Watchdog: Clinton's server had classified material beyond 'top secret'

[Jarqui]

Source: Politico

...
In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by POLITICO, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as “special access programs,” or SAP. That’s an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community agency],” the letter reads. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the [intelligence community agency] to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified [intelligence community agency]sources.”
...
The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton’s unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton's emails at the “confidential” level or beyond, though Clinton and State say none were marked classified at the time. Six of those have been flagged as “secret,” a step below “top secret.”
...
The FBI, meanwhile, is still investigating whether Clinton’s server put national security at risk and whether top State staffers sent around classified information via unclassified means, which is in many cases illegal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

---

I do not think this is going away any time soon folks.

NBC and Mediaite have also picked up the story along with the right wing media.

[peacebird]

1. "these documents contain information derived from classified sources.”

Sounds like her email telling them to remove markings and email in the clear could become a serious problem.

[Akicita]

25. Uh Oh!

[SoapBox]

2. OH boy...get ready for The Swarm!

What will the alert say? This is a hurtful story?

[7962]

4. Arent there "safe spaces" to help with that now?

[Still In Wisconsin]

58. Over the top! Disruptful of Her Majesty's coronation! Hurtful and inappropriate!

...all of the above.

[7962]

3. Nothing surprising. And yet nothing will happen to her.

A 6 month Airman in the Air Force knows proper procedure for classified materials. The first rule is how to recognize what should be considered classified even if it ISNT classified, and to treat it as such.
But the coronation must proceed unimpeded by troublesome facts. At some point Bernie will have to start to focus on it

[Sienna86]

6. Arrogance or ignorance

Neither is an excuse. Any federal employee would be fired for this and lose their security clearance.

[7962]

16. +1

[truedelphi]

19. Yes anyone but her. n/t

[Bernin]

106. Not just her.

Steven Hatfill lost his clearance on August 23, 2001.
Yet, when I managed to get through on the phone when he was doing an interview on a certain conspiracy radio show out of Austin Texas (hint hint). I got him to admit he was in North Carolina in November of 2001. Which is when I caught him snooping around my house.
He claimed he was in NC working on a classified project.

You can listen to the exchange in the archives of that show towards the end of the 2nd hour on Nov 6th 2014.

[Yo_Mama]

21. Yes, and that's the problem. Now we have one law for high-up politicians and another for the plebes?

This isn't selling well to those who would already have been fired and charged. Of course, she can't be fired, but this seems like such disrespect for law.

[ripcord]

129. Had she just said I screwed up

This probably would have gone away by now but her first instinct was to denyso know she has to deal with it.

[bigworld]

12. Hell, any clerk at any school office knows to keep their personal email separate from their employer

You just don't do that.

Oh, and to keep your "charity's" email on the same server.

It may have been legal, but it's pretty reckless.

[7962]

14. Well, her argument has always been "nothing marked classified",

which is why I bring up the training that everyone in the military gets early on. Its a lame excuse, because she would KNOW that much of what she was dealing with would be considered classified.
But its the only excuse she's got and she'll stick with it.

[TipTok]

26. Wait... Are you telling me that I can't read my classified emails and talk about them on gmail...

As long as I leave the security classification off?

Whodda thunk... Gosh

[7962]

73. You're being sarcastic, but yeah, THATS the excuse!! Yep, whodda thunk?

[razorman]

91. I think you are right. But, I also do not think Bernie will take advantage of it.

He has not been very aggressive toward the Clinton campaign so far. Either he is trying to be a gentleman about it all, or there may be something to the theory that he is only in the race to make it look like HRC had to fight for the nomination. Whatever his actions or motivations, though, this latest revelation about classified materials could be a big problem for her.

[7962]

101. I dont either. And its frustrating.

He HAS to know that Hillary would pull out whatever it took to beat him, yet he doesnt want to point out her flaws, all of which are perfectly legitimate targets.
And when he says it during a debate, that side shot they always give showing her with that "thats right, bernie, give me a pass" smile really bugs me. How HE doesnt see it afterwards I dont know

[razorman]

112. It is mystifying. Surely, he has to see it. You just want to scream when he doesn't respond.

[napi21]

126. I don't think Bernie will grab onto this either but it's NOT that he's being a "gentleman".

He has repeatedly said "I do not run personal attack ads. Never have and never will." If, or maybe no if, this story has any glimmer of truth to iit, the Pubbies will take it and run. Bernie doesn't have to. I'm glad he feels that way. I'm sick of hearing all the damn personal jabs at opponents on both sides.

