Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:52 AM May 2016

Hillary's classified email

People think of General Petreas as having gotten into trouble because he showed classified information to his girlfriend. But that is NOT the case. She had security clearance as well. It was because he had that information OUTISIDE of the office, at his home. That is illegal. That is exactly what Hillary did, with thousands of classified documents which she kept outside the government network.

This is an example :

July 14, 2012: Blumenthal sends Clinton another email that contains obviously classified information, but Clinton doesn't flag it as such. Clinton confidant and private citizen Sid Blumenthal marks the email "CONFIDENTIAL," and then gives this warning: "SOURCE: Sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE." The email then discusses secret meetings between senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army which have taken place in recent days. (US Department of State, 1/7/2016) However, Clinton does not warn department security about this email that could jeopardize an intelligence asset in Egypt. Instead, she forwards the email to her aide Jake Sullivan with the comment, "More timely info." (US Department of State, 1/7/2016)


This is clearly classified information. And it is outside the government network and the guy she is dealing with does NOT have any kind of security clearance. She is supposed to mark that document as classified and alert department security so they can trace the source. But she does not do that but instead passes it on to her aide. Can someone who shows such a lack of judgement, a lack of respect for national security really be trusted with the highest office in the land?

Judgement, my friends, judgement.


You can find brilliant and detailed work done by Paul Thompson (who often posts here) at

