Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: Wall Street Journal

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan. The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems. <snip>

Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems. The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

[tomm2thumbs]

1. I hope Wall Street Journal is acceptable news source

I don't know if there are any left

[Mohammed_Lee]

3. right wing trash n/t

[DemMomma4Sanders]

4. How is this Right Wing......Are you trying to say that any evidnce that Hillary is corrupt is a

right wing conspiracy?

Last I knew facts were facts and neutral.

This isn't some Vince Foster bs, its Cold Hard Facts......

[MFM008]

7. Intent?

And let's wait for the experts to sort through it and this does not show corruption.
Also WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so "facts" are questionable.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

15. It absolutely shows corruption, not on a scale of the clinton foundations foreign donations from

Saudi Arabia while she was working on weapons contracts with them...but it definitely shows corruption.

Its evidence that Hillary doesn't think she needs to play by the rules, her attempted deletion of the emails shows that she is for transparency for everyone but herself.

[Darb]

123. Yeah, Saudi Arabia never got a weapons deal before Hillary.

You're statement is ridiculous beyond belief and not worthy of the DU. It would look right at home at FR though.

[swhisper1]

194. they didnt need a deal, we had a base therebefore Obama pulled out of Iraq and Saudis

kicked us out

[SusanLarson]

50. Rebut it.

The rebut the facts, find other facts that directly contradict what they show, if you can't it's probably accurate. It's called doing your own investigation, instead of simply dismissing any inconvenient facts. Or are you used to having your taking points spoon fed to you.

[beastie boy]

85. Easy.

"Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system"

That's the subhead of the article. What you call facts is vaguely worded messages. Not even a Murdoch rag can manage to spin enough lipstick on this pig.

[SusanLarson]

115. Try again

Your rebuttal lacked any factual basis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Says you.

[beastie boy]

150. Are you serious?

My rebuttal contains direct quotes from the article. I am rebutting the header of the article, "Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes" with the subsequent content of the article that shows there was no mention of drones, or CIA, or drone targets in the aforementioned emails. Unless you maintain that the article itself has no factual basis, my rebuttal is extremely well based.

And if the article is a lie, your objections should be directed towards the OP.

[midnight]

92. Rupert Murdoch leaves lots to be questioned for sure.

"In July 2009 The Guardian, a newspaper owned by Guardian Media Group reported that News Group Newspapers paid in excess of £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal News Group journalists' use on repeated occasions of illegal methods in the pursuit of stories.[4] It has been alleged that News Group staff, including Clive Goodman, illegally accessed voicemail for the mobile phones of thousands of public figures, including politicians and celebrities.[4] Goodman was jailed in 2007 for tapping the mobile phones of three members of the royal staff; this is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It was stated by News International at the time that Goodman had acted without their knowledge, and that no other journalists made use of such methods.

The evidence uncovered by The Guardian apparently shows that many more figures were in fact the subject of phone-taps, including Nigella Lawson, Lenny Henry, Gwyneth Paltrow, John Prescott, Boris Johnson and Tessa Jowell. In 2008, the News of the World paid in excess of £400,000 in damages to Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, who was suing the newspaper for its involvement in the illegal interception of messages to his mobile phone. According to The Guardian, this payment, made in exchange for Taylor's silence 'prevented the public from knowing anything about the hundreds of pages of evidence which had been disclosed in Taylor's case.'[5]

In contrast to News International's earlier denials of knowledge, The Guardian cites suppressed evidence revealing that News of the World's editorial staff were involved with private investigators who engaged in illegal phone-hacking, and that both reporters and executives were commissioning purchases of confidential information; this is illegal unless it is shown to be in the public interest. Apparently, these activities were well-known within the News of the World, being "openly paid for by the accounts department with invoices which itemised illegal acts".[5] The paperwork is alleged to show that the above occurred during the tenure of Andy Coulson, who was chief press advisor to David Cameron, leader of the UK's Conservative Party,[5] until his resignation on 21 January 2011.[6]

On 4 July, The Guardian reported that a private investigator at the News of the World had hacked into the phone of the murdered teenager Amanda Dowler, causing both her parents and police investigating her murder to wrongly believe she was still alive. This occurred during the period that Rebekah Brooks (née Wade) was editor."


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

[Mohammed_Lee]

10. I prefer to filter out the "facts" that don't suit me at the moment, its less stressful....n/t

[avaistheone1]

28. Perfect.

LOL. I think you will be in great demand in the upcoming administration.

[WhiteTara]

53. Rupert Murdock own the WSJ

and his intentions as a republican are to make sure Hillary is seen in a terrible light.

[OnyxCollie]

119. Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is on the News Corp Board of Directors.

But he's just the kind of guy that Bill Clinton hits up for cash to set up Haitian sweatshops.

[2cannan]

120. Then why did Murdoch hold a fundraiser for her then?

And note, the source is CBS News.

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/

To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

[beastie boy]

82. The facts are included in the subhead of the article:

"Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system"

Looks exactly like Vince Foster bs. Spin and innuendo.

[George II]

166. For the record there is NO evidence that Hillary is corrupt.

[rhett o rick]

167. Her and Bill have accepted $150,000,000 from special interests for their

personal fortune plus untold millions for their Retirement Foundation.

[George II]

168. Sure..............

[libdem4life]

203. No? Do tell. Within the next few minutes, preferably.

Knee jerk closed loop tape responses...so clever...so irrelevant.

[swhisper1]

195. She lost a court battle on that issue and paid the fine without objection

[George II]

200. What "issue"?

[840high]

54. How predictable of you.

[libdem4life]

202. Three weeks...three words...three minutes.

[scscholar]

70. And, the timing is very suspicious (ntxt)

[SouthernDemLinda]

84. The FBI’s investigation has been going on for a year.

Excerpts From:

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2016/04/11/clinton-email-fbi-investigationAn

On Point

Update On The Clinton Email Investigation

The FBI’s investigation has been going on for a year. Sooner or later, something will drop – possibly right in the middle of convention time or even voting.

Los Angeles Times: Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom — "Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases. Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries."

The Wall Street Journal: A Vast Email Conspiracy — " In recent weeks, not one, but two, esteemed federal judges have granted an outside group—Judicial Watch—the right to conduct discovery into the origins and handling of her private email system. It’s a reminder that Mrs. Clinton’s biggest problem this election isn’t Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Her problem is a 1966 statute known as the Freedom of Information Act, and the judges who enforce it."

[scscholar]

113. You should stop using Microsoft products

They don't handle character sets very well.

