Hillary Clinton Says She’s 'Confident' She Did Not Send or Receive Classified Information

[candelista]

Source: ABC News

Hillary Clinton today brushed off a new investigation into whether she sent or received classified information on her personal email address while at the State Department, telling reporters she is "confident" she did not.

"First, let me say that I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton told reporters at the Third District Democrats Summer Wine Down in Winterset. "I think you're seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement, among various parts of the government over what should or should not be publicly released."

Clinton went on to explain that she did not have to make all of her emails available to the public when she turned them over to the State Department, and argued that the new investigation is only a consequence of her doing so.

"If I just turned it over, we would not be having this conversation. But when I said, 'Hey, I want it to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA process. That's what's going on here," Clinton said. "This is all about my desire to have transparency and to make the information public."

Internal investigators for the intelligence community say that of the 55,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department, at least four –- and potentially hundreds more -– included classified national security information when they were sent on her private email account and home server.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-shes-confident-send-receive-classified-information/story?id=32689054

[candelista]

1. Here's a video of Hillary's comments:

[MBS]

11. This was a reasonable response, BUT

Last edited Sun Jul 26, 2015, 07:35 AM - Edit history (2)

a lot of the "confusion" she mentions would have been reduced had she followed the Obama White House protocols about using government email accounts for government business, as federal employees were and are clearly instructed to do, and not insisted on conducting all of her email business from her private server. It really was a poor political and logistical decision, and one, given her decades of experience with the press and with political opponents, whose fallout she and her staff surely should have anticipated, especially since she'd just been through one presidential campaign, and clearly still harbored presidential ambitions. I continue to be troubled by that decision, and it's one that I believe will continue to haunt her through this election -- yes, despite the fact that the ethical lapses of the Republican candidates are much worse (and, needless to say, their policies are completely wrong-headed, and in some cases, truly dangerous, and the thought of any one of those Republicans making environmental policy decisions and especially Supreme Court appointments just gives me nightmares, and that's why it's so essential that the Democrats win the White House, and take back the Senate).

Yes, she would have had the"Benghazi" crowd after her either way- but had she set things up properly, it would have been a lot less work for her staff, as well as the State Dept. staff , to comply with Congress' (yes, unreasonable) demands-- and there would not have been the additional issue of "why-did-she-insist-on-using-her-own-server-and-isn't-that-just-like-the-Clintons" to stir the pot even more.

[uhnope]

20. +1. perfect

[6chars]

2. that's a relief!

[pnwmom]

3. This article repeats an untruth from the NYTimes hit piece. The emails were not designated

as classified when Clinton was in SoS. They are retroactively looking at some of them and considering whether they should be classified now. It is not unusual for documents to be classified years after they after created.

[Lunabell]

4. Another republican witch hunt.

I am not even a Hillary fan and I can smell a stinker.

[Sunlei]

7. hey but the wickileaks hacked cable complaining about russias horrible boiled meat dinners was funny

[restorefreedom]

12. that might very well be true

but if hillary makes it to the ge, this kind if stuff will sink her. the gop will poind on this kind of stuff endlessly

[former9thward]

17. So the Inspector Generals appointed by Obama are a Republican witch hunt.

Ok, got it ....

[diabeticman]

27. Is it really a witch hunt? Had a republican been did this Democrats would be screaming. I

personally was never comfortable with Clinton doing State business on a private server/account. I believe our government should have a level of transparency and all levels of accountability. Does this make me a Troll?

[Lunabell]

28. Nobody accused anyone of being a troll

Relax.

[JonLP24]

5. Leaked Private Emails Reveal Ex-Clinton Aide's Secret Spy Network

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's civil war raged in 2011.

Blumenthal's emails to Clinton, which were directed to her private email account, include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations. They came to light after a hacker broke into Blumenthal's account and have taken on new significance in light of the disclosure that she conducted State Department and personal business exclusively over an email server that she controlled and kept secret from State Department officials and which only recently was discovered by congressional investigators.

Starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer, according to hacked emails from Blumenthal's account.

The emails, which were posted on the internet in 2013, also show that Blumenthal and another close Clinton associate discussed contracting with a retired Army special operations commander to put operatives on the ground near the Libya-Tunisia border while Libya's civil war raged in 2011.

Blumenthal's account was hacked in 2013 by Romanian hacker Marcel-Lehel Lazar, who went by the name Guccifer. Lazar also broke into accounts belonging to George W. Bush's sister, Colin Powell, and others. He's now serving a seven-year sentence in his home country and was charged in a U.S. indictment last year.

http://gawker.com/leaked-private-emails-reveal-ex-clinton-aides-secret-sp-1694112647

My only problem here is the information is classified. A US diplomatic outpost especially in Libya is a CIA outpost. You're talking about something that has only grown and since expanded that Nixon almost exposed the secret spy networks to criminal charges and the truth about Bay of Pigs which the CIA recently blocked because it would "confuse the public". The irony here is the party with the most CIA agents paid for by lobbying money to prosecute Hillary Clinton over the deaths of CIA agents.

When Hillary Clinton spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy" she was right but whether she meant it one way or the other right wing doesn't necessary mean "not the Democratic party". The CIA is basically a system ruled by sociopaths & rigged by sociopaths. She favors the same ideas based on the same bullshit rhetoric. They don't trust each other & individuals are attracted to power and she is a threat so discrediting her husband in the 90s or her helps but CIA evidence is largely bullshit when the real conspiracies are easy to prove but would also implicate themselves.

High court judge orders Goldman Sachs to disclose Libya profits
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/24/goldman-sachs-libya-high-court

Consider Nixon's taped talks with Reagan with Kissinger
http://nixontapes.org/rwr/004-103.mp3

This one from Gerald Ford
http://nixontapes.org/grf/042-009.mp3

Nixon regularly consulted with "the big 5" that included George HW Bush, LBJ, Gerald Ford, and Reagan.
http://nixontapes.org/presidents.html

Superpower Relations, Backchannels, and the Subcontinent: Using the Nixon Tapes to Examine the 1971 India-Pakistan War

In his 1978 memoir, President Richard M. Nixon claimed, “By using diplomatic signals and behind-the-scenes pressures we had been able to save West Pakistan from the imminent threat of Indian aggression and domination. We had also once again avoided a major confrontation with the Soviet Union.”3 Kissinger’s far more detailed chapter on “the tilt,” in the first volume of his memoirs, White House Years, complements and largely corroborates Nixon’s.4 Kissinger argued that Nixon did not want to “squeeze” Pakistani President Agha “Yahya” Khan, and tried to put forward a neutral posture to the bloodshed in East Pakistan that was initially triggered by a series of natural disasters.5 Kissinger also contended that Nixon did not want to encourage secessionist elements within an ally, Pakistan, which was divided into two wings—East and West—over 1,000 miles apart astride its hostile neighbor, India. Above all, before his secret trip to China in July 1971, Kissinger wanted to preserve the special channel to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and he saw three obstacles to handling the situation in South Asia: “the policy of India, our own public debate, and the indiscipline of our bureaucracy.”6 Kissinger stressed that the US attempted to restrain India by making clear American opposition to Indo-Pakistani conflict and attempting to enlist Soviet assistance with their ally, India, towards the same goal. Nevertheless, the two South Asian countries marched towards conflict following a cyclone in November 1970, the resulting devastation and flooding in East Pakistan, Yahya’s election loss to pro-Bangladeshi independence politician Mujib Rahman in December 1970, and Yahya’s subsequent crackdown of “Operation Searchlight” in East Pakistan against Bangladeshi independence in March 1971. The environmental and political upheaval caused an unprecedented refugee crisis as Bengalis fled from East Pakistan into India and, with Indian backing, organized an independent government-in-exile and resistance movement.