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline



112 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary's classified email (Original Post) pdsimdars May 2016 OP
Hillary Fans share the same hubris with their Supreme Commander berni_mccoy May 2016 #1
I never heard of a category called above top secret until the Hillary scandal. But, I am doubt that merrily May 2016 #2
I'll be posting more as I learn more, but some of it is so shocking you can't believe she actually pdsimdars May 2016 #11
Two Americas. One for the rich, powerful and well-connected and one for everyone else. merrily May 2016 #14
Carlin was, as usual, on point... Yurovsky May 2016 #34
No, I think they know they are not. But they have other reasons to support her, I think. merrily May 2016 #38
Exactly. tazkcmo May 2016 #103
It is just stunningly reckless. grasswire May 2016 #39
Reckless, suspect and incredibly entitled. merrily May 2016 #76
"It is all about me" Samantha May 2016 #82
my understanding is that.. grasswire May 2016 #83
Yes, I know -- there just is no easy way out Samantha May 2016 #84
If Hillory Clinton were to be found guilty while Obama is still in office, I suppose Cal33 May 2016 #93
Not remotely possible for her to be found guilty while Obama is still in office karynnj May 2016 #96
she's too big to fail? n/t mooseprime May 2016 #102
Thank You For Trying To Open SOME People's Eyes! ChiciB1 May 2016 #47
That is the way I feel Samantha May 2016 #80
Paul Thompson was saying that an indictment will take a long time but just the recommendation pdsimdars May 2016 #94
I read that Comey is a Republican. I wonder how much of a difference that would make Cal33 May 2016 #98
He's supposedly a very straight shooter. . . probably why Obama chose him. pdsimdars May 2016 #100
I sure hope he is a "very straight shooter." Thanks for the info. Cal33 May 2016 #107
Politics have become such that only those who join the IN group - those who have Cal33 May 2016 #97
I have not given up hope either, Cal33 Samantha May 2016 #106
Yup. I am hanging in. Cal33 May 2016 #108
I'm pretty confident that the FBI will recommend indictment. frylock May 2016 #28
We'll see soon enough. If it's going to happen, I hope it happens before July. merrily May 2016 #31
Sigh. grasswire May 2016 #43
It depends on what the FBI does and how blatant it is. Calista241 May 2016 #70
The FBI is part of the Executive branch and Obama heads the Executive branch. merrily May 2016 #72
Isn't Sidney Blumenthal a journalist? apnu May 2016 #3
Blumenthal was supposedly getting info from a retired CIA guy, Tyler Drumheller 2cannan May 2016 #4
OK, consider this. apnu May 2016 #7
Come on now. Once someone leaves Langley, their memory is wiped? Like Matt Damon's? merrily May 2016 #15
I think you miss my point apnu May 2016 #17
It lies with anyone blabbing classified info, especially carelessly, IMO. merrily May 2016 #19
Yes it does, who did the blabbing? apnu May 2016 #20
Two of them or all three. merrily May 2016 #21
remember, Drumheller and Blumenthal BOTH were ginning up business interests.. grasswire May 2016 #45
OK, I won't argue that. apnu May 2016 #73
that particular intel was fresh, and was from an NSA communication. grasswire May 2016 #74
But of course, the Blumenthal end of things is only part truedelphi May 2016 #79
People who don't understand tend to confuse DOD with MADem May 2016 #5
I largely agree but think its a little different apnu May 2016 #8
POTUS doesn't write the rule books, but he can change them MADem May 2016 #9
Obama hasn't done that. apnu May 2016 #10
He wouldn't do it until he was going out the door. MADem May 2016 #16
Obama's a classy guy. apnu May 2016 #18
It would also tarnish his legacy, which, as we're constantly reminded, frylock May 2016 #30
I hope he's going to cut her loose to face the music. grasswire May 2016 #46
He's not stupid, and I don't think he really likes her at all. frylock May 2016 #56
yes grasswire May 2016 #60
he could pardon her. october surprise lol. elehhhhna May 2016 #27
A pardon would really have people running to vote for her in November. Silver's poll says so. merrily May 2016 #41
I believe pardons can be kept from the public. elehhhhna May 2016 #66
Good luck with that! merrily May 2016 #68
She didn't have a secure set up, not was it approved by Intelligence. Fawke Em May 2016 #61
Guidelines, rules, etc. aren't 'laws.' MADem May 2016 #63
"There is a clear process to classify information and multiple levels of classification. Fawke Em May 2016 #24
Ok, I see where you're going. apnu May 2016 #25
That's why she was REQUIRED to participate in annual compliance training.. frylock May 2016 #32
I believe that apnu May 2016 #35
I do, too. Fawke Em May 2016 #37
Yes, there are. apnu May 2016 #58
Exactly. I have to take HIPAA compliance training every year. frylock May 2016 #65
What were to happen to you if you failed to complete your compliance training IRL? frylock May 2016 #55
Yes of course. apnu May 2016 #59
You knnd of implied that it was no big deal that Hillary skipped out on her training.. frylock May 2016 #64
No. That was never my intention apnu May 2016 #67
This message was self-deleted by its author TM99 May 2016 #81
She is SUPPOSED to know that is classified. Fawke Em May 2016 #36
Wow that's some bullshit. apnu May 2016 #40
Intent is irrelevent when deciding to indict or not in this case. tazkcmo May 2016 #105
I think you are wrong Cordy Jun 2016 #112
Look, I don't think she'll be indicted, but I think she broke the law. If she does not know in her merrily May 2016 #44
I am being real. apnu May 2016 #53
Federal records law, for one. merrily May 2016 #54
The Archives laws are different form classification and discrimination of emails apnu May 2016 #57
Intent or ignorance have no bearing in the criminal matter. grasswire May 2016 #49
*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP* Tarc May 2016 #6
Clap, clap ... fucking clap. nt. polly7 May 2016 #13
It's all fun and games until... NWCorona May 2016 #22
Ha! frylock May 2016 #33
You should get that stuff in your subject line checked out. nc4bo May 2016 #42
You know what I think is especially sad? polly7 May 2016 #12
freelance ocf we the books state dept. Blumenthal... elehhhhna May 2016 #29
THIS IS WHY we cannot trust her with the reins of power. grasswire May 2016 #50
I draw other conclusions. polly7 May 2016 #86
Sigh yes. grasswire May 2016 #95
To add: Fawke Em May 2016 #23
And she sent that information right along. pdsimdars May 2016 #69
So, what credentials are provided for making such a statement as "clearly classified information"? tonyt53 May 2016 #26
Someone with an axe to grind, or maybe a book to promote? nt procon May 2016 #48
Charles McCullough, Inspector General Intelligence Community IdaBriggs May 2016 #52
Wow, fox news couldn't have said it better ! The_Casual_Observer May 2016 #51
Actually that is not totally accurate, Petreas LIED to the FBI about holding onto materials Rex May 2016 #62
And all Hillary did was to have the classified information on a private server OUTSIDE pdsimdars May 2016 #71
Yes, she did withhold and delete classified documents. grasswire May 2016 #75
Like Bernie keeps saying: "It's about her JUDGEMENT." (or lack of it) southerncrone May 2016 #77
And on issue after issue, Hillary always seems to choose the WRONG side. pdsimdars May 2016 #85
All true, but all irrelevant, because..... jack_krass May 2016 #87
Hadn't you heard . . .. pdsimdars May 2016 #92
Well this thread cinched it... jamese777 May 2016 #78
Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. BlueStateLib May 2016 #88
Tell that so Snowden pdsimdars May 2016 #89
Maybe if a 3rd party gave info to Snowden that he then published would be an example BlueStateLib May 2016 #90
Nope, you just got it wrong. Plain and simple pdsimdars May 2016 #91
Wrong again bob. pdsimdars May 2016 #99
I thought the Messiah Bernie Sanders was tired of hearing about her doc03 May 2016 #101
He is Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #104
Isn't that just what the RW trolls used to call Obama -- the messiah? pdsimdars May 2016 #109
That's right they did. But now the people that thought Obama was the Messiah doc03 May 2016 #110
Wow that's some stretch. . . does it hurt when you do it or are you used to it by now.? pdsimdars May 2016 #111
 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
1. Hillary Fans share the same hubris with their Supreme Commander
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:54 AM
May 2016

You will never convince them she did anything wrong here.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
2. I never heard of a category called above top secret until the Hillary scandal. But, I am doubt that
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:57 AM
May 2016

she will be indicted or charged. I would have been and you would have been, but the rich and powerful, not so much--unless perhaps they make the mistake of saying things like "Two Americas." And push comes to shove, they can always buy a pardon.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
11. I'll be posting more as I learn more, but some of it is so shocking you can't believe she actually
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:09 PM
May 2016

did it and wonder how she can escape without indictment. But people seem to think she won't be.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
14. Two Americas. One for the rich, powerful and well-connected and one for everyone else.
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:15 PM
May 2016

As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Btw, Paul posts at JackpineRadicals.org There, he can answer questions without a swarm of disruption. Just a thought, if you're interested.