[libdem4life]

204. Huh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. Clap harder.

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

[libdem4life]

206. How about clapping for just some good, old fashioned truth.

There is one person who can get this straight without embroiling the entire country. Wonder who that could be. Fess up and let go the desperate stranglehold on secrecy. Even the optics are devastating.

It's not about Bernie supporters...sorry to burst your bubble. All she has to do is just come clean. Then she can play the victim role and still get elected. I'd be standing in line...not for the victim, but for the honest candidate.

ETA: "It was a stupid mistake" would be a good start.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

2. So basically they were classified.

Not to mention them being evidence of a war crime.

[beastie boy]

87. Basically you don't know that.

Neither does WSJ:

"Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system"

All they (or you, after reading their article) know is there were some vaguely worded messages involved.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

89. Drone targets would be classified....Obviously!

[beastie boy]

91. "Vaguely worded" emails do not amount to drone strikes, do they?

[DemMomma4Sanders]

93. The emails contained information on drone targets....Classified.

Vaguely wording things doesn't mean the law wasn't broken, it just means someone was trying to get around the law potentially hurting national security in the process.

[beastie boy]

96. And the article clearly identifies references to drone targets, right?

The emails, which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the militant targets, were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the Journal.

Very clear and indisputable information on drone targets, ain't it?

[ancianita]

171. Classified info floats all over everyday. 1.4 million of us have TOP security clearance out of

5 million of the rest of Americans who only have various under-levels of security clearances.

Kill list communications cut across agencies on a regular basis. Every week, 100 members of the national security apparatus look at it together, with Brennan advising Obama, who makes any final, "institutionally validated" decision.

You'd think that where even top secret classifieds get routed that techies should be more closely monitoring the participants send and end point addresses, not just wait until one presidential candidate. Remember, Hillary was retired for over a year and during that time, nothing at all came up from any agency.

The president's private military and intelligence agency came more directly under State Department and "diplomatic cover" under the Defense Clandestine Service formed in 2012, in which a clandestine corps of 1600 "collectors" would work as diplomats, who knew nothing about diplomacy.

Of course none of us knew about any of that then. Most of us don't now.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. the fact that this was reported right after Obama endorsed Hillary is strange

I'm guessing Obama truthfully has little idea of what the investigation involves, but someone behind the scenes thought it was a good time to release the info and try and smear the Obama Presidency at the same time as aiming for Clinton - two-birds with one stone

[-none]

13. The start of the real, actual, damaging drip, drip, drip...

We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[grasswire]

27. agreed.....it's the beginning of the leaks that we were told would happen...

....if the FBI felt that their work and the rule of law were being disrespected.

Soon to be a flood.

Which is why Bernie needs to stay in the race.

[SouthernDemLinda]

101. It's deja vu all over again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-just-failing-tell-Obama

DailyMail

Investigation into Hillary's email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 years in jail as FBI agent says she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama
Federal law makes it a crime for security clearance holders to fail to tell superiors when 'gross negligence' causes a security breach
FBI agent tells DailyMail.com about Hillary Clinton: 'The secretary's superior is the President of the United States'

'So unless he were aware of what she was doing when she was doing it, it seems there could be a legal problem [for her]'

Obama was asked Sunday on '60 Minutes' if he knew at the time that Clinton was running a home-brew email server; he replied, 'No'
More on Hillary Clinton's email scandal at

www.dailymail.co.uk/hillary

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

From myself:

When Republican President Richard Nixon was running for reelection the Watergate scandal was going on. However, nobody paid any attention to it because only the Washington Post kept reporting on the story and most of the other papers did not.

All the President's Men is a 1974 non-fiction book by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, two of The Washington Post journalists investigating the Watergate break-in.

[humbled_opinion]

83. Exactly maybe they were

just waiting for primaries to be over so as not to influence, but I seriously don't get that rationale. I would have liked to know all this earlier on, I have no doubt that when we finally know all, many will be kicking themselves knowing that had that information been put our sooner, Bernie would surely have been the nominee..

[beastie boy]

95. No news combined with old news to keep Hillary in the news.

An old and tired right wing trick. And they keep doing this because some people keep falling for it.

[-none]

125. Is the information correct or not?

That needs to be the real question. The leaks are going to happen regardless.
Is it swift boating with propaganda, or are the leaks truth and facts? Hillary herself does not have a very good reputation for sticking with the truth.

[beastie boy]

145. The information is absolutely correct.

Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system. True.

The emails did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the militant targets. True.

The rest is shameless spin only a devout right winger could take seriously.

[ozone_man]

24. Seems that way.

Certainly the State department has been guilty of obstruction in this case, and Obama by association. It is just one more issue I have with Obama, and one of countless issues I have with Clinton corruption and sleaze.

[laserhaas]

51. I find it queer..also. One would think Obama endorsement

Meant it was all over.


Maybe FBI Director said he was going pu lic

And the WH beat him to the punch

[Duval]

59. Maybe not to smear the Presidency, but to make a "heads up" regarding Clinton.

There is another party, which I cannot mention, whose head had many interesting things to say about this Presidential election.

[Reter]

65. Are you saying the FBI doesn't even tell the President?

Hard to believe he wouldn't be told.

[gordianot]

76. It is those independent career professionals at Justice.

The same ones who are trying to do a job without influence of political considerations and the timelines of an election. Besides that no one important has asked.

[Trust Buster]

6. The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same man who owns FOX, Ruppert Murdoch.

Why do you continue to use Right wing media sources to attack our nominee ? Are you a Democrat ?

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Yup. This guy

[Trust Buster]

12. That's o.k. Time is our friend. June 16 is fast approaching.

[grasswire]

30. do you think that just because DU goes dark, the problem for HRC..

...goes away?

Do you really think that just because you avoid it, it doesn't happen?

[Trust Buster]

33. Dark ? DU is a community that supports Democratic causes. Hillary is our nominee and, therefore,

this community's cause.

[grasswire]

35. but you want legitimate news to be censored here.

Because it hurts fee fees or something.

[Trust Buster]

39. You only wish to bash our nominee because your candidate did not win. You are fooling only

yourself. It's time to support our nominee and end the political attacks. This behavior will only serve to help Trump at this point.

[840high]

57. Trump has all this by now.

[Trust Buster]

61. Trump is not the one pushing this stuff on DU. Did I really have to point the obvious out ?

[Duval]

62. grassfire makes a very good point.

Think about it before you discount what she's saying.

[beastie boy]

90. Hardly legitimate.

For god's sake, you don't have to go any further than the subheader of the article!

What part of "Some vaguely worded messages" makes their insinuation of wrongdoing legitimate?

[swhisper1]

196. she is not the nominee yet my friend

[SouthernDemLinda]

108. That story has been in many other papers

I guess after June 16 you'll have to get a new picture since Abe was a REPUBLICAN.