[razorman]

146. I agree. But, by the time the Republicans need to start attacking Hillary,

Bernie will no longer be a factor. Until then, they just step aside and let their opponents tear each other apart. That's what we do. Plus, they are hoping that HRC's legal troubles will take her down first. Keeping their powder dry.

[LanternWaste]

132. I'd irrationally use the term 'coronation' too

I'd irrationally use the term 'coronation' too if I had but little faith in my own candidate. That much melodrama is an indication of being overly-emotional and somewhat hysterical. Good luck, little fella!

[7962]

141. Its used because it gets such a silly reaction from so many. Thats what makes it funny.

Just as your use of the word "irrational" doesnt really fit either.
We've all accepted that there are rules for everyone else and special ones for the former SoS.
The evidence so many insist "isnt there" is the existence of SAP documents. There is NO excuse or "out" for the handling of SAP documents like they were.

But again, it doesnt matter. Nothing will happen to her. So its ok, little buddy, you'll get your chance to pull the lever!

[uberblonde]

5. I'm sorry, I thought I wandered onto RedState for a minute.

Look, anyone who's ever worked with high-level government IT knows that the VPNs don't work reliably. So if you're the SoS and you need to deal with something in a hurry, of course you're going to use your own phone and your own email.

This is the dirty little secret of these top agencies. If the director levels followed the rules that apply to everyone else, they wouldn't be able to respond to urgent matters in a timely manner.

There are those who love to sneer at this and make it somehow representative of Clinton's character, but you're wrong. Government agencies have elderly laptops and antiquated systems that hobble the people at the top.

[Kingofalldems]

9. Agreed.

[murielm99]

20. Great reply. Thanks.

[Yo_Mama]

23. Yes, but you are still subject to the laws about how to deal with classified information.

Which were not observed.

A normal person wouldn't get away with this.

[joeybee12]

62. and what laws are those?it's a right wing talking point that has been debunked

[GummyBearz]

123. There are no laws regarding the handling of classified documents?

Wow, when did that get changed? Last time I worked in the MIC was years ago, but I still remember my briefing for SCI level clearance. Yea, it involved being told I would be prosecuted if I took classified files out of a SCIF and into the open area, emails included. There is reason why a "closed" network exists, in which both phone calls and emails are handled over secure lines. And there are laws regarding it.

Got any other issues I can clear up for you? I have about an hour to kill

[hollowdweller]

103. When I worked for the gov't

We could use our email for personal purposes, and we could talk to people in our in agency computer system about claimants their SSN's and other data although later in my career they developed an IM program that was even more secure.

However we were not allowed to use our gov't email accounts to converse with our claimants or their representatives because their email networks were not secure. So we had to talk to them on the phone.

This was about somebody possibly stealing PII. I'd think that the standard would be even higher for classified info. I hope nobody stole anything from Hillary's info.

[Beacool]

70. Or Free Republic, or Daily Caller, or Daily Mail or, etc., etc.

Same difference nowadays.

Apparently some here can't distinguish between two opponents of the SAME party and opponents of a different party.

DU has gone down the rabbit hole.

[ish of the hammer]

96. Yup... Clinton

repub lite.
it's o.k. if you're a republican or Hillary.
IOKIYAROH

[Warpy]

7. Depends on when the stuff was classified and when it was put on her server

After all, it wasn't illegal to use a personal server for State Dpt. business until after she left office.

If she put ultra sensitive stuff on a personal server, it is an extreme error of judgment. I sincerely doubt if it was illegal, not at the time if it happened during her tenure as SOS.

I'm afraid I still don't see much "there" there.

[Skwmom]

10. If your believe this, you are really misinformed. n/t

[joeybee12]

64. pot meet kettle

[ripcord]

142. I don't think the problem is the legality at this point

She has gone on record denying that it happened at all. I'm afraid we are going to get into another mess like what the definition of is is.

[Warpy]

143. You're right, the far right has long been a little too eager to take the Clintons down, both of them

It has to be retaliation for her being on the team that finally got Nixon out of office. After all, Bill gave them what they really wanted when he was in office except on the social issues they only grandstand over, anyway.

[ripcord]

144. You nailed it

and handing them ammunition is just nuts.

[SpankMe]

8. There's no way that Hillary is the only one who's done this.

I have knowledge of the security protocols that are being referred to in the article, and I guarantee you that if all unclassified email from all cleared and briefed members of the Senate and House were subject to the same search algorithms as Mrs. Clinton's emails were - they'd find the EXACT same types of breaches - i.e., info derived from classified intel product.