Yurovsky

(2,064 posts)
34. Carlin was, as usual, on point...
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:30 PM
May 2016

the sad thing is there are supporters of HRC who think they're on equal footing with Secretary Clinton and the folks she hits up for $250,000-a-plate dinners.

Team Clinton wouldn't piss on any one of us even if we were on fire. They are the elite. We are the great unwashed. They have no interest in seeing that arrangement change anytime soon.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
38. No, I think they know they are not. But they have other reasons to support her, I think.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:36 PM
May 2016

Some have an economic stake in the status quo, though it may be a job, rather than riches, and some really do like her and/or want to see a woman finally. And some are paid. And the Brockolis have started joining us.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
39. It is just stunningly reckless.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

And so arrogant!

She played fast and loose with the PEOPLE's secrets. Not hers. They belonged to us.

She has endangered President Obama's presidency. There may even be some liability for him for not providing proper oversight while she ran a rogue foreign policy out of his sight -- although nothing would touch him criminally, but the Pugs are talking about fast track impeaching him for HER crimes in office.

Gotta wonder what kind of personality will allow so much bad judgment to bring so much risk to so many -- risk for the sake of power and wealth.

Some people say sociopath. Narcissist, for sure. The Clintons are mutually narcissistic, and reckless to the extreme. Both of them.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
82. "It is all about me"
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:04 AM
May 2016

and the money, too, of course. That is what it is about for Hillary Clinton.

I am surprised at a couple of things you said (meaning I didn't know you knew them) but I will throw in a couple of thoughts.

Yes, she has endangered President Obama's term in office. I knew that when I read about another incident I do not want to describe here right now. Many people think that he will "save" her but the truth of the matter is, I am going to put this politely, he will not influence her future.

There is a legal perspective under which one can say President Obama is responsible for the acts of Hillary Clinton, but I don't want to talk about that either. I want him to be able to leave office in a dignified manner unscathed by this debacle. He has done a wonderful job for the most part, and he deserves credit for that. A lot. Not an impeachment.

I do not know what will be the outcome of this whole devastating debacle, but I do know that some time ago the FBI's opinion was that it had enough evidence to nail down her indictment and conviction, and that if it did not happen that would be for political reasons, in which case many agents and probably Comey as well would resign. The DOJ seems to agree that the evidence is there, but the problem is other people think the ramifications of an indictment are potentially too earth-shattering to touch. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

I personally hope that Hillary after seeing all of the evidence the FBI has negotiates a deal that allows her no time in prison.

Sam

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
83. my understanding is that..
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:19 AM
May 2016

...assuming the AG will choose to proceed, the DoJ will present the evidence to David Kendall and ask what she is willing to plead.

Of course, if she tries to bully her way through, there will be chaos.

And if Lynch (AG) does not prosecute (against the recommendation of the FBI), then we will have another Watergate with Comey likely to resign and many leaks likely to spring from FBI.

Regarding earth shattering ramifications of an indictment. There will also be earth shattering ramifications with no indictment, as the Rule of Law of the land will be destroyed. Equal justice under the law is imperative, to keep a lid on those watching closely.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
84. Yes, I know -- there just is no easy way out
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:36 AM
May 2016

I hope your understanding is correct and that a deal is negotiated. I sincerely believe this is the best we can hope for. I do not feel sure she will have enough good sense to deal, but I hope so.

Thanks for responding to me, grasswire.

Sam

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
93. If Hillory Clinton were to be found guilty while Obama is still in office, I suppose
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:32 PM
May 2016

he would issue her a pardon. That would be okay by me -- just as long as she
wouldn't be able to maintain the present horrible status quo of the nation's
politics, economics and run-down levels of our school and prison systems.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
96. Not remotely possible for her to be found guilty while Obama is still in office
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:02 PM
May 2016

Why? Let's assume that the FBI wants charges and the DOJ issues them. When is the earliest that could happen? Let's assume a likely too aggressive time frame and say by the some time next month. Consider that Clinton would likely call for the trial to be after the election. Given all that happens before a trial, how early could that be? Then how long would it take to impanel a jury and hear the case and get a verdict. Note that Obama leaves office in January.

I doubt she is actually concerned with indictments, a trial or a conviction.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
47. Thank You For Trying To Open SOME People's Eyes!
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

It would be fantastic to actually have some proof no matter how much they DON'T WANT us to be informed.

I'm not so blind that I can't see!

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
80. That is the way I feel
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:26 AM
May 2016

I spent hours staying up late at night reading the leaked emails, just everything I could get my hands on. I was appalled at some of the things I read. They were jaw-droppingly shocking. I could not believe my eyes. And I formed the opinion that no matter how this ended, Hillary Clinton did not have the judgment to be in charge of this Country's national security. And as politics go, yes one can believe that she might skate, but on a practical note those handling the material (evidence) and making the decision must live here too, along with their families and children. Are they willing to put their safety at risk but putting someone in the Oval Office who has performed the acts laid out by the evidence? Some of these acts are felonies. There is no question about that.