That story has been in many other papers. I've posted some of them on this thread.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

17. Hahahahahahaha....actually that is scary, not funny.

Pic was taken around the same time she was railing against gay marriage.


Hillary Clinton Admitting She is AGAINST Gay Marriage and FOR Iraq War

[Trust Buster]

21. Your behavior is counter productive to the Democratic cause.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

22. Oh jeesh....counterproductive. Are you saying i should be happy to see her buddy buddying up with

Murdoch?

[Trust Buster]

23. The nomination has been decided. It's not about you. It's about our nominee. Time to grow up.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

26. Growing up led to something novel in me.....guess what that was?

A mind of my own, and the ability to spot BS.

Mostly I don't think Hillary has a chance against Trump.

Most of whats said about trump is based on what we think he might do. On the other hand criticism of Hillary is based on what she has done. Which do you think people will be more persuaded by?

[Trust Buster]

29. There's that "me, me, me" again. DU is a "community" that supports Democratic causes.

Hillary is our nominee and, therefore, our most pressing Democratic cause. There is no "me" in "community". Come June 16, this will become more clear to you.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

38. As far as I can tell Bernie has more support on this site now.

soooooo if its a member based community wouldn't it be standing by him?

[Trust Buster]

41. No, he did not win the nomination. The Democratic voters chose Hillary to represent our cause.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

42. Oh so now its not a community, it takes its dictate from the DNC no matter how its membership feels?

You're flip flopping now.

[Trust Buster]

43. You'll have to find someone else to carry on this nonproductive back and forth.

I'm moving forward with Hillary. Find peace my friend.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

45. I'm good. Actually great...because one thing everyone learned from this cycle

is that dinosaur politicians don't stand a chance once the Babyboomers move onto greener pastures.

The future of governement is filled with people like Bernie Sanders.

[Trust Buster]

46. I sincerely hope you get over your bitterness. God speed. Good bye.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

47. Why would i get over my "bitterness" until I'm treated more fairly by politicians who eat my tax

dollars?

This "just take it and like it" schtick your selling isn't exactly going to get Hillary any votes.

NO WE CAN'T......needs to become ITS OUR DUTY

[840high]

60. .+1

[Duval]

66. That is what my husband said during dinner. I agree.

[swhisper1]

197. not yet- are you feeling the SGs slipping into doubt yet,

[grasswire]

31. It isn't decided until the convention votes. nt

[Trust Buster]

36. No, it's been decided. That's why the President, Senator Warren and Governor O'malley officially

endorsed Hillary today. Technical game playing will not alter that reality. Time to grow up.

[Duval]

64. She is the presumptive nominee.

It isn't over, Trust Buster.

[tomm2thumbs]

73. if she was the nominee, there would be no superdelegates, no convention, no reason for any of it

I'm starting to wonder if Republicans in positions of higher govt think the time is now ripe, after the President tied himself to Clinton, to so disable Clinton as to make her appear unusable as a candidate ahead of the Democratic Convention. Basically they do all the damage up front before anyone is ready to start debating, interviews, etc AND before V.P. choices start to take the weight off the main candidate.

Frankly, I could see Trump say I'm not going to debate Clinton onstage because *whatever useless reason falls into his head*, and keep the 'debate' running forward in the media instead. In his realm.

[Duval]

159. I could see Trump doing that!

[840high]

58. Your behavior is undemocratic.

The democrats I know like facts and truth.

[Trust Buster]

68. The Democrats I know outnumber the Deocrats that you know. And that's why Hillary is our nominee

and not Sanders. Did I really need to point that out to you ?

[840high]

77. What does Sanders have to

do with this? Perhaps I know true democrats that want what's best for our party and country. 'nite

[SouthernDemLinda]

110. You are the problem!

No, your's is. Freedom of Speech is one of our most important rights.

[harun]

133. +1

[tomm2thumbs]

11. great questions

1. Reuters is reporting it as well
2. yes

[Duval]

69. Ooops So, it's beginning. nt

[rhett o rick]

16. So it should be easy to refute what the article said. Wait, no let's attack the source.

Ad hominem.

[laserhaas]

52. You're not use to that yet?

See my avatar

[glowing]

19. Really, Wall St Journal has been used as a source

for years on this site. Yes, it is owned by Murdoch, so you do have to take into account there may be ulterior motives involved... However, if the story they printed was factually incorrect substance, why is it "anti-democratic".

Are we really going to turn full "puke" in the Democratic Party and say, "you are either with us, or against us". Clinton supporters have seriously been sounding like Bush Republican supporters for way too long. It's really uncomfortable the way conversation is trying to be stifled, group think is seen as "positive", and any story that isn't a glowing positive report is "anti-Democratic and you will personally be attacked.

Doesn't anyone remember the Bush years; especially in regards to the stolen elections and the 9/11 attacks? When anyone stood up against them, they were personally attacked. Valerie Plame was outed by Cheney because her husband wrote an Op-Ed report in the Washinton Post saying that Iraw didn't have any sort of nuclear development program because he was part of Intel gathering during that time period.

I really hope that Dems aren't becoming Republicans!!!

[annavictorious]

9. You forgot this part:

"Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system".

And you forgot to mention that it was an unnamed source who concluded that the "vaguely worded emails" were probably referencing upcoming drone strikes.

I wonder why a conservative, 1%-friendly publication like the Wall Street Journal is writing negative stories about Hillary Clinton? Aren't they supposed to like her?

[grasswire]

32. maybe because someone in the FBI leaked to the WSJ?

[beastie boy]

97. Or maybe not

[videohead5]

14. News Articles

About drone strikes in Pakistan are classified because the Us government has never officially said we use them in Pakistan.those e-mails did not originate from Hillary and it is well known that state.gov has been hacked numerous times.no proof exist that Hillary's server was ever hacked.

[rhett o rick]

20. What you are doing is called making a Strawman then tearing it down. No one accused or said Hillary

originated the emails. The fact that state.gov being hacked doesn't have any thing to do with what is presented by the article. The article mentioned,

" Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems."

That is what you need to address.

[beastie boy]

99. The article also mentioned

The emails, which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the militant targets

https://www.yahoo.com/news/emails-clinton-probe-dealt-planned-drone-strikes-wsj-012022840.html?ref=gs

Maybe, just maybe, we should address this?

[Matt_R]

182. Elvis never did no drugs. n/t

[beastie boy]

183. No evidence he did in this WSJ article.

In fact, I don't believe they mentioned Elvis once.