I see slips all the time in articles from publications like Aviation Week and Space Technology, Space News and others. If there's any way the congress' emails could be looked analyzed in the same way, it would kill email-gate overnight.

[angrychair]

67. True

But data spillage is a serious issue and I doubt it happens that much or it is often determined to have "no significant impact".
This may be a serious data spillage, may not. I don't like the "higher than top secret" pharse, there is no such thing. Use real terminology and define it clearly, the sensationalism gives the wrong impression and hurts a knowledgeable person's ability to trust the source.

[daybranch]

109. So wrong, special access certainly limits access above what top secret does

Top secret access is given to much greater numbers of people than special access clearances are given. Top secret access indicates that in your normal work you will encounter and be expected to read top secret information. Special access means unless necessary you will not get access to the information and to get it you must have demonstrated a clear need to do so.Special access is top secret or secret information for which additional clearances have to be granted to get access, therefore in reality IT is more limited and more restricted, whether it carries a top secret designation not not. There are many other special clearances than those with top secret clearance do not get, so whether the classification of top secret is the top or not is not the relevant point,m how many are allowed access and is the point and I am sure you will find that those allowed access to special access programs are a very small subset of those with top secret clearances. By this reasoning those with special access clearances in regard to certain programs have a higher clearance than those who can only look at items not requiring special access.
Putting special access information is in my opinion much more than just putting top secret on it.

This is just the beginning of Hilary's problems with this. The only way I can see out for her is to be elected President and squelch the investigation , but ain't going to happen!

[angrychair]

119. Splitting hairs

There are three levels that most DoD data falls under: classified, secret and top secret. DOE, State and others may have different requirements terminology sometimes, meaning having DoD top secret doesn't automatically get you Q clearance with DOE. I heard that is changing though and a secret and top secret can translate to other departments.
There are special access, i.e. "need to know", within DoD top secret but they are not 'higher' than top secret. There is SCI and SAP, addendums to top secret that allow compartmented access to specific information on a given project that has been limited in scope to "need to know" only.
Compartmentalizing access to data is not a different "level" of access but a way that data is handled and managed.

[kristopher]

127. This is exactly correct nt

[tinkerbelle]

11. Outstanding!

Her story about not wanting to carry two devices never made sense anyway. So there was no one on her team who could show her how to access different accounts from one phone? Sorry, not buying it. She thinks she's above the law. Looks like the FBI thinks otherwise.

[hoosierlib]

13. She's going to get indicted...

Within the next 60 days the FBI will charge her...Patreaus got in deeper shit for a lot less. The DOJ may not prosecute, but she will get indicted...

[7962]

15. Nope. Never happen. You're forgetting the name.

her turn, and all that.

[Kingofalldems]

18. You want her indicted? What's the charge?

Also what evidence do you have?

BTW, I do remember you were the poster who blamed Obama for WWII monument being closed during the REPUBLICAN government shutdown.

[TipTok]

27. Absolutely...

All of this "Rules are for thee and not for me" garbage needs to be stomped out.

[Kingofalldems]

31. When did she say that?

Didn't she testify for 11 hrs just recently? Yeah I think so.

What the hell are you talking about?

[TipTok]

34. Her actions clearly show it...

Does she have to agree that she should be indicted before you agree that the law should apply to everyone equally?

[Kingofalldems]

38. Evidence of a crime please.

So 11 hrs. of grilling means nothing? Or was she just being all privileged and stuff?

[TipTok]

39. Lots of people give testimony without confessing to their crimes...

Luckily we have this other thing called evidence.

Feel free to read about it using that newfangled Google or even links provided in this thread.

[Kingofalldems]

40. Not evidence of a crime. It's a news story.

I tend to side with Democrats when republicans are after them.

How about you?

[TipTok]

43. I tend to follow the law and think it should be applied equally...

Regardless of party affiliation...

Crazy right?

[Kingofalldems]

44. You mean like the oh so fair and balanced

Whitewater investigation that went on for years? Also involving the Clintons who you claim think they can do anything they want.

BTW, that's a right wing meme started in the '92 election, probably by Rove, and continues today.

[TipTok]

46. Just to be clear...

Are you suggesting that since whitewater was unfair several decades ago... Hillary gets some extra leeway?

Wow...

All the kids were doing it... Right?

[Kingofalldems]

50. I mean the Clinton family has been under attack from the right

on a continuous basis since '92.

WTF are you talking about 'all the kids were doing it'?