The rumor is that the FBI wants to indict, the DOJ is convinced but that everyone else is too afraid to touch it with a ten-foot poll -- it is that toxic. And there is also a concern that if she is indicted she will fight a conviction all the way to the end. Do you have any idea how long that could take?

My personal hope is that she negotiates a deal. I do not want to see her in jail. The deal would be generous since no jail time would be involved, much of the evidence would be classified and the public would not see the most shocking things (meaning good for her as well), she would have to pay an enormous fine and give up her security clearance. Not holding a security clearance would make her ineligible to be President and she would have to drop out of the race. She could simply say she was resigning for health reasons for I care -- just do not put her in charge of the national security of this Country.

I make no secret of the fact I am a Sanders' supporter. I do not believe if Hillary drops out of this contest because of this issue, it will have any impact whatsoever on Sanders' destiny. The Establishment will drop-kick a New Dem or Third-Way type candidate in so fact it will be done almost too quickly to be seen -- probably Joe Biden. Hillary will give him her delegates and that will be that.

Sam

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
94. Paul Thompson was saying that an indictment will take a long time but just the recommendation
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:33 PM
May 2016

by the FBI to indict would most likely end her political career. I tend to agree with that.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
98. I read that Comey is a Republican. I wonder how much of a difference that would make
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:48 PM
May 2016

in his decision. I hope he has the quality of being impartial, leave politics aside, and
will base his decision following the rules of the law. The Republican politicians wouldn't
like that, though.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
97. Politics have become such that only those who join the IN group - those who have
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:35 PM
May 2016

the power and have no conscience about how they use it - can rise to top positions.
The few decent politicians still remaining don't have any chance at all? I wonder if
that could be a possible reason why Elizabeth Warren declined to run for president.

Well, both Establishments are under the control of Corporatists. What else can
anybody expect but corruption, and more corruption? I feel sorry for the young
people. They apparently are, at least to some degree, aware of the present
situation, and are flocking to Sanders. I have not given up hope that he will
succeed.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
106. I have not given up hope either, Cal33
Sun May 22, 2016, 12:50 AM
May 2016

Anything can happen in politics at any time. Just something I have reminded myself of for years now. I do believe this is true. Hang in there!

Sam

frylock

(34,825 posts)
28. I'm pretty confident that the FBI will recommend indictment.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:23 PM
May 2016

Whether the DOJ follows that recommendation is another matter entirely.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
31. We'll see soon enough. If it's going to happen, I hope it happens before July.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:27 PM
May 2016

I cannot take another Clinton impeachment. I. Just. Can't.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
43. Sigh.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:39 PM
May 2016

Why must we be dragged through that family's drama again? It is a form of national PTSD, and we are being re-traumatized.

There are so many other options Democrats could have chosen.

Martin O'Malley, for one. Normal, qualified, nice guy.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
70. It depends on what the FBI does and how blatant it is.
Fri May 20, 2016, 07:38 PM
May 2016

If everyone resigns and goes the media and says why they resigned, then I suspect Loretta Lynch will appoint an independent prosecutor. That prosecutor will spend months hiring staff and delving into the background. In essence, it will hang over the entire campaign.

If they just submit their finding to Justice and recommend no charges, then we'll get to listen to Trump and everyone else talk about how Obama and Lynch talked them out of it and are protecting Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

Basically we're in a no win situation with this.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
3. Isn't Sidney Blumenthal a journalist?
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:03 PM
May 2016

What information could he posses to send to Clinton that is classified?

Does he have security clearance? I don't think so. If he's bringing information to Hillary, its coming from outside government channels, how can he be giving her classified information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal#Relationship_to_Secretary_of_State_Clinton

Just because someone outside of the government says "classified" doesn't make it so. There is a clear process to classify information and multiple levels of classification. None of which Bluementhal is involved with.

2cannan

(344 posts)
4. Blumenthal was supposedly getting info from a retired CIA guy, Tyler Drumheller
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:26 PM
May 2016

Tyler Drumheller Was the Man Behind Hillary Clinton's Private Libya Intel, Sources Say
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tyler-drumheller-man-hillary-clintons-private-libya-intel/story?id=31834468

snip

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had access to the world’s top intelligence agencies and their resources, but at the most turbulent moment of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, she received a stream of intelligence on Libya and the Benghazi attack by a former CIA official working outside the government, sources said.

Sidney Blumenthal, a confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation, told the Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday that the information he supplied the sitting Secretary of State came from a “respected former high-ranking CIA official,” rankling Republicans charged with investigating the events around the embassy attack.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
7. OK, consider this.
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:37 PM
May 2016

Drumheller, ex CIA, would have had his clearance pulled during his off-boarding process in Lagnley. Classification of intel comes from within, not without. So if Blumenthal is digging stuff up from Drumheller, and Drumheller is getting his information from contacts at the CIA, that would be a grievous breech of CIA protocols. It is also possible Drumheller is getting his information from other contacts in the world outside the purview of the CIA and thus the information he has never gets the opportunity to be classified.

Either Drumheller got his information outside of the CIA and thus the information isn't "confidential" at the time, despite whatever Blumenthal says, or the data is classified leak at the CIA and not the State Department.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
17. I think you miss my point
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:30 PM
May 2016

I never said his memory would be wiped.