http://nixontapes.org/india-pakistan.html

The Youtube title is a lie. The Pakistani woman in her question compared the US as a stepmother that is "impossible to please" mentioning that poor people are bearing the brunt of this. Note her use of "trust deficit", "interests," and the Pakistan(ISI)-US(CIA) relationship we should "never give up"

Bruce: It was indeed. I think probably the most significant history, diplomatic history, of our time. No question about it. And I don't see anything, which could really ruin it in the time being. Without any hesitation I can tell you I always thought the preservation of good relations should have sort of ordinary courtesies and what not in the beginning, it'll probably be all business, but you try and get to know as many people as possible. [unclear]

Nixon: Let them think that we are strong, respected, and we're not going to be pushed around by the Russians or anybody else. Middle East—we have no answer there, as you know.

http://nixontapes.org/chron55.html

Again Hillary Clinton same topic on Pakistan "trust deficit" on Fox News

This is probably why Hillary Clinton was sending classified info through private e-mail accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats

[Sunlei]

8. "hacked emails from Blumenthal's account" who ever reported on that first probably was the hackers?

who made the first report? what news media?

[JonLP24]

9. From what I can tell New York Times

In early March 2015, a New York Times report reported that throughout her time as Secretary of State, Clinton used her own private email account rather than a government-issued departmental account. National Archives and Records Administration regulations in effect at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Secretary Clinton and her top aides failed to do so.[2]

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

Though the hack blamed on Romania seems like a typical CIA lie as that apparently wasn't the case or the releases were part of an FOIA request filed by an independent journalist.

Judge Orders State Department to Release Clinton Emails on Rolling Basis

A federal court judge Tuesday morning ordered the State Department to devise a schedule for releasing Hillary Clinton's emails on a rolling basis, rejecting a proposal the department made hours earlier to release all 55,000 pages on January 15, 2016.

US District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras also ordered the State Department to set an exact date for releasing 296 emails about the 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Those records were turned over to Republican lawmakers late last year and are the subject of a congressional investigation into the incident. Government lawyers said in court Tuesday morning that they expected these emails to be released within days or weeks.

Contreras set a May 26 deadline for the State Department to propose a new schedule for completing its review of Clinton's emails. He issued his order in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News last January, seeking Clinton's emails and a wide range of other documents related to her tenure as secretary of state.

Related: What Hillary Clinton and the State Department Didn't Say About Her Emails

According to the judicial order, the State Department "shall file a notice to the Court on or before May 26, 2015, that includes the following: (1) a new production schedule for the Secretary Clinton e-mails that accounts for rolling production and updates from counsel every 60 days, (2) a proposed deadline for production of the Secretary Clinton e-mails relating to Benghazi, and (3) a proposed order that encapsulates the parties' agreement on the narrowing of [VICE News'] request concerning searches for [documents] beyond the Secretary Clinton e-mails."

State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said at a press briefing Tuesday the department will not challenge the judge's order.

"Of course, we take our legal obligations seriously; we'll comply with the order," Rathke said.

Media reports have widely suggested that Clinton's decision to use private email was an attempt to thwart FOIA requests.

https://news.vice.com/article/judge-orders-state-department-to-release-clinton-emails-on-rolling-basis

[Sunlei]

10. so what NYT writer claimed "hacked files" were "facts"?. And just how did NYT prove that

"hacked files" weren't changed? who hacked the files and gave them to NYT?

[Sunlei]

6. actually I am amazed republicans only found 4 emails to make their big wails and screams over

They must have spend millions, hours and hours in time, to rake over hundreds of thousands of years of communications trying to find something, anything.

They even had thousands of hacked files to rake through with wikileaks and still here we are today. republicans still will squander much more over the next year, to make a mountain out of some tiny pea.

[magical thyme]

13. that doesn't square with the final paragraph in the OP

"Internal investigators for the intelligence community say that of the 55,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department, at least four –- and potentially hundreds more -– included classified national security information when they were sent on her private email account and home server. "

Either the information found on 4 of her emails was classified or it was not.