I see you make up shit that I didn't say so now I get where you are coming from.

I don't like or trust republicans. Too freaking bad you don't like it.

[TipTok]

66. You seemed to be suggesting that since things were unfair during Whitewater...

Last edited Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

... that it would only be fair if the Clintons get some leeway to make up for it.

The teenager equivalent of 'Well, Bobby down the street got to break curfew and therefore I should'

[TipTok]

85. Maybe they should stop doing shady shit...

Last edited Tue Jan 19, 2016, 10:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Amazing how the persecution clears right up...

I don't really feel strongly either way about your likes and dislikes. You seem to be a bit unsteady and likely aren't the best judge of ethics based on your previous posts.

So no harm no foul...

[Kingofalldems]

90. Aww gee, a passive aggressive personal attack

Clever.

Oh and now you don't like Bill Clinton either. Getting a clear picture.

[TipTok]

92. The entire Clinton family, organization and 'charity' are indeed...

... shady.

Breaking news at 11...

[Big_Mike]

108. King, I refer you to Title 18 US Code, Section 793f

which states:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She did not secure the classified information properly. According to the email, she may have ordered improper transmission of talking points.

Conviction of this section is a felony, rendering her ineligible for office.

[psychopomp]

120. I hold any Sec. of State who wants to be POTUS to a rigorous standard

Sec. Clinton must understand the need for the SoS of the USA to observe the strictest security in all sensitive communications, especially given the massive data collection effort targeting the US government by dozens of actors including the Russian government and the CCP's PLA.

In the years ahead, we'll need an extremely circumspect CIC. I'm not satisfied by any of the prospects and, with this series of poor choices concerning communications, I am certainly not confident that HRC fits the bill for CIC, despite her self-avowed heroic dodging of sniper fire she displayed on arrival in Bosnia.

[24601]

139. A felony conviction does not bar anyone from the Presidency, Congress or the Judiciary. The

Constitution has criteria for disqualification. If you are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, punishment is removal and, if the Senate so chooses, you may also be barred from holding future office. That usually does not happen.

[7962]

76. Misdirection. You've got it. Thats the norm.

[2pooped2pop]

45. I didn't watch

How many times did she answer "I don't recall?


Illegal or not, it was stupid, risky, and shows continuance of poor decision making. That's presidential? Hell no it's not. It's not acceptable.

[hoosierlib]

30. Uh, mishandling of sensitive / classified information...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

And I'm not sure what you are insuating with your second comment.

[Kingofalldems]

32. That's not evidence.

Second comment was a factual observation.

[7962]

71. WHats already been released would be enough to bust a military member.

The SoS has a tiny bit more responsibility to secure information than a Private.
But as I said, it'll never happen. And regardless of what else comes out, you'll be fine with that too. Your choice, be happy.
As for your other comment, I said it was a dumb stunt for publicity. My opinion, just like you've got one that Hillary should get a pass for ____________ (fill it in with whatever you like)

[Hoppy]

24. The F.B.I. does not charge anyone. The D.O.J. does.

But I agree... we can hope.

[Akicita]

29. The DOJ does the indicting. The FBI just investigates and gives a reccommendation to the DOJ.

[joeybee12]

65. thanks for posting right wing talking points

The absurdity of the true believers never ends

[Codeine]

81. Please wager with me.

I'd love to take you up on that prediction.

[hollowdweller]

104. Still think this is why Biden was thinking about getting in.

He was worried about something coming out on this email thing at the last minute.

Can you imagine if in 2012 that it was between Edwards and Kucinich??

[MBS]

110. I agree with you.

That and his reported dislike (Howard Fineman, on a TV talking head show, a few months' back) of the Clintons' overall M.O., especially vis a vis money and integrity issues.

[KamaAina]

17. Gee. A bunch of n00bs jumping on the Hillary-bashing bandwagon.

I'm shocked. Shocked!

[TipTok]

28. Do the rules not apply to her?

Is she exempt because she is your preferred candidate?

Nice L337 $P34|< btw...

[KamaAina]

33. Actually, she's not my preferred candidate.

However, she is a Dem, and there do seem to be a lot of low-post-count people glomming on to this.

[Kingofalldems]

42. You got that. It's disgusting to see.

[2pooped2pop]

47. Why don't you guys just come out and call all new posters trolls?

Because that's really what you are saying, though I'm sure they would get a nice smarmy welcome if they were being blind Hillary supporters.