Of course he remembers things, but also he'd know he's not supposed to talk about classified intel to anybody outside the CIA and certainly not a journalist. Ergo, if there is a breech of classified information, it lies with the CIA, not Hillary Clinton or her State Department.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
45. remember, Drumheller and Blumenthal BOTH were ginning up business interests..
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:42 PM
May 2016

..in Libya. They planned to take advantage of the post Gaddhafi LIbya. They had companies already in place.

It was for money.

Blumenthal has other careers besides "journalist." He was being paid by the Foundation, but that was not his only income. And at one time (maybe still) he was being paid a small fortune by guess who......David Brock.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
73. OK, I won't argue that.
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:48 AM
May 2016

Haven't seen data on that, but I'll take you at your word. America has been screwing around in oil countries for decades, that isn't a shock to anybody on this planet.

Still, quoted bit in the OP is off. Blumenthal nor Drumheller have any right or capability to declare what is or is not actually classified. Why would Clinton think she'd need to alert security about what some journalist had dug up from an ex-CIA spook? The guy isn't on the Reservation anymore, he doesn't have creds and he's not analyzing fresh intel in Langley. And if he did have fresh intel, then there's a leak at the CIA. Which would be very odd since Hillary, if she wanted, could have asked for any data from the CIA she wanted and that probably would have been granted, so no need for a leak.

Its odd that Hillary would 1) take what a journalist, even one she knows well, as fact and 2) forward it to an assistant remarking how "timely" the information was. We don't know the context of "timely" is, what her motivation to forward that on is and what she thought to gain from it. The snipped in the OP doesn't go into that. We can only speculate at Hillary's motives at the moment.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
74. that particular intel was fresh, and was from an NSA communication.
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:37 AM
May 2016

It was nearly real time report from an NSA dispatch. NSA said so. Regarding a conversation they had captured in Sudan. Drumheller was getting this stuff. He's dead now. We do not know if he was questioned by the FBI prior to his death or not.

Hillary was trained to know what was classified and what wasn't.

Blumenthaler is not primarily a journalist and did not serve her in that capacity.

Last sentence: Motives do not matter. Intent is not required for criminality here.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
5. People who don't understand tend to confuse DOD with
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:32 PM
May 2016

State. Each has their own rules. Guess who makes the rules?

The Cabinet Secretary. NSA, CIA, etc. can get in there and mix it up, but if there's any issue, the final call comes down to POTUS. And he'll tell 'em all to go to hell after this "Waah Fitzmas" charade plays out.

Trying to apply DOD regs to State is a non-starter. For one thing, State is SENIOR to DOD in the order of precedence.

Also, this nonsense about not allowing classified to be carried outside the workplace is a total canard. You need to have an approved security container and get it vetted by the classified material control official in your command, but people take work home routinely, especially at the upper echelons.

I used to have a STUIII telephone in my HOME at one duty station, which was not on a base, because I had a need to communicate at all hours on a secure line. I wore the key around my neck and never took it off.


I've seen material that was deemed "classified" in daily newspapers in foreign nations. Sometimes, people who want to appear important classify stuff that everyone knows. Bill Clinton did a good job getting rid of bullshit classifications. George Bush made it worse by encouraging a ridiculous amount of compartmentalization.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
8. I largely agree but think its a little different
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:42 PM
May 2016

The rules are carried over from President to President. He might be able to change them but the DOD and its various departments, I doubt highly the POTUS would be reading and writing the regulations for any of them. If that were the case then the POTUS is also responsible for writing all the regs for the FEC, SEC, and a hundred other government bodies. He would never do anything but write regulations.

See my post above which was posted after you commented. But simply put: Bluemthal and Drumheller look to be a CIA leak or breech of CIA protocol, or other outside information. Which would have nothing to do with the State Department and Hillary's private email server.

As you say, confusing the two is either ignorance or a canard. The fact that the Republicans and Hillary haters here focus on her email server so much shows that their motivations are a witch hunt and they aren't serious about security or breech of protocol as they say.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
9. POTUS doesn't write the rule books, but he can change them
Fri May 20, 2016, 01:02 PM
May 2016

with a wave of his hand if he's inclined--and in the case of HRC, he'd be inclined. It would piss off haters, but those of us who know that the wingnuts are working an ugly agenda just don't care about those damn emails (LOL).

What I think is amusing is that, with all these security breaches and publication of secret documents, the only way anyone got HRC's stuff is because a virulent wingnut Congress kept pounding the drum and demanding it. She kept her shit under wraps! LOL!

apnu

(8,722 posts)
10. Obama hasn't done that.
Fri May 20, 2016, 01:05 PM
May 2016

I doubt he will. The fallout would be intense and destructive. Obama doesn't roll like that.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
16. He wouldn't do it until he was going out the door.
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:29 PM
May 2016

They ALL do it.

And he'd flip 'em the bird and drop the mic. That's if it's even needed, and I am not sold that it is.