It has nothing to do with what was or was not made public or the FOIA process. It's about whether or not the information on those 4 emails was classified at the time it was received or sent.

[tammywammy]

14. From what I've gathered, they were classified afterwards

The information was determined to be classified after the fact, but it wasn't considered classified at the time the emails were sent or received.

[magical thyme]

15. which is what I'm guessing the inquiry is addressing.

I thought I'd read the opposite, that it had always been classified, but that was days ago and I've been through hell since then, so my memory is not to be trusted.

[tammywammy]

16. And it doesn't help that the NY Times has been reporting blatantly incorrect information. n/t

[Beauregard]

18. They were classified before, during and after

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-20150724-story.html

Hillary was the Secretary of State. She should have known that her conversations with Blumenthal about events in Libya contained sensitive information that would be classified, whether they were "marked" as such or not.

[Kingofalldems]

26. Good try.

[Beauregard]

29. Your essay has potential, but you need to add more information.

Add some facts about the issue that help to substantiate your point. That way, the reader can follow your reasoning, and decide for himself/herself whether to agree with you. Be sure to substantiate the facts you cite with quotations and/or references from reliable sources, which should be listed at the end of the essay. Grade = C-. But you can improve your score if you make the revisions suggested above. Good luck!

[pnwmom]

21. The NYTimes was wrong about that, according to Newsweek, Media Matters, and other sources.

Those emails were not classified at the time they sere sent.

The NYTimes was making up a story out of thin air, according to Newsweek. This had everything to do with a FOIA request. In following up with a FOIA, there were questions about whether certain emails should NOW be changed to "classified."

This happens. Even years after the fact, they can decide that certain things should be deemed classified.

[hollowdweller]

19. I can't determine if this story is something serious or not.

So much stuff has been retracted and changed it's hard to know if it's just something that has the appearance of being a problem for Clinton, or whether it really shows she discussed sensitive stuff on an unsecure email.

I guess I'll just have to wait till the facts come out to really know.

I do think that even though it was legal, the private server Hillary used, I assume to keep emails away from her potential political enemies, I think in retrospect it may have caused more problems than it solved.

Of course if there was stuff they could have used against her in the emails she deleted maybe it was worth the backlash politically.

[pnwmom]

22. Newsweek says the NYTimes story was "despicable" and made up out of thin air.

None of the emails involved were classified at the time. The issue was only whether now, years later and upon further consideration, should they be classified so they could be withheld from the FOIA request.

[riversedge]

23. K and R--and thanks

[riversedge]

24. NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton's Emails[

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/25/ny-times-issues-second-major-correction-to-botc/204596

NY Times Issues Second Major Correction To Botched Report On Clinton's Emails
Blog ››› July 25, 2015 2:40 PM EDT ››› BEN DIMIERO


This morning, the New York Times issued a second substantial correction to its anonymously-sourced report that originally hyped a potential Department of Justice investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of personal email. The paper has now removed the claim -- which appeared in both the article's headline and first sentence -- that two inspectors general were seeking a "criminal" investigation into the handling of Clinton's emails.

The paper has not addressed numerous lingering questions about both the sourcing and vetting of its report, with their corrections instead blaming the errors on "information from senior government officials" who remain anonymous. Times public editor Margaret Sullivan indicated on Twitter that she plans to weigh in on the story on Monday.

A comparison of the opening sentence of the July 23 article as originally published and how it currently appears on the Times website underscores the deeply flawed nature of the paper's report. In less than 48 hours, the article went from alleging a request for a "criminal investigation" of Clinton herself to "an investigation" into whether information had been mishandled in connection with her email account...................

[silenttigersong]

25. Kabuki

Goldman sachs says doesnt care who wins Bush ,or Clinton- status quo working together -dominating the cooperate media tiring shame on both of them corp dems, corp repubs.Just vote for Bernie,ignore them the game is rigged and honestly I do not think Clinton cares if Bush is elected.imo