify North Korea Satelite pictures (which is what is supposed to be on one of the emails) because they didn't originate at State.

And she would have no authority to declassify FGI information as that is set by the President's executive order and can't be overriden by SOS.

FGI information is automatically considered classified at birth according to the executive order and retroactive classification has nothing to do with it. There were multiple instances of FGI on Hillary's server. No excuse. She had classified Intel on her unsecure server.

And the IG finding clearly showed that the email was top secret at inception not retroactive like State argued. State was overruled because the Intel in the top secret email did not come from them. State confirmed this in a press conference.

[pnwmom]

144. "which is what is supposed to be on one of the emails." Yeah and she "supposedly"

killed Vince Foster too.

[noamnety]

95. Not necessarily.

This wouldn't apply to the NOFORN items of course, but it is possible that some were joint US/Some other country documents, and the other country also has classification authority. The US can't declassify info that belongs to other countries.

This could also include, for instance, info we got because it was shared with us by another country.

Also - the classification authority doesn't just willy-nilly decide to themselves that something is or isn't classified. There's a written guide for each program spelling out the various levels of classification for each bit of info in them, and the class guide is signed by the appropriate authority - or authorities if it's a joint progam.

[pnwmom]

120. She still has ultimate authority for applying the guide. Only the President

could overrule her decision on a state department document.

She also had the authority to decide if another country's communication to her was a matter of national security or not.

[noamnety]

157. Sorry, that's an incorrect blanket assumption.

She does not, for example, have authority to declassify information that another country has classified.
An example would be classified info passed to us from a foreign intelligence service that is classified by them. Another example would be SAP information coming from a joint program. We would have agreements with the other countries that prevents her from unilaterally declassifying that info without their knowledge or agreement.

[pnwmom]

158. A foreign intelligence agency would have sent any classified communication

to her classified address.

[noamnety]

159. I'm sure they wouldn't have sent it to her bathroom.

At least not directly or knowingly. We agree on that, at least!

[Separation]

73. Im confused

Your first statement says

As Secretary of State she was the ultimate authority on whether a State document needed to be classified or not. The only person with more authority was the President.

Then you say,

So we're being sucked into Rethug lies.

Which one is it? Its definitely one or the other.

[pnwmom]

78. What is your conflict? The Rethug lie is that

some Higher Power could decide that a state department document was really classified, even though Hillary was the person with that authority. Only the President could overrule her -- not other agency heads and not the CIA.

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. What matters is where the information originated.

This might be an exaggerated example but if the President told the Secretary of State what the nuclear launch codes were, The SoS couldn't arbitrarily decide to declassify them so she could send them to her daughter saying "Looky what I know!".

[pnwmom]

97. No one has ever publicly claimed that there were any documents

originating from somewhere else, and marked classified, that were on her computer.

[askew]

121. Sigh, again you have no idea what you are talking about.

That is exactly what this fight is about. It's about Intel from other agencies (CIA, NSA) that ended up in Hillary's email that those deptarments are calling classified. State tried to argue that the data wasn't classified but their opinion doesn't matter because the department that originates the data gets to decide the classification level.

[pnwmom]

124. Link please. I've heard of rumors. I'm talking about links to people

saying this on record who were NOT talking about retroactive classification.

Anything could be retroactively classified. But that could be used against ANYONE, including President Obama. Suppose a Rethug gets elected next time and we don't fight this now. They could go back through Obama's emails and claim that some of them -- ones he's sending through his regular .gov account -- should be retroactively classified. Then they could charge him with not sending them through the classified system.

Is that something you'd approve of? Well, the same regulations you think would allow her emails to be retroactively classified (once she's out of office) could do the same thing to him.

[askew]

128. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RETROACTIVE CLASSIFICATION.

This is about information on Hillary's unsecure server that was classified at the time it was sent or received. The IG and State are in agreement that 1 email was top secret at the time it was sent/received. State originally tried to fight it and finally admitted they were wrong. It doesn't matter that the email was not marked classified. The markings are irrelevant to the classification status and Hillary knows that as it is spelled out in the Non-Disclosure Agreement she signed in 2009.

The Foreign Government Information is born classified due to executive order by President Obama. Hillary had multiple instances of FGI info on her unsecure server which was a clear violation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0R22C120150902

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

[pnwmom]

130. Foreign govt information is presumed classified -- that is not the same

as "born classified." She can rebut the classification by showing it isn't about national security. For example, they could be emailing her to ask about her dinner preferences. That wouldn't be classified info.

And Hillary, as the head of DoS, had the right to make an executive decision to classify or declassify any State Dept email she sent or received, as long as it didn't contain classified info from another agency.

[askew]

140. Sigh, so you didn't read the executive order.

FGI is clearly defined. Her email contained lots of it. It is classified. She did not have the authority to declassify it. She had classified material on an unsecure server.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, go read about this issue in detail and come back when you have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

[Separation]

94. Once again

You say that the Republican (I wont use Rethug, I hate that as much as Derpacrat, its juvenile) lie is that a some Higher Power can decide SD documents as classified. So how are these documents "suddenly" becoming classified? Could it be, that they were very well classified at the time of being sent?