[Matt_R]

189. Your article link also does not have merit in this discussion.

[beastie boy]

201. LOL! My link refers to exactly the same article as the OP!

Now go tell the OP that the article referred to in the OP has no merit in the thread started by the OP!

[Matt_R]

207. OK, your quoted words don't say the same the OP was trying to say.

Better now????

[beastie boy]

208. No shit!.. Yes, I added a quote from the article that the OP neglected to include.

[Matt_R]

209. Still dont see how yahoo.com = wsj.com

[beastie boy]

210. Yahoo.com is reprinting the WSJ article and giving WSJ full credit for it.

It's right there, in the first paragraph:

Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

and further down in the text.

[Laser102]

18. So they were unclassified as per a secret arrangement with the State Department and the CIA

to send classified information. How stupid is that. Was she told? Doubtful. This whole article is either a lie, or our government with its keystone cops is pathetic. Again, how stupid is this?

[geek tragedy]

25. "sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters"

so communications from a system for UNCLASSIFIED material is the nub here?

according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe

Congressional sources. I.e. Trey Gowdey

[grasswire]

34. No.

She forwarded those communications on her private unsecured server to staffers.

[leveymg]

130. That's an important point. She didn't just receive classified info on an unsecure server, she also

forwarded it.

Here's why: she refused to touch a keyboard. She never directly accessessed the Secure SIPR.

She was totally reliant on her Blackberry for all messaging. Staffers had to print out messages for her and take instructions over her unsecure private system.

[Jarqui]

37. Oh dear! Another shooting of the media messengers ...

Hillary had one email account as Secretary of State for four years.

And we're to attack the folks who wonder about a Secretary of State stupid enough to have an unsecure, unapproved email server at home, who maintains as Secretary of State that she nor her staff that used her home server never sent nor received a single email in those four years that had classified material in it, including her emails with the President. But over 2,000 of those same emails were retroactively classified by the Intelligence Community up to six years after they were sent. And none of those 2,000+ emails had material regarded as classified before last summer!! And she's never explained all the work related emails they've found since in other places - not on her server.

Ignoring the poor entertainment value for kids, that BS is approaching Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale levels of extreme fantasy and you're going after the media who effectively question the reality of the claim? I accept that the media has been horrific lately but this is becoming a wild stretch for even the most fervent of imaginations.

Facing facts: as supported recently by the Inspector General of the State Department's report, Hillary has been lying her head off about this since her first press conference on this in Match, 2015. There's plenty of good Youtube videos that exposes her BS from back then and since.

This is not the fault of the media. Hillary is completely responsible.

[videohead5]

48. State.gov

Is not secured for classified information either.you probably don't know that Hillary used a secured way to transmit known classified information which she did.state.gov was only for day to day mail.the FBI looks at a state.gov account the same way as her server...a non-secured system.

[840high]

71. One sign of maturity is making

good decisions and accepting responsibility. She has not shwn maturity.

[beastie boy]

100. Responsible for "vaguely stated" emails which "did not mention "CIA," "drones" or details about

drone targets"?

Mmmm-kay!

[SCantiGOP]

40. Thanks so much for this

Really helps to keep up with the WSJ.

[jzodda]

44. Timing is Interesting: Also its bullcrap

First off don't you find this timing interesting? They could have been holding it for this day to take the steam away from the President's endorsement. Its the wall street journal, owned by Murdoch, and at least part of that rag is hostile to HRC. Or it could have been leaked today by somebody inside the government who dislikes HRC.

Personally I don't think it will have any effect at all. First off on other side is Trump and his crap keeps the media way to busy to focus on the emails.

But looking at the issue we know that the State Department and HRC has been having fights over classification and especially retroactive classification for years. Some of those emails were not top secret when she got them but made so after the fact. She has had a problem with this before the emails were ever a public matter.

If the investigation is focused on drone strikes then by definition the nonsense that fox news is peddling about CIA agents being put in jeopardy by her private server is a flat out lie.

[2cannan]

121. The operative words in your post are "Some of those emails were not top secret when she got them but

made so after the fact. That means that some of them were top secret. Then there's this:

July 24, 2015: Many of Clinton's emails contained classified information when they were sent, not just retroactively. Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick issue a joint statement about their inquiry into Clinton's emails. The statement says that out of a random sample of 40 of Clinton's emails, Linick found four emails containing information that should have been classified at the time they were sent. "These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to [Intelligence Community] classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system." (US Department of State, 7/24/2015) One email will later be declassified by the State Department, and the department will dispute the classification of another one. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5#entry072415notretroactive

January 14, 2016: Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough states that some of Clinton's private emails contained information that was classified above "top secret." He asserts in a letter to Congress that an unnamed intelligence agency has made a sworn declaration that "several dozen emails [had been] determined by the [Intelligence Community] element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels." "SAP" stands for "special access program," and The New York Times says that they are "often intelligence-gathering programs and other secret programs run by the Pentagon and the CIA that are among the government's most closely guarded secrets." Other intelligence officials say that the several dozen emails do not include two emails classified top secret taken from a random sample of 40 of Clinton's emails. (The New York Times, 1/19/2016) (NBC News, 1/19/2016) It will later be reported that 22 of Clinton's emails were deemed "top secret," including one from the random sample of 40 emails, with many more classified "secret" or "confidential."

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_6#entry011516abovetopsecret

[jzodda]

122. Again State disagreed with the classification

So they communicate on any issue, for example, drone strikes and a NY times article about the program. They don't think it's classified and later another agency makes them classified..State disagrees on that classification..

So we are going to indict somebody when they did not agree on the classification which was done after the fact? If another agency classifies something retro actively then how can there be any criminal intent? That's nuts!

Also there is something even more important and that's intent. If you didn't intend to improperly disseminate classified material and don't even Agee with the classification?

Intent is huge in these types of cases. It's what got Petraeus in trouble. He was in far more trouble for his intent!

There will be no indictment here when we at its base have a disagreement over classifaction between agencies.

[2cannan]

147. This is what Factcheck.org said the State Dept. report said about classified emails on Clinton's

server (I don't have time to go search through the State Dept. report):

Partisan Spin on Clinton’s Emails
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/partisan-spin-on-clintons-emails/

snip

The State Department has said that many of her emails contained classified information — including some emails that were higher than “top secret” — although none was marked classified at the time the emails were sent and received. Some personal emails sent to Powell and aides to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also contained information that retroactively has been classified as “confidential” or “secret.”

And please don't say they weren't marked "classified" so that doesn't count. She was the SoS, and was supposedly trained to distinguish between classified and non-classified info, and there is such a thing as "born classified" material which is info from heads of state, her counterparts in other countries, and intelligence officers which she as SoS would have routinely received plus she herself would have created. Info doesn't have to have the word "classified" written on it to be classified info.