He owes those assholes NOTHING. They've done nothing but fuck with him for eight years, and they--and he--know it.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
18. Obama's a classy guy.
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:33 PM
May 2016

He does owe these assholes nothing, and they have fucked with him for what will be eight years. We'll see what he does but I have my doubts, as that sort of thing would be against his character.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
30. It would also tarnish his legacy, which, as we're constantly reminded,
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:26 PM
May 2016

is tremendously important to retain.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
46. I hope he's going to cut her loose to face the music.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:45 PM
May 2016

If he does not, he will be dragged into the mud by virtue of allowing her to run a rogue foreign policy behind his back. There should have been oversight. He should not have trusted her. Republicans will ruin him if he does not cut her loose.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
56. He's not stupid, and I don't think he really likes her at all.
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:25 PM
May 2016

Doesn't mean that there isn't a tremendous amount of pressure being applied for him to help her out. I hope he does the right thing, and let's justice prevail.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
61. She didn't have a secure set up, not was it approved by Intelligence.
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:34 PM
May 2016

And, no, the secretaries aren't the definitive rule-makers on data.

The IC is a federation of executive branch agencies and organizations that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States. State is a member of the IC, but not the only member.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
63. Guidelines, rules, etc. aren't 'laws.'
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:38 PM
May 2016

And I've not seen any assertions that say what she did was "against the law." It's just wingnuts and people who don't support her candidacy that keep beating this dead horse.

The Big Clue is retroactive classification. That should tip anyone with critical thinking skills off that this is a great big honking witch hunt.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
24. "There is a clear process to classify information and multiple levels of classification.
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:45 PM
May 2016

None of which Bluementhal is involved with."

Correct, but Hillary was involved with it. She was required to know what was classified and to flag it as such upon receiving it. She didn't do that.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
25. Ok, I see where you're going.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:05 PM
May 2016

However its impossible to presume Hillary knows in her head what is classified or not, since there are millions of things that might be classified, and classification can be done retroactively. So what she knows to be unclassified on Tuesday maybe classified on thursday w/out her knowledge.

At best, she is supposed to think, "Could this be classified? I should check with someone in the DOD and find out."

We have no idea if she did that, do we? We could maybe get a clue if we look at the time difference between Hillary receiving and reading the email (if we have time stamps on when the email was read, probably not) and the time when she forwarded it. If those two things are close, then she probably didn't check if the intel Blumenthal gave her was classified or not. If its not close, then she might very well have checked with someone on that intel and gotten an answer she believed to make it unclassified at the time.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
32. That's why she was REQUIRED to participate in annual compliance training..
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:29 PM
May 2016

on identifying and handling of classified information. She only attended that annual compliance training ONCE during her tenure at State, and she was clearly not paying attention.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
35. I believe that
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:31 PM
May 2016

I do compliance training with technology as part of my IRL gig. And yet people still screw that up. I see it all the time. Its a mess like this thing.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
37. I do, too.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:32 PM
May 2016

Not sure what type of compliance you're required to meet, but even if you screw up and a breach happens, there are still penalties and fines. You know that.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
65. Exactly. I have to take HIPAA compliance training every year.
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:41 PM
May 2016

Just because I complete the training doesn't mean that I or the company I work for aren't going to be dinged in the event that I disclose PHI. If I failed to complete that training, I would have a meeting with my manager, and given an opportunity to fulfill my obligations as an employee. if I decided that I wasn't going to do that, my ass would be out the door.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
55. What were to happen to you if you failed to complete your compliance training IRL?
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:20 PM
May 2016

Would you be reprimanded? Get called into your manager's office asking for an explanation? Would you then be told in no uncertain terms that you are to complete the compliance training, or would it be okay to use your negligence as an excuse for fucking up on the job? How would that work out for you IRL?

apnu

(8,722 posts)
59. Yes of course.
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:31 PM
May 2016

I'm not sure why you are turning this on me personally or trying to suggest I think Hillary should be left alone.

I've never said such a thing in my whole history at DU. You're welcome to search if you want.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
64. You knnd of implied that it was no big deal that Hillary skipped out on her training..
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:39 PM
May 2016

and that it's no big whoop that she failed to comply with regulations as they pertain to the identification and handling of TS info.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
67. No. That was never my intention
Fri May 20, 2016, 05:17 PM
May 2016

You're misreading what I'm saying. Let me try it this way:

I'm saying human beings are bad at security, especially complicated security. Security gets in the way of what human beings desire to do and if they become sufficiently annoyed with the security, they will find ways to go around it and get what they want. This is human nature. I work in IT and security in a place governed by federal regulations. I talk to Info Sec people all the time and regulators, we all talk about the point where security becomes so cumbersome the end-user will go around it. We see it all the time, every day, day in and day out.

And I'll tell you from having done this for well over a decade, the point where security is cumbersome to the end-user's perspective is different for every human being.

None of what I just said excuses security lapses. I am simply providing background information as to why this happened.

Because a lot of people seem to think Hillary is the devil incarnate and in this case she is not. The devil, as in the ultimate evil cackling and twirling her tail. Did she do wrong, sure seems like it. Is it bad, yes. Is it of malicious intent? I don't think so.

I think Hillary did what end-users do when then run into something they don't like with technology. And I am shocked and appalled so many people in our government let her get away with this.