[KamaAina]

49. Not all. Only the ones who come right out of the gate trashing Dems.

[TipTok]

93. Just the ones who commit crimes...

... technically...

Double points for the assumption that they shouldn't be punished because ... something...

[emulatorloo]

52. You nailed it n/t

[Big_Mike]

147. I think I resemble your remark. However, should you care to look, I've been on the

board since before July 6, 2003. I just never added my comments on a regular basis. I assume 12-13 years is long enough to be around.

Troll my left testicle!

[Akicita]

35. If the FBI has damning evidence she should be indicted. If it doesn't look

like she broke the law she shouldn't be indicted. Simple as that. But in either case the public should get a full accounting of what the FBI investigation found so we can put this behind us without the constant drip of leaks during the general election campaign if Hilliary(God forbid) wins the primary.

[Karma13612]

87. I'm not religious, but "Amen" to that.

Your comment is exactly what I have been thinking.

Can we just get on with it, for the sake of the next election, for crying out loud!

[RandiFan1290]

61. Jury

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

nOObs? This nonsense is abusive. A first day member should be free to post an opinion without being attacked.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 19, 2016, 07:16 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No some people are here just to troll. Too many trolls are making it past 100 posts it should stop.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You'll never see these trolls criticize any smuglicons. They trash liberals and post racist shit everyday. We are tired of it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: My initial thought was to leave, n00bs not being that bothersome, just someone trying to show their 1337 creds. But, the comments swayed me, first day members shouldn't be challenged for their time on the board, but rather the idea put forth.

Don't make it personal, and debate the issue, not the poster. Hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you really think "N00b" is a personal attack, you shouldn't be on the DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[KamaAina]

88. A pro-Hillary post got alerted on?!

[Babel_17]

22. Associated Press as well

https://news.yahoo.com/ig-emails-clintons-server-were-beyond-top-secret-194418905--politics.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ig-emails-clintons-server-top-secret-36381492

Both carry the same AP story.

IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

By deb riechmann, associated press

WASHINGTON — Jan 19, 2016, 4:22 PM ET

Some of the classified emails found on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's home server were even more sensitive than top secret, according to an inspector general for the intelligence community.

Click either link for the AP story. The ABC link adds an additional paragraph.

John Kirby, a spokesman for State, said the department is committed to releasing Clinton's emails in a way that protects sensitive information. He said the Freedom of Information Act review process is still underway and said once it is complete, "if it is determined that information should be classified as top secret, we will do so."

[nyabingi]

36. I wonder how much of the e-mails

have to deal with her State Department's covert actions in Libya (the stuff the Republicans ignored in all of their questioning).

The US State Department is the main instrument for regime change (now that the CIA has been reassigned to drone duty and weapons suppliers) and it is clear now that the US ambassador (Chris Stevens) and the consulate in Benghazi were coordinating not only with known religious extremists looking to oust Gaddafi, but also working with shipping companies who were to send Libya's stockpile of weapons to the extremists we are currently arming in Syria to oust Assad. It's unfortunate that Stevens lost his life, but he was obviously involved in some shady dealings in Libya and his actions helped precipitate the murder of Libya's leader, the massacre and ethnic cleansing of many sub-Saharan Libyans (in Tawergha) and the destruction of the country.

I hope Hillary's e-mails creates the conditions in which Congress can have hearings on this and ultimately the wisdom of working hand-in-hand with violent religious extremists to fight wars that the American public wouldn't agree to if it were American soldiers involved.

Hillary has some foreign policy experience, but it's the kind of experience that's very similar to the kind that Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have.

[Nyan]

68. That would be the real Benghazi hearing.

All these charges trumped up by the repugs are not in the least bit interesting or of importance.
Yes, Chris Stevens and others should have been better protected, but the real question that should be put forward is "what the fuck were we doing in Libya anyway?"
Well, we were doing business as usual, which is regime change -the one that unleashed and empowered terrorist organizations throughout the MENA. But unfortunately, the word "regime change" will not be brought up by any of the repugs. Or by the democrats in the house.

[nyabingi]

86. Very sad, and very true

Seymour Hersh has written pretty extensively on how Libyan weapon depots were raided after Gaddafi's death and those weapons sent to Syrian "rebels". It should be front page news but both political parties, the wealthy, their corporations and their media all benefit from regime change and war, so it will never be addressed and mass opposition to these types of policies will be harder to materialize.

I'm glad some of us are keeping up with what's really going on.

[Akicita]

124. I've seen this theory before but have not seen any evidence of it.

Do you have any evidence to back up what you are saying? Does Seymour Hersch present any evidence?