[jzodda]

149. What exactly are we talking about here?

Without INTENT there won't be any indictment.

The FBI is not going to wade into the weeds of disagreements between agencies as much as you may want to.

You can't just create criminal intent from nothing. You have to have.....wait for it....

INTENT

-and.....I just read that article again, which I have read before and again while critical there is no mention of any criminal intent in that report or any other.

For a criminal case based on this, like with Petraeus, there must be intent to disseminate classified material and from everything I have read there was none, zero.

[arikara]

160. He didn't intend to rob the bank

It just happened.

[jzodda]

164. False Equivalence

The incidents are not even close.

How about more like He didn't intend to get the parking ticket it just happened.

[PufPuf23]

49. This all will come to naught. eom

[videohead5]

55. Hillary Used a Secured System

Some of you seems to think Hillary used her server for both regular e-mail and classified e-mail.that is wrong.whether she used a state.gov account or her server.she still had to use a secure way to transmit known classified information which she did.if she really did not care that classified information got on her server something would have shown up with classified markings on it.nothing has.

[840high]

72. She did not.

[cstanleytech]

75. Not from a lack of asking apparently

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/

I cant figure out though why the NSA didnt arrange something because you would think that they would make arrangements to ensure that everyone at her level of office would have secure secure communications in order to do their job like they did for the President.

[videohead5]

88. She Did

She did use a secured way to transmit known classified information whether you want to believe or not.

[NWCorona]

111. What way was that?

[videohead5]

112. Secured Fax

And other ways that were encrypted for classified information.state.gov was not secured for classified information either.

[leveymg]

136. There are 3 systems: DOS NIPR email, Secure SIPR (to Secret), and Interagency JWICS (to TS/SAP)

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:31 AM - Edit history (2)

While the Secretary was cleared to use all three, she refused to use computers, so she didn't have a SCIF with a terminal in her private residence as most senior officials do, and she pointedly refused the secure DOS smart phone offered to her on day one.

When NSA refused to give her a half dozen clones of the President's phone in late January, 2009, she consulted her lawyer, and had her Blackberry connected to the uncertified Clintonemail.com server set up in her basement. That left her totally reliant on her unsecure Blackberry to issue instructions and receive information, which required this crazy high side-low side work-around by State to contact her. Unfortunately, her held-held remained connected to her private server, which remained unsecure for the rest of her term in office. She was aware that the server and the phone were unsecure, but carried out classified communications across it, anyway.

That was what the Espionage Act terms "gross negligence," which means she violate 18 USC Sec. 793(f), a felony.

[videohead5]

161. So You Are Saying

She never used any secured way to transmit classified information?...I think you are wrong.

[leveymg]

193. No. Saying that after-hours, she knowingly used only a nonsecure private system to send messages to

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (5)

aides who then transmitted information across official systems. She could ordinarily receive secure faxes, but these faxes had to be downloaded off the other secure systems as hard copies and sent to her by someone in her office with access to the SCIF -- or when the secure fax system was not working.

Without her personal willingness to use the keyboard secure systems, she and her DOS staff had to use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintone email system to communicate. The problems with that are obvious, if she was to communicate on classified subjects. Other high officials didn't have this problem because they were willing and able to use the official secure system, and had them installed in SCIFs in their private residences.

I do not understand why she used her Blackberry when at home for DOS calls. There are secure phone systems that can be used anywhere you can plug in a phone jack (Secure Terminal Equipment) (STE)(see below), off of which one can operate secure faxes, video conferencing, as well as a variety of secure cell phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Terminal_Equipment

Data - The Data STE provides remote access for voice, fax, data and video-conferencing. This model has two serial EIA-530A/EIA-232 BDI ports and allows for data transfers to multiple destinations.

Yet, she insisted on using her Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for messaging such as the joint CIA/DOS Drone targeting communications. She must have been totally insane.

[leveymg]

198. More about secure faxes and approved phones from DoD infosec manual

Department of Defense
MANUAL
NUMBER 5200.01, Volume 3
February 24, 2012
Incorporating Change 2, March 19, 2013
USD(I)
SUBJECT: DoD Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information

page 61

b. Facsimile (Fax) Transmission. Only secure facsimile equipment shall be used for facsimile transmission of classified information. The following procedures shall be followed:
(1) The individual transmitting the information shall ensure the recipient has the appropriate clearance and a need to know, and that the secure connection is at the appropriate level of classification for the information being transmitted.
(2) Header or cover sheets used to precede the transmission of classified material shall be conspicuously marked with the highest security classification of the transmitted information and any required control markings. The cover sheet shall also include the originator’s name, organization, phone number, an unclassified title, the number of pages, and the receiver’s name, organization and phone number. When the cover sheet contains no classified information, it shall also note “Unclassified When Classified Attachment(s) Removed.”
(3) Documents transmitted by fax shall have all markings required for a finished document, and shall be controlled and safeguarded by the recipient accordingly.
c. Telephone. Only approved secure telephones, including cell phones and phones integral to personal electronic devices, authorized by the Director, NSA pursuant to paragraph 3.b of this enclosure, may used for telephonic transmission of classified information. Users must ensure the secure connection is at the appropriate level of classification for the information being discussed.

[videohead5]

213. Never Heard

Where is proof she talked about classified information over her Blackberry?..this is the first time I have heard this unless it's just speculation by you?

[840high]

86. .....

Why Did Hillary Clinton Need a Private Server? The Answer Makes ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../why-did-hillary-clinton...
The Huffington Post
Mar 7, 2016 - Thankfully, Democrats have one person named Bernie Sanders who can type, and save an email, using government networks and without an FBI investigation. As the only Secretary of State never to use an @state.gov email address, Hillary Clinton is also the only Secretary of State to use a private server exclusively.

[videohead5]

94. Wrong

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn’t have any emails to turn over to the State Department.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870#ixzz4B8uN1BAG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[leveymg]

132. No. She refused to touch a keyboard. She never directly accessessed the Secure SIPR.

She was totally reliant on her Blackberry for all messaging. Staffers had to print out messages for her and take instructions over her unsecure private system.

[videohead5]

178. From Hillary's E-mails

Abedin, Huma <[e-mail]> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 1:54 PM To: H Subject Secure fax
In approx 5 minutes, there is a secure fax coming with the following:
1. Action memo that proposes a call to Gates 2. Memo from Sec. Napolitano 3. Note from Ellen Tauscher 4. Memo from both Consular Affairs and Holbrooke

[leveymg]

181. Correction: she was dependent on aides to send and to receive.

She couldn't directly access the secure systems to send and had to have aides take documents off the systems and secure fax them to her.