She used the server exclusively!!! She's talking to Senators, the POTUS, the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, various ambassadors, world leaders on this thing and not one person long the way said "hold up now, this is fucked!"

That's why I say the problem is far beyond Hillary Clinton. Our whole government failed here.

I do object to the myopic scope of Hillary Clinton on this issue. Nobody's calling for the head of whomever in the CIA that squeaked to Drumheller after he left the agency if that's where he got his intel and gave it to a fucking reporter.

By focusing on Hillary alone makes this a witch hunt when the issue is far bigger and more shocking than some house server Hillary has in the Hamptons.

Response to apnu (Reply #67)

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
36. She is SUPPOSED to know that is classified.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:31 PM
May 2016

That's part of her job.

What we do know is that she didn't attend a cybersecurity meeting meant just for her:

2011: Clinton misses a cybersecurity presentation meant just for her. State Department diplomatic security staff give a cybersecurity PowerPoint presentation meant for Clinton. However, she doesn't attend it. According to a 2016 letter by Julia Frifield, the department's Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, "although the PowerPoint indicates the briefing was for former Secretary Clinton, we understand from the testimony of the briefers that she was not in attendance." The PowerPoint presentation has not yet been declassified so it can be publicly released. (US Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/3/2016)


Here's more on handling classified data:

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/faqs/identifying-handling-classified-records.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-secretaries-of-state-handle-classified-information-2015-3

apnu

(8,722 posts)
40. Wow that's some bullshit.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

Clinton, not you.

To be clear, I'm not defending Clinton in any way. My motivation here is solve the problem of what happened when and why.

Unlike many on this board, I don't think Hillary did any of these things our of malicious intent. I do not believe she is the devil, a Republican, or right of George W. Bush (Yeah I've seen that said here too, crazy right?)

I think she screwed up. I think she screwed up because of a combination of frustration with the inconveniences of security, a "i'm-the-fucking-boss" arrogance, and working faster, not smarter. None of that is good news, but none of that is malicious or evil.

I tread a line between Hillary-bots and Sanders rabid puppies. I'm concerned with knowing the truth in matters and fighting for liberal and progressive causes. I don't give a crap who gets us there, so long as we get there. If that's Hillary, fine. If that's Bernie, that's fine too.

tazkcmo

(7,286 posts)
105. Intent is irrelevent when deciding to indict or not in this case.
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:51 PM
May 2016

Intent may be considered after prosecution, if defendant is found guilty, when determining the punishment. This whole thing is a lose/lose. Indictment = "Told you she was corrupt!", no indictment = "Two tiered justice system!".

My belief is there will be an indictment of a sacrificial lamb, Sec Clinton will walk and then lose to Trump in the GE.

Cordy

(82 posts)
112. I think you are wrong
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:12 AM
Jun 2016

There is a qualifier that must be met before this law is actionable, and it is intent. Without intent to injure American National Security, there is no qualifier jeopardized to bring action of law. The only other qualifier that could be used instead is reason to believe the action would injure National Security, and neither of these can be shown to be true.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
44. Look, I don't think she'll be indicted, but I think she broke the law. If she does not know in her
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:41 PM
May 2016

her head what should be classified, then she should not have been SOS because part of the responsibilities of that job include knowing what should be classified. Besides, we know she told her people to remove classified markings before transmitting something. So she didn't need a crystal ball. Let's be real.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
53. I am being real.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:59 PM
May 2016

And I don't disagree with you either.

But she didn't break the law, that I know of. She did break regulations and policies which are different from laws. She did skip security training.

However given the complexity of our intelligence system, it is literally impossible for her to know each and every thing that is or is not, should or should not be classified. No one human being can know that. What she should have done is be suspicious of the information she was being given from Blumenthal and ask someone at the DOD (Homeland Sec, CIA, Pentagon -- some or all) if this material handed to her was classified or not before doing anything with it. I haven't, yet, seen evidence to say if she checked that out or not before forwarding it on. Received and sent time stamps would give us a clue. Plus any other phone or email records around that time showing who she talked to that day and if those conversations are recorded as many of them are in our government would also verify her story or not.

The evidence probably exists, but we denizens of an obscure liberal message board on the Internet, haven't seen it yet.

There's a place between "Hillary's innocent" and "Hillary is a criminal" here and the truth lies there, not on either end of the spectrum.

I choose to work with actual data, I don't go hunting for facts and stories that backup my theories. I try to stay skeptical in all things, but open to new information that can give me a clear picture of what I'm looking at and adjust my understandings based off that.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
54. Federal records law, for one.
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:02 PM
May 2016

Stop it. I don't hunt for stuff to back up my theories, either. I didn't even have a theory. I read some stuff on DU and I hear news stories, just like anyone else. In fact, I pretty much shut out this stuff because I don't think anything will come of it, though I think anyone else would have been in trouble.

I don't see the huge distinction between laws and regulations. As long as a regulation is valid--meaning it's consistent with the statute.

apnu

(8,722 posts)
57. The Archives laws are different form classification and discrimination of emails
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:28 PM
May 2016

But what you say is fair, from where I sit. If we're talking about the records act, that's a law violation. Is it a felony or misdomener or something else, I don't know. If we're talking about handling classified data in email, that's under regulations of multiple government agencies.