[Kilgore]

37. I suggest Hillary follow Blutos advice

[6000eliot]

41. For fuck's sake give it a rest.

[TryLogic]

48. Hillary has three big weak spots: She lacks integrity, GOOD JUDGMENT, and common sense.

And these just happen to be three of Bernie's strongest characteristics.

[Still In Wisconsin]

59. That and she basically amounts to a pro-choice Republican

[joeybee12]

63. he is a one note do nothing

Senator. Take your smears to gdp

[Beacool]

51. Do you all realize the origin of the initial report that the MSM has seized?

"Fox News first reported the content of the letter."

Very interesting.......

[Kingofalldems]

53. Doesn't matter! Doesn't matter!!!

Fox news is just looking for the truth!!!11!
Just like Ken Starr.

[magical thyme]

56. You do realize that B, Fox and others now have a copy of the letter, right?

Fox updated their report to include a copy.CBS's report states that they have a copy in their possession.

"Hillary Clinton's private email server contained information that was classified at a higher level than "top secret," the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee told members of Congress in a letter obtained by CBS News."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

[7962]

79. The word "Fox" has been mentioned, so everything STOPS NOW!!

Regardless of everyone else having the same story

[KingFlorez]

57. Apparently, this new "bombshell" is just a rehash

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received," he said. "It is alarming that the intelligence community [inspector general], working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Justice Department's inquiry should be allowed to proceed without any further interference."

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."

"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."

Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

[Kingofalldems]

60. Boom. Another non story seized by the Clinton haters.

And I will say this--some, not all, are republicans.

[magical thyme]

69. the letter is dated January 14. The classification is such that the info was "born classified"

Top Secret/Special Access Program is authorized by only a few people, with only a very short list of people authorized to view it.

Executive Order 13526 -- called "Classified National Security Information" and signed Dec. 29, 2009 -- sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, "the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each."

The programs are created when "the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved," it states.


"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."

If she received TS/SAP info, she should have recognized it as such and, if it lacked classification markings, she should have reported it. She certainly should not have kept it on her private, unsecured server.

Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."

1. From a blatently partisan spokesperson/protector of Hillary
2. Did anybody think the GOP would not throw everything at Hillary in hopes that something would stick? That this has led to an FBI investigation with over 100 dedicated agents suggests they found something that has stuck.

[7962]

82. You nailed the whole POINT!

"If she received TS/SAP info, she should have recognized it as such and, if it lacked classification markings, she should have reported it."

THAT is why this is a problem. As it would be for ANYONE else

[TipTok]

94. She's a calculating woman and there's no real evidence that she is stupid...

She knew exactly what it was but felt that the rules didn't apply just in case anyone pestered her with one of the bothersome FOIA requests.

[Kingofalldems]

97. A mind reader too eh?

[TipTok]

100. I'm a bit calculating myself....

If I see someone who robbed a bank I can safely infer that he wanted the money. It isn't certain but it's a quality assumption.

What I listed above is an excellent reason why someone in such a trusted position would step outside the bounds of what was allowed. Risk vs reward...

She just miscalculated this time and it bit her on the butt. Don't worry though...

I suspect that she will wriggle out of it based on her history. All is well... She is 'due' after all...

[Justice]

118. Isn't one of the issues that agencies classify information differently?

Executive Order 13526 -- called "Classified National Security Information" and signed Dec. 29, 2009 -- sets out the legal framework for establishing special access program(S). The order says the program(S) can only be authorized by the president, "the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each." (my emphasis).

If the SOD creates special access program and classifies something as TS/SAP info -- how does SOS know that?

[magical thyme]

121. 1. You have to be on the short list of people allowed to see it

2. It would have headers marking it as such. Unless, of course, somebody stripped off those headers. In which case, the FBI will track down who stripped off the headers. And heads will roll.

[fredamae]

54. I'm beginning to consider the fact

Sanders may be the Least of Clinton's concerns. Normally, I don't pay much attention to the GOP's decades long "Clinton Witch-Hunt Syndrome"....but this is developing legs of it's own. It concerns me because of implications on the upcoming elections...and a path-way potentially legally carved for a GOP win.....

[EdwardBernays]

55. Jeez

Even though I support Sanders I'm asking this in a non-Sander's supporter way: what do people think will happen if she gets nominated then the FBI charges her with something...?

Its not beyond the realm of possibilities as they are actively investigating her.