[videohead5]

185. I Know

She said she was not good with technology.

[leveymg]

188. The work around they came up with was illegal.

Under the peculiar reasoning of Section 793(f) and (g) that made them all complicitous in a felony. That collective act of gross negligence, if a willful and knowing violation, amounts to a conspiracy under Sec (g). But, that's harder to prove so they should settle for a felony charge under (f) that requires a showing of mere gross negligence, which fits this mess.

[videohead5]

179. And Another

Yes.
Original Message From: H <[e-mail]> To: Abedin, Huma Sent: Sat Sep 12 08:19:08 2009 Subject: Re:
Yes. Can they be faxed secure?
Original Message From: Abedin, Huma <[e-mail]> To: H Sent: Sat Sep 12 08:18:16 2009 Subject: Fw:
I'm sending to you this morning as well fyi.
Original Message From: Verma, Richard R To: Sullivan, Jacob .1; Abedin, Huma; Mills, Cheryl D Sent: Sat Sep 12 06:16:16 2009 Subject:
I was given a draft copy of the af/pak metrics late yesterday These would be the ones provided/briefed to B5 congress as early as this week. Assume she would want to see before other meetings this weekend. I can get them to ops if that's the best way to handle. Portions are classified.

[leveymg]

205. "These would be the ones provided/briefed B5" "Can they be secure faxed?" "Portions are classified"

B5 - CIA or other intelligence agency officer
Secure faxed - If she had a secure fax, she also had a secure land-line phone terminal. Why didn't she use it? (See below)
Portions are classified - speaks for itself.

Why was she using her private Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for the drone calls if she could have had a secure phone terminal to run the secure fax we know she had?

We are being told that without her personal willingness to use the keyboard secure systems, she and her DOS staff had to use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintone email system to communicate. The problems with that are obvious, if she was to communicate on classified subjects. Other high officials didn't have this problem because they were willing and able to use the official secure system, and had them installed in SCIFs in their private residences.

However, even without a scif, she could have used a secure land-line phone (STE) to make those calls instead of using her Blackberry/server.

I do not understand why she used her Blackberry when at home for DOS calls. There are secure phone systems that can be used anywhere you can plug in a phone jack (Secure Terminal Equipment) (STE)(see below), off of which one can operate secure faxes, video conferencing, as well as a variety of secure cell phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Terminal_Equipment

Data - The Data STE provides remote access for voice, fax, data and video-conferencing. This model has two serial EIA-530A/EIA-232 BDI ports and allows for data transfers to multiple destinations.

Yet, she insisted on using her Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for messaging such as the joint CIA/DOS Drone targeting communications. She must have been totally insane. Something doesn't add up here.

[videohead5]

212. The E-mails About Drones

Were forwarded to her and were already on a non-secure system.they did not originate from her.

[Fla Dem]

175. You didn't provide a link to your claim. I googled and only link was Fox news and a few RW Bloggers.

Not taking Faux News word that a "c" in the margin designates a memo as confidential. And the email was about a condolence call. Ohhh that sure is a state secret.

[videohead5]

177. What Right Wing Website?

Did you get this from?..I read the e-mail.that C could have meant anything.it was sent from a unclassified system state.gov which had been hacked.

[Gothmog]

56. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT. Your wait for an indictment may be a very long one.

Heck even Trump has given up an indictment

[videohead5]

63. The State Department

Says it's not classified and the CIA says it is.Hillary was only the head of the State Department not the CIA.no way she could have known what the CIA had classified.

[24601]

103. Except that the Secretary of State receives the PDB Monday - Saturday and at least 50% of that comes

from the CIA and has the appropriate classification markings. In the DC National Security Environment, it's primarily NSC, CIA, DNI, Defense (which includes NSA, NGA, DIA), State, FBI and to a lesser degree, Energy. When you are being briefed daily and reading the prerequisite materials for the PCs, you have to be a moron to not understand what things aren't classified. Mrs. Clinton is not a moron.

[videohead5]

106. It Depends

On what she was being briefed on.she would have been briefed on the latest classified information coming in.older classified information would have not came up.millions of documents are classified.if Hillary had not been briefed on the subject she would not have recognized it.the State Department has to go through data bases to figure out if something is classified or not.

[Laser102]

67. You know, I thought I had read that before! Thank you Gothmog. It wasn't a senior moment. LOL

[jzodda]

74. Yep bunch of bullcrap

Thanks for this link.....Its about the NY Times and a spat between two agencies.

There will never be an indictment over that.

[OKNancy]

118. I should have read the whole thread before posting

as I just posted the same thing without a link.

This is common knowledge among people who actually know what this story is about.

[senz]

78. Thanks for the information, tomm2thumbs.

[Mike Nelson]

79. The WSJ puts...

...a pretty new bow on the old story. They would find more "criminal" activity if they looked at Bush/Cheney era correspondence.

[humbled_opinion]

80. How can anyone say she has

good judgment ? it's not possible, she should never have opened herself up to this and risked so much. Also having her aides take information from the classified side copy it off and send it on to her personal email even though the information is not marked classified it is not the markings that made it classified, and she knew better or should have known better. This isn't going away and depending on what the FBI recommends will determine whether she can continue to be the Democratic nominee.

[videohead5]

98. Speculation

Where is there any proof she had anyone remove classified markings from any document?...you are just throwing up unfounded allegations.

[Deny and Shred]

129. Right here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/


Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."


Please link to where Clinton denies that this email is not genuine.

Thinking it is false is unfounded allegation on your part.

Thanks for trying to Correct The Record, though.

[videohead5]

163. Talking Points

It never happened the secured fax was sent and the State Department said just because it was transmitted secured fax does not mean it was classified.this was talking points.you can't use classified information in talking points.

[videohead5]

165. Big Nothing Burger

The document was sent by secured fax and was never e-mailed.the State Department said just because something is sent secured fax does not necessarily mean it was classified.they were talking points.she could not use classified information in talking points.

[beastie boy]

81. You didn't include the subhead of the article.

"Some vaguely worded messages from U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and Washington used a less-secure communications system".

What are the contents of these vaguely worded messages?

Do they amount to classified information?

Do they amount to "discussing strikes publicly" or "privately"?

Are any of these emails part of the 22 emails the article is referring to later as if they are connected?

...Spin, spin, spin, from the spinmeisters at the employ of Rupert's spin factory. The fact that this pile of manure is being picked up and given credence by anyone calling themselves "progressive" is absolutely shameful!

[BlueNoMatterWho]

102. If this is true, this will be a disaster for us.

[beastie boy]

104. It's all true!

"Vaguely worded messages" that "didn't mention CIA, drones or militant targets"!

