Hillary Clinton Camp on Emails Report: More 'Overclassification Run Amok'

[Bubzer]

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign on Sunday morning pushed back against a new report that claims that over 100 emails on a private network server she used while secretary of state are marked as "classified."

"Clinton wrote 104 emails ... that the government has since said contain classified information" the Washington Post reported late Saturday, based on "new analysis of publicly released correspondences."

On Sunday morning a Clinton campaign official told NBC News: "Critics will argue that this story undercuts Clinton's argument that SHE never sent classified information. It's important to point out that this is an analysis of information that has already been made public ... this is yet another example of 'overclassification run amok.'"

She understood what Borne Classified meant. She knew that all government information is treated as sensitive until released through official channels. She knows that classification is about security... not, whatever will make her life easier.

She can "push back" all she likes. The bottom line is this: She agreed to play by the rules... in writing... and then decided she was above the rules... and ignored her legally binding agreement .

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-camp-emails-report-more-overclassification-run-amok-n532851

[cantbeserious]

1. This Citizen Thought All Knew That One Percenters Are Above The Law

eom

[Buzz Clik]

3. Oh hell yes! Those damned oligarchs!!!!11one

[Buzz Clik]

2. Good lord. This has become the Benghazi of the Sanders crowd.

[Bubzer]

7. Good lord. hillary supporters have near zealot level acceptence of her...

she can do no wrong in their eyes.

She pushed a bill that is causing incarceration of PoC at unprecedented levels? Someone else voted on it too... so it's okay.
She's getting money from the prison industry because of that bill? She's not picking it up herself, so it's not true.
She's got millions in speaking fees from corporations and banks like Goldman Sachs? Well, other politicians have speaking fees to, so it's no big deal

And the list goes on and on and on.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Please. This email thing has been beaten to death. Nothing has come of it. Give it up.

[Bubzer]

10. Oh yes. HEY EVERYONE... Buzz Clik says the "e-mail thing" is done. Hear that FBI? You can stop now.

Buzz Clik has given permission for the ONGOING INVESTIGATION to end. While we're at it, hey Bernie... I know that you were saying you planned on sticking around until the end, but I'm fairly sure Buzz Clik would like you to give up now. So, go ahead and throw in the towel. No reason to pretend we live in a democracy anymore. In fact, why don't we all get down on one knee and acknowledge our fealty to Buzz Clik.

No? Well then I guess the world will continue on in spite of Buzz Clik's wishes... including the e-mail investigation.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Hey, I never said you would give it up -- I said it's your Benghazi.

Thank for validating my claim.

[Bubzer]

12. LOL... validating your claim? You think that's what I just did? Okay.

If it makes you happy, you go right on ahead and keep believing that.

[Buzz Clik]

13. You'll talk about the email bullshit until hell freezes over. You demonstrated that already.

Thank you.

Have the last word... over and over and over and over again.

[Bubzer]

15. Look. Here's the deal... you're clearly not in the government sector...

or, at the very least, not dealing with anything security related.

Those of us who know a thing or two about government security, and all the required agreements and contract to even place a foot in the door to various agencies, know how big a deal this is.

So you go on ahead... bury your head in the sand if you like. Pretend this is an issue that doesn't matter. Just like you and other Hillary supporters do with each and every problem plaguing hilly into untrustworthiness.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

[840high]

33. I'll wait for the FBI to conclude.

[Buzz Clik]

35. That would be prudent.

[Jarqui]

52. That is exactly what big corporate would like you to think ...

It does not change the criminal law that says one cannot keep classified material at home without authorization. Since the only email address Hillary had went to that server, the only way her server could avoid breaking that law would be if all her email communications during her four years as Secretary of State plus her years afterwards (including some foreign email that is born classified) remained unclassified.

The Clintons know all about this:
When Bill Clinton Pardoned His Former CIA Director over Classified Documents on His Home Computer

Nor does it change the subpoenas of the Clinton Foundation
Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators
asking for all information related to their big donors who also got assistance from the State Department while Hillary was running it.

When the GOP bring this up in the general election, Hillary's sycophants will howl "This is another Benghazi!" but they'll be terribly wrong and the GOP will prove it in the voting booths.

[kristopher]

54. Hillary has been vetted and attacked for 25 years and she's still standing

Her reputation is in tatters, only a small core of die-hard supporters really trust her, and she continues almost daily to create more reasons not trust her....