[pnwmom]

127. No one has ever said publicly that any of these documents were classified at the time

they were produced.

There are lots of rumors. They also rumored that Hillary killed Vince Foster.

Are you aware that there is a process for retroactive classification? That they have even removed historical documents from the public domain -- e.g., from a government website -- and decided to retroactively classify them?

This is an article from a major Law Review.

https://www.pennlawreview.com/print/?id=472

w you see it. Now you don�t.

This is not a magician�s incantation. It is a description of retroactive classification, a little-known provision of U.S. national security law that allows the government to declassify a document, release it to the public, and then declare it classified later on. Retroactive classification means the government could hand you a document today and prosecute you tomorrow for not giving it back. Retroactive classification can even reach documents that are available in public libraries, on the Internet, or elsewhere in the public domain.

The executive branch has used retroactive classification to startling effect. The Department of Justice, for example, declassified and released a report on National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping only to declare, years later, that the report was once again classified. The journalist who had received the report was threatened with prosecution if he did not return it. Retroactive classification has also targeted government documents revealing corruption in Iraq, violence in Afghanistan, and mismanagement of the national missile defense program. In each of these cases, the government released a document in an unclassified form through official channels�not through a leak�and then turned around to classify it.

This practice would be troubling enough if it actually removed the document from the public domain. But in the Internet Age, once a document is released to the public, it is often impossible for the government to retrieve it. While retroactive classification does not remove the document from the public domain, where our enemies can access it, retroactive classification does remove the document from the public discourse, prohibiting members of Congress, government auditors, and law-abiding members of the public from openly discussing it.

In the ongoing debate about the balance between secrecy and transparency in government affairs, retroactive classification tests the limits of the government�s ability to control information in the public domain. The questions raised by retroactive classification go far beyond those raised by the WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden disclosures. In those cases, the information remained classified even though it was widely available in the public domain. A similar situation occurs with retroactive classification when information in the public domain becomes classified. The difference is that in retroactive classification, the government initially released this information in a non-classified form and only later decided to classify it. This difference makes retroactive classification much more complicated from a legal standpoint because it involves the government�s going back on its initial classification decision. Retroactive classification thus forces us to ask what limits, if any, exist on the government�s authority to control information. Can the government reach into the public domain to make a secret out of something it has already disclosed? Are we obligated to go along with retroactive classification decisions? What are the implications beyond national security law? This Article takes up these pressing questions.

[Separation]

131. Yes

I still have a current security clearance. I very well know all about retrograde classification. I also know what and what not I should EVER use to forward that information. I have seen people lose a 25 year career for leaving a classified drawer open for less than 10 minutes, in a room secured to only people who have authorization to that room.

I am very aware of the classification process.

[pnwmom]

132. Then you know that Hillary, as the head of State, was the one with the authority

to classify or declassify state documents.

And you know that classified documents from other departments would have been sent through the classified system to another classified address -- not to her personal email.

[frylock]

142. What are your credentials, please?

[pnwmom]

143. What are yours? I posted the Federal regulations governing the documents.

Anyone who can read can understand them.

[frylock]

145. 16 years as a sys admin, 10 of those within the healthcare industry..

I have experience building, securing, and maintaining Exchange Server in a 700-user enterprise. While I don't have a clearance, I do deal with PHI every day, and am constrained by HIPAA regs when it comes to transfer or storage of data. I just get a kick out of watching you argue with industry professionals with current TS clearance. You're in over your head here.

[Separation]

146. There are also rules

Rules that pertain to documents that state they have a classification from the very beginning of the chain of custody. No matter that what they are classified as. So for instance, an email from a person stationed in Pakistan emails her the details of an undercover contact has passed information. This type of email would be classified from the get go, no matter what.

He is another question. Would she have wanted to have any of these emails on the front page of any newspaper show up at the time of them being sent? This is more of a question to as to her competence than anything else. Ill let you draw your own conclusions from that.

[brett_jv]

75. Do we know that they're all 'state documents' though?

If she had saved emails that originated within, say, the CIA ... would it not be their purview to make the designation, not her?

Just askin', I don't know the details obviously.

[pnwmom]

80. I've never heard that any involved the CIA or were marked classified -- as a CIA

classified document would have to be.

[Kelvin Mace]

110. Here's my problem

I am willing to extend all sorts of slack over the nature of these emails and whether this was harmless or not. However, the Clintons are supposed to be pretty politically savvy, and yet they somehow didn't see that keeping an unsecured email server in her office would be a problem if discovered?

You can't dump a freighter-load of fish guts into the water, then act mystified as to where all the sharks came from.

This is a question of competence, and she has failed, miserably.

[askew]

118. Yeah, that's not true.

The agency where the Intel originates from gets to decide the classification level period. Since very little Intel originates from State, she would not be the deciding factor.