We are all so screwed!

[Darb]

124. Nice concern you got there. Noted.

[leveymg]

105. Thank you for posting. This clarifies a lot.

She violated Sec 793 of the Espionage Act. Clear as day. A lot of denial by her acolytes but they really don't get it and probably never will.

[videohead5]

107. Intent

You would have to prove she was spying on the United States...Hillary was not a spy.

[leveymg]

126. You have to read the statutes to understand that intent is not a requirement for 18 USC 793(f).

"gross negligence" is. That's the applicable charge for officials who through extreme carelessness or disregard for normal classified information standards expose secrets and break the law without actually intending to hand information over to others and without the intent to unlawfully retain it. Sec. 793(f) is among the charges that the CIA Inspector General wanted to charge John Deutch with after he hooked up CIA laptops to his home Internet in 1996.

In the 2000 report that followed the violations of law by former Director John Deutch, the CIA Inspector General found that both statutes applied. Note the statement about the "gross negligence" standard applies under Sec. 793 (f), and how that differs from the explicit "intent to retain" requirement written into Sec. 1924: https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?

109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

[NJCher]

170. This has been sorely needed

There has been so much ignorance and confusion about it.

Cher

[beastie boy]

109. Yep. Transmiting "some emails" "which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about

the militant targets" to staffers over unsecured lines is a clear violation of... well, it's got to be a violation of something!

[videohead5]

114. The Emails Did not Originate From Hillary

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails:

“The latest allegations that Secretary Clinton’s emails include classified information lack the same key information as previous reports.

“First, the 22 emails the State Department has labeled classified are part of seven separate back-and-forth email chains, and none of those email chains originated with Secretary Clinton.

“It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else.

“And second, none of the emails sent to Secretary Clinton have the mandatory markings that are required when classified information is transmitted.

“The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didn’t originate with her is for political points, and that’s what we’ve seen over the past several months.

[Crepuscular]

134. The responsibility

is Secretary Clinton's because she was the one who decided to not use a secure government server to store classified emails, instead employing a private server that lacked adequate security, in violation of established state department regulations. Her decision to do so potentially exposed classified data to exposure by foreign governments.

[leveymg]

137. She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info.

NSA told her not to use her Blackberry, and when they refused to clone an Obama phone for her, she talked to to her lawyer and okayed the switchover from an ATT email to Clintonemail.com. That became manifestly illegal the moment the first classified message traversed the server, and that outcome was foreseeable by any reasonable person.

She even encouraged Blumenthal to "keep 'em coming" when he sent her information he identified as foreign government sourced, and forwarded them to others. Some of these messages were NSA and CIA sourced information illegally taken directly off the most highly classified Interagency System.

She was trained to recognize classified information, and knew she was supposed to report its mishandling or unauthorized transmission by others, but continued to continence repeated and systematic security breaches by others on her network. Sorry, that is a violation of felony law, 18 USC Sec. 793(f), to be precise.

[beastie boy]

140. Are we still talking about the OP?

[leveymg]

143. I am providing context.

The stuff that is already public record and reported by government sources and credible news organizations.

[beastie boy]

146. You need more than speculation to accuse someone of violating the law.

Unless you can tell me that you are privvy to ALL the details that are involved in Hillary's case and you are a legal expert on Title 18 of the US Code, forgive me for laughing my ass off at your context.

Sorry, I don't take accusations of treason that are based on media articles very seriously.

[Duval]

158. Thanks for clarifying. nt

[Crepuscular]

187. concur

Yep.....

[videohead5]

162. State.gov

Everyone is saying she should have used state.gov but it was also not secured for classified information.the 22 e-mails had already been on non-secured systems before they was ever forwarded to Hillary.state.gov has also been hacked numerous times and had to be shutdown in 2014 because of hackers.no proof exist the Hillary's server has ever been hacked.

[Crepuscular]

186. irrelevent

it matters not at all, the fact that state.gov may have been compromised has no bearing on the fact that Hillary decided to ignore state department policy and utilize a private server and by doing so may have exposed sensitive material to foreign powers, potentially breaking the law.

[videohead5]

190. She Will Not Be Indicted

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted —aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant. [Politico, 4/11/16]

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified systems, or otherwise misuse classified materials. That happened in two cases involving former CIA directors that are cited as parallels for the Clinton e-mail issue, but are quite different. John Deutch was pardoned in 2001 for using an unsecured CIA computer at his home to improperly access classified material; he reportedly had been prepared to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for “knowingly” removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at “unauthorized locations.” Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.

[Crepuscular]

192. ...

"Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified system"

Kind of like when her staff was having a hard time sending an email with classified content and she told them to strip the sensitive headings and send it in the clear from an unauthorized, illegal server.

She may or may not be indicted but if she is not, it's due to political influence, not the absence of illegal activity.

[videohead5]

211. That Did Not Happen

The secured fax was sent and they were talking points.she could not use classified information in talkings points anyway.the State Department said just because something was sent by secure fax did not necessarily mean it was classified...you have to show test cases and this does not meet any case for an indictment in the past.her server was not illegal.against policy but there was no law against it...political influence BS!...

baselessly claimed that "Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified e-mail attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings." In fact, national security experts say it is not illegal to separate unclassified material from classified documents and send it through unclassified channels, which is what Clinton has said she was asking Sullivan to do.

[Crepuscular]

214. Uh-huh.

We will see what the FBI has to say. The fact is that you and the so called "national security experts" have no idea whether any laws were broken, it's pure speculation to claim that what was done was simply against policy yet not illegal. But keep telling yourself that the shoe is never going to drop.

[videohead5]

215. Calling The Kettle Black

You are also speculating.

[leveymg]

128. These emails expose the USG decision-making process involved in targeted killings using drones

before they actually happened. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and even the Taliban had the capability to hack Clinton's unsecure server.

Under Secretary Clinton, the State Dept. became a routine part of the targeted killing decision. These emails discuss how the US decides to attack individuals and who to target, as well as discussing what is known about the responses from enemy groups and the Pakistani government and military, which also entails exposure of human intelligence sources. To expose this interagency decision-making process and associated methods and sources is an extremely grave compromise of information security.

[beastie boy]

139. These emails expose nothing other than WSJ spin.

Which part of " "some emails" "which did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the militant targets" didn't you get?

Other than what is stated above, it appears WDSJ has no clue what is in the emails. How can you claim with a straight face that the emails in question "exposethe USG decision making process involved in targeted killings using drones", when it's clear from the article that no drones or details about the militant tarhets are contained in the emails?