But she is still standing - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in the context of running for president and not being saddled with more baggage than any candidate in modern history.

[Jarqui]

68. Is she still standing or is she being propped up?

I think to some extent in this cycle, she is being propped up. The DNC is all in. So is the media. So is the big corporate money. So is the Democratic establishment put in place by the big corporate money. It goes beyond mere support on the merits because Bernie's merits were largely ignored.

The thing is, outside of the Democratic party, she is not popular. It's why Bernie polls so much better against the GOP candidates.

If Trump wins, he has a similar problem. In fact, head to head against Rubio or Cruz alone, Trump might not win.

If it comes down to Trump v Clinton, neither are going to be liked by a lot of folks. Only one of them represents change and people do want change.

As well, big corporate like controlling Washington. The media owned by big corporate will no longer prop Hillary up because they do not want a judge that will overturn Citizens United. They will have served up a flawed Democratic candidate that their media can easily tear down - because not a lot of folks outside of the party like her. I strongly suspect that is how it's going to play out.

[Marr]

58. There's an FBI investigation. Insisting it's all a fiction of her political opponents is

the tinfoil position.

I mean, it's certainly conceivable that nothing will come out of it, but an FBI investigation is not a GOP political hearing.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi benghazi

Sound familiar?

The knuckledraggers insist that it's real or they wouldn't continue the committee hearings.

[Marr]

63. Again, an FBI investigation is not a political hearing.

I can't believe you're seriously suggesting the two are comparable in any way.

[Buzz Clik]

67. But they are not investigating HRC. That's been stated here a dozen times or more.

But, you don't care.

Carry on.

[Marr]

72. Just more silly deflections.

It's hard to take you seriously.

Look, the FBI investigation centers on activities involving her term as SoS-- I assume you know this. All the word parsing in the world won't change it. All the repeating of 'Benghazi' won't change it. I care that the investigation is carried out professionally, I suppose, but that's about it. I'm not the one here who's invested in Hillary Clinton.

[Bubzer]

66. Well, Marr, it would seem Buzz Clik just called you and I knuckledraggers...

for believing it might be real. Think I'm about done with him/her.

[Marr]

76. Yeah...

I understand the urge to deny information that makes your perceived 'side' look bad, but c'mon, there's a line. Calling people conspiracy theorists for NOT blowing off an FBI investigation as a politically-motivated conspiracy... it's several miles past that line.

[riversedge]

30. Yes, it has been like that for several months now.

[leveymg]

4. "Overclassification" isn't a legal defense. Go tell it to the Judge, Hillary.

Thanks for nearly taking the whole Democratic Party down with you.

[DCBob]

16. She doesnt need a legal defense... there was no crime.

She is simply trying to deal with the media and others assuming she did something nefarious.

[FlatBaroque]

27. The idea of Hillary in front of a judge (and jury) is delicious. /

[Docreed2003]

5. Know what could have prevented all of this in the first place?

If they had never created a freaking private server in the first place! It's beyond me why they would do this. It is a self inflicted wound and now they are paying the price.

[FlatBaroque]

28. Nixon in a pantsuit. /

[DCBob]

6. Here is the key point from the article..

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

The feds do not want to open up this can of worms. If they charge her with anything regarding these incidents that means there are thousands of other federal workers who should face the same treatment. They simply wont go there.

[Bubzer]

8. That's an additonal reason to get it done. Not to avoid it.

If private e-mail systems are being systemically used, especially when government controlled e-mail is available, and mandated to be used for ALL government related work, then it's an infectious boil that needs to be lanced and done away with.

Crap like that is what caused the OPM breach.

[DCBob]

14. I think they have since revised the rules to be more strict about use of personal email systems..

but back then they were permitted.

[Bubzer]

17. There was never a carte blanche permision to use private e-mail.

Particularly where government sensitive information is concerned. The problem here is that all work-related-correspondence that Hilary would deal with would been borne classified. She would have known that prior to being SoS. There's no way she'd have been allowed to the position otherwise.

[DCBob]

20. Actually there was..

The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work. The 2009 National Archives regulation in place during her tenure as SOS required that "agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

[Bubzer]

22. No. Personal e-mail was allowable on a case by case basis.

What you've cited doesn't grant carte blanche. It's an SOP document detailing how those who do have private e-mail accounts for work are to use them.

In the case of a sanctioned private e-mail, as you cited: the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system. A private server is not an accepted agency recordkeeping system.