Also, there is some information that is "born-classified" and can't be overridden by anyone even the President. That is Foreign Government Intelligence. So, if the Deputy Minister of Russia says I saw Putin yesterday and he is really sick and just has weeks to live, that information is born classified and can't be transmitted on unsecure email systems. There are over 100 instances of FGI information on her server that she should not have been sending out or receiving. If she received it, she had a duty to report the breach to the appropriate Dept per the Non-Disclosure Agreement she signed in 2009.

[frylock]

139. !

[thesquanderer]

161. She could also have her IT guy plead the 5th amendment and not lose any supporters. (n/t)

[Purveyor]

62. Thanks for posting this. K&R

In my opinion, she is toast and needs to get out of the way so we have at least a chance to hold the WH...

[ejbr]

76. Please stop posting

this right-wing propaganda! Sheesh!

[brett_jv]

82. Somebody explain to me the 'benefit' to HRC of having stored these emails on her home server?

I mean, apart from some obvious conveniences, is there some 'nefarious' purpose I'm completely missing out on, that makes this whole thing such a big deal?

Or is JUST because her home-based email server didn't have as much security (in terms of someone being able to hack in) as would normally be deemed acceptable for sensitive materials, so people consider it irresponsible for her to have saved emails there?

Do we even know for sure that she personally UNDERSTOOD ... how her email system was 'set up'? Where the servers physically were, etc?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

90. There was kind of a glaring clue.

Her email address didn't have 'state.gov' in it. That kind of tells anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together that she wasn't going through the official servers. If she's so dumb or tech illiterate that she didn't know how her email servers were set up, she certainly doesn't belong anywhere near running the country.

[Maedhros]

92. The most popular rationalization I have seen from Hillary supporters is that the White House

IT department is so horrible, and the White House network so mismanaged, that one must by necessity set up unsecured servers at home simply to get work done.

I'll try that excuse at my job and see how it flies.

[askew]

122. From her emails she couldn't even figure out how to use a fax machine or an iPad.

There is no way she understood how her server was set-up or what security it had. There's a reason that her IT guy has claimed the 5th. He doesn't want to get stuck as the fall guy for Hillary's poor judgment.

[AzDar]

84. K & R

[PatrickforO]

103. Sadly, whether she did or didn't, Clinton will be facing massive right wing attacks

the minute she's nominated. In my opinion, she is not strong enough to win the general election because even though Dems will get behind her if she's nominated (hope not), independents generally give her an 'unfavorable' rating and consider her dishonest. And, of course, she'll be completely rejected by GOP voters. That, my friends, gives whatever insane right wing nutjob the GOP runs an open gate into the White House and the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice.

And, if she wins, the GOP will immediately begin impeachment hearings. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/19/gop-congressman-start-impeachment-proceedings-hillary-inauguration-day.html.

I'm just thinking that the ONLY really compelling reason to make Clinton our nominee is that she wants it so BADLY. But that just isn't good enough, because then we'll have to wait through at least four years of destructive Republican policies.

And, as Hillary's own ad points out, "Americans can't wait!"

So...GO BERNIE!

[FrenchieCat]

105. All going according to plan......

The corporate media is helping the GOP as much as possible....
Because it's the GOP turn in the WH, far as they are concerned.

As long as the GOP can get Trump out of the way,
something that the media is currently working on....
the GOP establishment candidate (Rubio) still has a chance

and as long as they can get Hillary out of the way,
Rubio then has an even better than excellent chance.

It will be Rubio and Kasics(as VP) - aka Florida and Ohio.
The first sounds nearly normal and the other sounds down right reasonable.

The GOP believe they are now nearly home free,
with the "coincidental" drop of the emails story, 3 days before the first Caucus.
They cannot control everything, but they can control providing Sanders
with as much momentum as they can possibly.....as they need him to win Iowa.

It's elementary political 101 to destroy at any cost the one that poses the biggest threat.

If the media is as powerful as I believe they are,
we can only brace ourselves when thinking of the future of this country.

I support Hillary Clinton precisely because she is the only one that can save us from what a GOP trifecta will mean
to most of us......


I'll save this post....so it can be revisited in November,
And with that being said, we shall see.

[Vattel]

108. I'm still not seeing a serious issue here. I would like to, but I don't.

[DCBob]

126. Much ado about nothing.

"These documents were not marked classified at the time that they were sent," Kirby said, adding that the department would investigate whether the information in them was classified at the time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-withhold-idUSKCN0V72JB

Even if the information were classified at the time it's unlikely anyone involved in the email chain will be retro-actively charged with anything illegal. It is my understanding that sort of thing happens all the time. Its more of training or warning issue with anyone in the government who makes that type of mistake.

I know the Bernie supporters and the RWingers would love this to be a bigger story but it simply is not.

[B Calm]

137. The facts still remain the same, none of the emails were classified top secret when she received

them. This is nothing more than a witch hunt with one goal, throw anything out there and hope something sticks.