Knowing the difference is important.

Whatever happened, Hillary will probably be OK. We haven't investigated or prosecuted the Bush Administration for losing millions of whitehouse.gov emails.

So while everybody's panties are in a wad over Hillary's email, those same people yawn over what Bush did. Its hypocritical.

Which is why I say this very unpopular thing: Hillary Clinton's email scandal is a serious matter that should be looked at, but it is also a witch hunt at the same time. Because the people calling for it and the people prosecuting it have a political ax to grind against Clinton and that taints the investigation.

If we're going to be real, lets put all the cards on the table and acknowledge them.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
49. Intent or ignorance have no bearing in the criminal matter.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:47 PM
May 2016

It is what it is. Secrets were mishandled and she did not report that.

nc4bo

(17,651 posts)
42. You should get that stuff in your subject line checked out.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:38 PM
May 2016

PSA on behalf of National Nurses United.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
12. You know what I think is especially sad?
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:12 PM
May 2016

Knowing that she pushed Obama on Libya using Blumenthal - who Obama had blacklisted and who she was paying thourh her Foundation (with clients hoping for business interests in a post war Libya) - to make decisions re Libya, getting that lying resolution through the UN and the horror and suffering that long wished for regime-change has caused. How many people may have been saved and a whole country and region left intact had she not had that kind of power with no scrutiny whatsoever?

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
50. THIS IS WHY we cannot trust her with the reins of power.
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:48 PM
May 2016

POOR JUDGMENT is a generous assessment of what happened.

Other conclusions could be drawn.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
86. I draw other conclusions.
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:27 AM
May 2016

She knew after what happened to the people and country of Iraq what destroying Libya would do. imho.

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
95. Sigh yes.
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:47 PM
May 2016

I"m afraid so. Blumenthal, her advisor, had private business interests in Libya and urged the regime change.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
23. To add:
Fri May 20, 2016, 02:43 PM
May 2016

She may not be able to stop people from sending her classified information, but once they did, she had the duty under penalty to alert the proper authorities and have that information flagged as classified.

She didn't do that, either.

 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
26. So, what credentials are provided for making such a statement as "clearly classified information"?
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:06 PM
May 2016
 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
52. Charles McCullough, Inspector General Intelligence Community
Fri May 20, 2016, 03:55 PM
May 2016
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2693832/Letter-by-the-Intelligence-Agencies-Inspector.pdf

...“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”....


Seems pretty credible to me, as I find it unlikely the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community would suborn perjury.



 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
62. Actually that is not totally accurate, Petreas LIED to the FBI about holding onto materials
Fri May 20, 2016, 04:36 PM
May 2016

he had no rights to. The only reason he was caught, was because they found the illegally held books in his desk drawer. The man should be facing life in prison without any parole.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
71. And all Hillary did was to have the classified information on a private server OUTSIDE
Fri May 20, 2016, 08:17 PM
May 2016

the government system and then DELETED a bunch of them.

Oh, that's another thing the FBI got all those deleted emails and were going through them and sorting out the personal from the work related emails. That kind of implies, since she had deleted them, that she deleted classified material, or isn't that concealing evidence?

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
75. Yes, she did withhold and delete classified documents.
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:41 AM
May 2016

And swore that she had turned everything over. The only reason we know about some of it is because of the Romanian hacker who cracked Blumenthal's AOL account and lo and behold there were emails between HRC and Blumenthal that she had not turned over.

southerncrone

(5,506 posts)
77. Like Bernie keeps saying: "It's about her JUDGEMENT." (or lack of it)
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:55 AM
May 2016

She can't have it both ways.
Either she is guilty of purposely circumventing the legal, secure system for some yet-to-be-disclosed reason (even after being told repeatedly to stop doing so), or she has such pathetic reasoning skills she should NEVER be in a position of power again.

But, "None Dare Call It Treason".

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
85. And on issue after issue, Hillary always seems to choose the WRONG side.
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:25 AM
May 2016

While Bernie always seems to get it right.

And that ain't by chance.

jamese777

(546 posts)
78. Well this thread cinched it...
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:01 AM
May 2016

I'm voting Trump in the general election. He has never divulged classified material.

BlueStateLib

(937 posts)
88. Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:39 AM
May 2016

No reporter, including fox news james rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so." Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
99. Wrong again bob.
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:01 PM
May 2016

Former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act because he provided classified information to a NYT reporter. Sterling was also convicted on obstruction of justice charges because a single email was missing from his account.

Sterling and Drake came forward to expose government misconduct and were prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Why then does Hillary Clinton get to mock the investigation, delete thousands of emails and run for President?

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
109. Isn't that just what the RW trolls used to call Obama -- the messiah?
Sun May 22, 2016, 07:44 PM
May 2016

I hope he's tired of hearing about her emails. I am too. I'm ready to hear about her indictments, forget the emails.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
110. That's right they did. But now the people that thought Obama was the Messiah
Sun May 22, 2016, 11:43 PM
May 2016

are disappointed in him because he wasn't able to fulfill all those promises. So they didn't vote in the off years and we have a Republican House and Senate. What makes anyone think the same thing won't happen to Sanders if he gets elected?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary's classified emai...