[Yupster]

80. It will be up to Loretta Lynch, not the FBI

The FBI can only recommend to the Attorney General that she be charged. It's up to Lynch whether to charge or whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion and throw the recommendation in the trash.

[EdwardBernays]

89. Ahh

So nothing then.

[jeff47]

98. Not really. Lynch can throw her copy in the trash

but that won't keep other people from leaking the letter. Say, in October.

Clinton is an extremely dangerous general election candidate.

[Kingofalldems]

99. So Lynch is in on it too?

[humbled_opinion]

114. LOL as if throwing it away is

an option, You want to give the Repukes a corruption campaign slogan? You want to get Ms. Lynch impeached? You want the entire FBI to resign under President Obama? You want to hurt his legacy over protecting someone that by her own admission screwed up?

[stonecutter357]

72. Are you a true Bernie supporter ?

[Big_Mike]

149. Love your Yoda image. All sides here need to heed his advice. n/t

[whereisjustice]

74. Hillary is just another too big to fail institution who believes they are above the law.

[Duval]

75. Ooops, again. Wondered about this the other day.

Thanks for the update, Jarqui. I am unable to feel sorry for her.

[JoePhilly]

77. Were they "double-secret top secret"???????

Why are DU folks providing extra lube for the RW circle jerk on this topic?

[Kingofalldems]

83. Not allowed to say.

[humbled_opinion]

115. So what are you saying that

Democratic primary voters shouldn't be informed about the potential coming indictment of on of our candidates? If Hillary supporters had any sense they would demand that the FBI come forward now with their intentions and recommendations so that we can decide the fate our own Democratic Primaries, she cannot weather an indictment in the GE, surely you know that, so for people who support an alternative candidate now it makes sense to discuss these issues and in fact promote these issues to resolution before actual votes are cast.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. It's an on running game of see, hear and above all say no evil, or be dubbed a Traitor .

[zentrum]

84. She's always known

…she was a target for the RW. Why wasn't she therefore impeccable? Does she never learn?

Arrogant, incompetent and rash.

Bet the RW's back up plan if they can't destroy her before the election—is to try to impeach their second Clinton once she's in office.

Go Bernie!

[humbled_opinion]

116. You are exactly right

So why should we settle? When we have an opportunity now to put forth the right candidate, one with excellent progressive ideas, now and get all this drama behind us once and for all.....My hope has always been that the rational mind of Democratic primary voters will win the day when they are inside the voting booth...

[NYC Liberal]

95. No, right-wing witch hunts certainly aren't going away.

They are nothing new and no they will not stop.

[humbled_opinion]

117. I know it is getting harder and harder to defend her.... n/t

[Jarqui]

102. So are the GOP rubbing their hands together with glee?

lemme see

"Feb 14th, two days before Iowa, Grassley will announce Clinton's server techy, Bryan Pagliano, has accepted to testify in exchange for immunity"

"Mar 4th, two days before Super Tuesday, Pagliano begins testimony in front of the Judiciary." and the media is all over it while a significant percentage of prmary voters are trying to make up their minds.

That would kill anyone's campaign in tight race - which this one has become.

[craigmatic]

105. I'm tired of this shit either indict her or shut the fuck up.

[complain jane]

107. Thank you.

[24601]

111. I don't really feel that way during a Democratic administration. It's probably better to take your

time to ensure the decision is right one rather than be rushed or have the appearance that it was a partisan decision. The investigation is being done by the FBI which is about as non-partisan as you can get in our system. But there are some strong undercurrents that if the FBI determines there is a strong case but DOJ refuses to act, that senior FBI leadership will make it clear that they resign or retire and make a very public show of it. The most recent parallel would be when the current FBI Director, then the deputy Attorney General, made it clear to Bush that they would walk if he reauthorized the entire Terrorist Surveillance Program over their legal objections. Bush backed down and the program was modified. It's the kind of shit-storm that President Obama doesn't want to screw up his final year objectives, and since it wouldn't be his head, I doubt he would fall on his sword over it and despite the joined at the hip image she promoted during the South Carolina debate, I'm not convinced the President feels the same way.

If the FBI determines there is no case, it's over. But if the FBI recommends a strong case, I'd anticipate DOJ political appointees handing the decision off to the most senior career staff to avoid the appearance of a political decision.

And if there is an indictment, Hillary can't credibly charge that it politics driven by her right-wing enemies since they are in no position to call any of the shots. I judge that a conviction in a DC court is highly unlikely; however, it would be very difficult to sustain a viable campaign while indicted for a felony.