This has already been hashed out, and established. The determining factor is going to be this: When did Hillary know she was dealing with classified information. There's an email correspondence between her and a SoS staffer where she tells him to strip the classification headers off a document and send it to her.

She claims to never have sent/received classified material. The FBI has identified well over a thousand classified documents from her e-mail. She claims they were retroactively classified and shouldn't count against her... problem is, the work-related-e-mail she deals with is borne classified...so this is patently false.

[DCBob]

23. It clearly states it was permitted .

[Bubzer]

25. No, DCBob, it states how to handle those situations IF allowed.

The government has all manner of SOP documents like this. They're designed to account for possible situations that may arise... they do not, in and of themselves, grant permission.

You also haven't cited where you're getting that information from....post the link and I'm sure it'll be quite apparent it's an SOP document.

[DCBob]

32. Post the link where it says it wasn't permitted.

Last edited Sun Mar 6, 2016, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

[Bubzer]

39. You're the one making the unsubstantiated claim that it's permitted.

You claimed a citation without actually providing the cited link. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence... and I'm dismissing your claim.

[DCBob]

42. I posted the information about the National Archives regulation earlier.

If you cant comprehend that then I cant help you.

[Bubzer]

44. Really? Where in this thread have you posted it? Hmmm?

Or is it your position that since I'm not willing to track down your link in some other thread to prove you right, that I am wrong? If so, that's a classic logical fallacy, and you're wrong. It's not my job to prove your stance. Post your proof here if you have it, and I'll look it over...otherwise, you're blowing smoke.

[DCBob]

50. Here's a better link..

"Since 2009, NARA’s regulations have stated that “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” (36 CFR 1236.22)."

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2015/nr15-65.html

[Bubzer]

62. And there it is. It's a SOP. Just as I said.

In fact, a quick cursory glance at that SOP shows Hillary may be even more outside the rules than I initially expected. Thanks for sharing that. I'll be giving a good read-through when I've got a bit more time. Should be quite enlightening.

[DCBob]

64. Great. Glad to help out.

[Bubzer]

69. Just for the record, if I do come across somthing in there that shows you're right and I'm wrong....

I'll make a point of coming out and saying so. I'm less interested in winning points here and more interested in facts. So, if I am wrong, you'll have done me a favor. I don't think I am... but I also recognize no one has a corner on the facts.

[DCBob]

70. Deal.

Thanks.

[DCBob]

36. I think you are confused about the meaning of "appropriate agency recordkeeping system".

That refers to the agency's email archive system so they can properly respond to FOIA requests. She provided the relevant emails to the agency for storage into their recordkeeping system. She followed the rules.

[Bubzer]

37. No, actually she didn't follow the rules. If she did, this would all be a non issue...

and the FBI would not be sifting through her server. They would simply reference the archive (which is meant for much more that just FOIA requests... it's also for reference, oversight and backup... all the things one would expect with record keeping).

Debating this here is pointless, as it's already been established by the FBI that classified e-mails were on her personal server, when they should not have been.

All that's left to establish is when she knew about them. If the FBI determines she knew about the classified nature of the documents (which has already been established through contractual agreement), then litigation becomes a possibility.

There's really nothing else that needs to be said about this.

[DCBob]

38. It is a non-issue.

[Bubzer]

40. Why? Because you say so? Hey, be sure to let the FBI know.

I'm sure they'll appreciate your insight.

[DCBob]

43. They will wrap up their investigations soon.

So you wont need to worry about this anymore.

[Bubzer]

46. Indeed....and, based on available evidence, hilly will be solidly out of the running.

[DCBob]

51. LOL.. you wish.

[DCBob]

41. As has been discussed over and over..

the FBI got involved because they became aware that some classified information passed through her server. They needed to determine if the server and the data was secure. They are about to wrap that up soon.

None of this means anything illegal occurred.

[Press Virginia]

55. You do know that it's illegal to retain classified information

outside government approved methods, don't you?
The SAP information on her server is a big deal

[DCBob]

56. If done willfully and knowingly then yes.

It sounds to me like it was done accidentally or mistakenly. That is not a crime.

[Press Virginia]

57. how does on unintentionally get information

from a dedicated secure network and then retain it for 2 years on a nonsecure server?

[DCBob]

60. Not sure what you are saying.

Please explain.