It's as if you are refusing to read the article, yet insisting on making baseless accusations.

Tell me you know better than do this.

[leveymg]

148. If the emails contained discussions among US officials about targeted kills, they're classified.

Period. It's manifestly obvious on its face. You don't think like someone who operates within classified environments, so that basic fact may not be obvious to you. Anything that reveals the decision-making process within classified, compartmentalized or SAP programs is classified, because it reveals sources and methods. It's born classified. Does not belong on nonsecure systems. Ever. That's the conclusion of the Inspector Generals of the Intelligence Community and State Department:

Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf.

(If pdf does not come up, go to statement posted at office of the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails )

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and the details of how she violated classified information laws is devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.

[beastie boy]

151. Once again, the emails in question DO NOT contain discussion about targeted kills.

After so many times I cited the pertinent part of the article, which part of "The emails... did not mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the militant targets" still escapes your attention?

The IG report you are referring to makes no mention of any "discussion among US officials about targeted kills". Furthermore, the report is very clear in its intent:

The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the governments possession.

A purely procedural review, not a legal opinion.

You are trying to take unconnected bits and pieces from unrelated sources and piece them together into a Frankenstein monster.

Not too convincing.

[leveymg]

153. Your statement is directly contrary to the following paragraph in the WSJ

The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Many of them "dealt with" . . . tells me two things. First, out of 22, that means an unspecified number, not all, dealt with this topic. That means there are other emails containing TS/SAP information.

Second, the phrase "dealt with" indicates the email contained information that reveals the process or results of decision-making about targeted killings. Since the emails remain classified, and we can't examine them -- and they are classified -- one must assume they are deemed classified for good cause. That's how the courts would view it. The courts always defer to the government and the fact information is classified proves that its mishandling, either by intent or by gross negligence or the failure to report that others that, is a violation of Sec. 793.

You should also accept the fact the information in these emails was classified and shouldn't have been transmitted over an unsecure server.

[beastie boy]

155. You are speculating. And your speculations are based on hearsay.

Hardly an auspicious start to an argument.

Furthermore, the emails referred to in your quote are not the emails referred to in the headline of the article. Two different instances which WSJ falsely insinuates are connected.

There is no question that any "revelations" contained in the emails referred to in the header are a steaming piece of horse manure. You are not even trying to dispute this. So I can only seriously address the other 22 emails that the State Department commented on in January. As I said before, the article refers to hearsay the right wing rag received from unnamed congressional and law enforcement officials. No indication which part comes from congressional officials and which comes from law enforcement officials, or how many officials provided the information, or how WSJ connected any or all of the above into the statement they eventually published. Moreover, even this awkward statement isn't clear what "dealt with" means. It is more likely than not that those "many" emails commented on unnamed diplomats' opinions on the wisdom of conducting drone strikes without being in any way specific. Saying that such comments are classified is just as ridiculous as saying that me or you commenting on drone strikes is classified.

Hardly factual, but a nice source of speculative gossip, which you have been promptly engaging in.

I don't care what parsed snippets from idle gossip tell you or indicate to you. You don't seem to exhibit any affinity for separating fact from hearsay.

In any event, Your opinions don't have legal standing, and therefore any of your statements, unsupported by facts as they are, are idle speculation. But I am repeating myself.

[leveymg]

156. I'm glad we've gotten past the "intent" issue, anyway.

As for speculation and hearsay, we're all operating off of news articles and fragments of information. But, I hope you agree, there are strong indicators that those officials who are in a position to, have found that there is a large body of classified information on her server, and the server is uncertified, and that it should never have been on there.

Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude, according to the plain-language of the statute, 793(f), SOMEBODY has violated one or more provisions of the Espionage Act, either by intent or by gross negligence. I look at the circumstantial evidence that is available, and assuming it is factual, I conclude that Hillary has by failing to report classified information that came to her from Blumenthal and other unauthorized persons, indeed, has failed her affirmative duty to report others under 793(f)(2).

I am not yet convinced that she's legally culpable under this Act for the drone-related information that transited sent by others in the State Dept. I can see, nonetheless, how a "gross negligence" case can be made against her under 793(f)(1) because of her willful refusal to use authorized, secure systems.

[beastie boy]

157. Far cry from your Post 105

She violated Sec 793 of the Espionage Act. Clear as day. A lot of denial by her acolytes but they really don't get it and probably never will.

Looks like an accusation of treason to me! But I am glad you changed your mind.

Don't know about you, but I am not operating off of fragments of information. I am patiently awaiting the results of various investigations. So far, five different congressional investigations into Hillary's server turned up bobkes. Doesn't bode well for those who are expecting an indictment out of the FBI investigation, but I am not jumping to any conclusions. I am just not screaming treason at the sight of every right wing pile of journalistic manure.

And just be aware that Hillary can discuss drone strikes in any open forum she wishes, just like any of us can, as long as the discussion does not contain classified information.

On edit: it might benefit you to check out this link, which was graciously provided by OKNancy:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1483467

[videohead5]

116. The Question is

When are we going to be indicted?...below is classified information..no joke...it is.


Law-enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information.

State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials. It happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast and the U.S. diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didn’t have ready access to a more-secure system, either because it was night or they were traveling.

Emails sent over the low side sometimes were informal discussions that occurred in addition to more-formal notifications through secure communications, the officials said.




One such exchange came just before Christmas in 2011, when the U.S. ambassador sent a short, cryptic note to his boss indicating a drone strike was planned. That sparked a back-and-forth among Mrs. Clinton’s senior advisers over the next few days, in which it was clear they were having the discussions in part because people were away from their offices for the holiday and didn’t have access to a classified computer, officials said.

The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.

The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

[OKNancy]

117. Yes, we already know this. These have been discussed before. They are the emails that were also

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

in the newspaper. Many officials laughed at the classification because they were discussing something that was already out in the press.

[OnDoutside]

127. Do you have any link to where that info was out first ? Thanks

[OKNancy]

131. posted in this thread

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1483467

[OnDoutside]

154. Thanks

[whistler162]

135. I think we can all agree

That given the scrutiny the SoS and the former President have been under since 1990 doing something that will draw the ire and investigations of all the nutjobs and normal people was stupid.

[leveymg]

138. At least.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. I wonder if this was cross posted at free republic.

[leveymg]

152. It's all part of a vast RW conspiracy. Hillary brought none of this on herself. Exonerated!

[Herman4747]

169. Doesn't surprise me. Nt

[oberliner]

184. Amazing how popular the right-wing sources are

As long as they publish negative information about Hillary.

Wall Street Journal?

[swhisper1]

199. this thread has decended into idiocy, lets close it down