Her standard retort is that nothing was marked classified when she sent or received it. That defense was blown away with the recent release of her email that told her staff (which was having difficulty sending classified material via secure means) to just sent the content without classification markings as a non-paper over he non-secure system.

It's not really in doubt any more that her private system was the transmission & storage medium for over a thousand emails containing classified information. It's the content that made it classified, not the markings. The latest revelation that some of it included Special Access Program (SAP) material is especially significant since the number of people authorized to establish SAPs is limited to three Cabinet Secretaries (State, Defense, Energy) the Director of National Intelligence, and their Principal Deputies.
Petraeus pled guilty over less.

This cuts to the heart not only of her Judgment, but more importantly, appearance of the the "rule are for others" attitude that has dogged the Clintons for years.

[Yupster]

122. Good clear post, but just one note

The not marked classified at the time defense has always been ridiculous.

Let's say Hillary sends an e-mail which has a highly classifiued fact to Huma one day.

It's not marked classified.

Well how could it be? The only two people who would see it would be Hillary and Huma. Is she saying it's not classified because neither me or Huma marked it classified? Of course that's a ridiculous defense.

[humbled_opinion]

113. Can't and won't defend

her, she brought this on herself. I hope everyone is paying attention because these kind of reports and her inability to articulate a rational defense is what will be her undoing. Best that we demand the FBI make their findings public now before primary voting actually starts so that Hillary can decide just how far down the rabbit hole she wants to lead the Democratic party. IMHO after she loses Iowa and NH she should come up with a reason to end her campaign....

[Vinca]

128. If she's the nominee, this is what we'll be hearing 24/7.

And, if this is true, she might have bigger problems than winning a primary.

[Abouttime]

130. Like it or not

No way in hell Hillary gets indicted, Obama controls the justice department and there is zero chance he embarrasses himself and his administration with the scandal that would ensue.
I'm not saying what Hillary did was right or wrong just that she as a presidential candidate and presumptive nominee is "too big to fail" all of Washington is behind her.
If she is charged it will guarantee a republican victory just as Nixon led to Carter. Our President is a very wise man and no way he ends his historic term with a self inflicted wound that can be dealt with cleanly and easily by just letting the clock run out on the investigation.

[Justice]

131. Officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

About Drone strikes, which everyone knows about.

[Kingofalldems]

133. I wonder if any apologies from people on this thread will be forthcoming.

This was total Fox news trash.

[24601]

135. If the IC IG says they were wrong and there was no classified information and the FBI says that no

laws were broken, I will certainly apologize.

Should the reverse happen, will you?

If she gets the nomination but we lose the WH after an indictment, will she?

[Kingofalldems]

136. I am sure Fox news will indict her if given the chance.

So far---every freaking story has been crap.

[MosheFeingold]

137. FWIW

Many years ago, I had a very high security clearance. I had photographs of certain things given to me as part of my job and was using them as part of my job in a federal building.

I left said photographs in an unlocked room in a semi-secure location in a federal building (you had to have a pass and go past a guard), in a locked briefcase, when we took a break for lunch at the lunch room about 30 feet away. They were where I left them after we got back for lunch, undisturbed and still in the sealed manila envelope in which they came.

I got a massive ass eating (by a General, my Senator, by a CIA agent, by an FBI agent, and by some asshole at the State Department) and referral for prosecution that I remember to this day for not keeping them "about my person."

I was not prosecuted, but it would come up every security review for 30+ years, as this was considered "gross negligence." The FBI agent in charge of each review would tut-tut and make little marks and I'd have to review the entire sordid incident for 30 minutes.

In short, if Hillary was anyone but who she is, she'd already be indicted, just on what is undisputed in the press. Whether she would be convicted, however, is very much a different question. They would try, however, just to keep all the other people with clearance on their toes.

It raises horrible questions about separation of powers, etc, however, so she will not be indicted.

This is not "right wing" B.S. Anyone who ever had any kind of clearance will tell you this.

[Kingofalldems]

140. Looks like this situation is totally different from yours.

[Nihil]

145. You are exactly right ...

... however you are wasting your time pointing out facts to the cheerleaders
who only want to drown out every question with bullshit about "right wing
conspiracies" and other whitewash.

One law for the rich & powerful, one for the rest of the world.

[Jarqui]

138. That takes a lot of the rational wind out of this story

Obviously, the GOP will spin it otherwise

[Kingofalldems]

134. Another right wing smear on Hillary supported by some on DU.

How many is that now?

[6000eliot]

148. Thank you, Sanders supporter.