[Press Virginia]

65. SAP information is on a dedicated secure network

it takes an intentional act to get that information.
Who did it at whose direction? Its a Need To Know system.

Based on one e-mail, HRC knew there was classified traffic on her server and we're supposed to believe it wasn't a willful act?

[DCBob]

71. This was an email server.

People sent her emails and she sent emails. Some of them contained retroactively classified information. That is not a crime.

[Press Virginia]

73. Uh no. The OIC identified 2 emails in the initial

sample of 40 which contained TS/SCI information at the time they were sent. Subsequent e-mails contained SAP as well as TS/SCI information.
The SAP information, specifically, required someone to physically log into that system and remove the information. There's no retroactive reclassification of that.

HRC, who signed an NDA, was well aware that no all classified information would be marked as such and was considered born classified....she either ignored her responsibility or was too incompetent to recognize the information as sensitive.

[DCBob]

74. Lots of confusing and conflicting information being passed around from sources I don't trust.

I suggest we wait for the investigation to end. It will be over soon.

[Press Virginia]

75. Oh I agree. It will sort out

Much of the media reporting is making this seem like no big deal but some of it is very troubling to me.
When I had my clearance, I could have lost it for taking notes in a meeting and not securing the notebook properly.

[6chars]

26. exactly

it was like driving 60 in a 55 mph zone. they should just let people do it, within reason and not selectively go after one person for whatever reasons ...

[DCBob]

53. Yeah, that's a good analogy.

Its almost impossible for federal workers who routinely work with sensitive data to not mistakenly send potentially classified information from time to time if they are using non-secure email systems. Its a mistake but not a crime.

[Vinca]

18. Tell her to get back to us when she's cleared by the FBI.

It doesn't matter what she and her handlers claim. Until we get a "no charges" from the horse's mouth, there's little point in discussing it.

[HereSince1628]

19. One could say the same thing about prosecutions for speeding...stupid speed limits! eh?

But, you see, it's not about the classification rules. MJ may be more strongly scheduled than it needs to be but that doesn't set the law aside laws about illegal sales of it.

What this is mostly about is people in high places -conforming their behaviors to be within the legal limits-. If everyone in the top eschelon of Clinton's state department did that. There is no problem as in NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

Saying the laws are stupid in the context of defending against accusations just makes a person look like they endorse defying the stupid laws they took an oath to work within.

That -is- a problem for her image. She makes herself look more suspicious than she is, and she radiates the glow of someone who believes they are above the law.

[Press Virginia]

21. The only question is who, from her staff, is willing to fall on their sword to protect her?

And I mean her senior staff.

Somebody accessed the secure network and obtained the SAP information found on her server and somebody gave the orders to do it. It wasn't an accident.

[HereSince1628]

24. Yes, I think I much agree. I also believe HRC has a fascination with legal limits and loopholes

it's a natural thing for a lawyer to have cultivated that interest. I believe she knows a lot about that area...

Unfortunately for her staff, they often don't share her expertise and they have historically been the ones hurt most.

I suspect these people don't really willingly fall on their swords.

I suspect it's rather more a transactional sort of thing, because that's how truly pragmatic people often view the world. And I've accepted on its face that HRC is a truly pragmatic sort of person.

[Bubzer]

29. I think we're pass the point where somone comitting seppuku would save hillary.

In order to indemnify her, there would need to be a verifiable rebuke, initiated by her, to those sending her classified e-mails. Additionally, quantifiable action taken to re-assert classification onto those e-mails would be necessary. I don't see a viable way for her to escape this unscathed.

[Merryland]

31. an acquaintance of mine who works for NASA

& is quite familiar with security access issues, is furious at how she mishandled the classified email.

[speaktruthtopower]

34. Political flaks...

shouldn't be used to tilt the playing table on criminal or national security issues. Either for or against.

[Bubzer]

47. I completely disagree.

[BreakfastClub]

45. Oh good Lord. She didn't do anything wrong. It's just right wing accusations. nt

[Bubzer]

48. "It's just right wing accusations" - and there it is.

Was wondering when that bullshit line would get spewed.

[silenttigersong]

49. Oh come on now

Hillary has apologized for her poor judgment twice now.The Server and Iraq war .Give her a break its only, the Presidency of the United States!

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Right. The crowd that helped architect a drug war that puts people in prison for 10 yrs over a joint

now wants to complain about excessively draconian and authoritarian legislation and overregulation.