CNN Report: Hillary Clinton Server CONTAINED Highly Classified Intel

[Segami]

Washington (CNN)The emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained classified intelligence from some of the U.S. intelligence community's most secretive programs, according to a new report. The Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III sent a letter to leaders on congressional intelligence committees last week detailing the findings from a review of Clinton's emails, a spokeswoman for the inspector general confirmed to CNN. Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are above "top secret" in classification level.


The inspector general review was first reported by Fox News. Clinton's spokesman, Brian Fallon, appeared on CNN Wednesday morning to dispute the report. He argued on "New Day" that the information described as "classified" may be no more than a news article that was forwarded, although he ceded it is not entirely clear what classified material the report mentions. Fallon argued that the crux of the issue is a dispute between the State Department and the intelligence community over what should be classified. He said the emails were not classified in the eyes of the State Department when they were sent to Clinton. Fallon also implied the inspector general has an ax to grind with Clinton.


There were "several dozen" emails in question, according to Fox News, beyond the two previously reported emails containing top secret information. Clinton's campaign and the State Department have denied that any information was handled improperly, saying that the information and emails in question were all retroactively classified. State also has noted that the same information can come from multiple sources, not all of which are classified. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the department is still undergoing its review process, but any upgraded classification that is needed will be done.


cont'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/

[zipplewrath]

1. Nuttin' really new here

This appears to be primarily sourced on a Fox News report and is recycling old arguments between State and the CIA about what is, and is not classified. In every case in which specifics have been reported, the problem was that she received information that was not marked classified, but now the CIA says it should have been marked as such. State doesn't agree. Anyone who works with classified information has lived through this problem first hand.

[TwilightGardener]

2. No. That defense might possibly work for one or two items in the entire server.

"Oops, how did this get in here?" might be plausible for an email or two. But now something like over a thousand emails had to be made classified, and special programs that one has to be read into (TS/SCI) are being referred to here. It's clear that she freely trafficked in classified material on an unauthorized system, probably by having her staffers/IT guy lifting/summarizing material from proper channels, removing markings, etc. Someone will be in deep shit if there's any fairness to the system.

[zipplewrath]

3. That hasn't been decided yet

There is still an argument between State and the CIA about what has to be retro-actively classified. That won't be a trivial issue because it won't be just her server. They'll have to go find those emails everywhere they went if they want to classify them.
And I don't know where you get an expression like: "Freely trafficked in classified materials" when you have no idea what those items even were. You understand that a photo from CNN with a comment by someone, not necessarily even someone from inside State, could end up being considered classified right?
And there isn't any "fairness" in the system, there's not even consistency in the system, which is how you can end up having arguments between State and the CIA on what is even classified to begin with.

[TwilightGardener]

4. The Clinton camp would like the know-nothing public to think it's a dispute

about what should be classified. But it's really not. Not when you look at the sheer volume of what had to be hidden--some of it "born classified". The State Dept. knows this, they're just doing a little song and dance at this point, stringing it out--not really throwing her to the wolves, not really protecting her either. I can't believe she's still running for President.

[zipplewrath]

5. Well, I'm no "know nothing"

And from the day I first heard this I knew there wasn't much "there" there. The most amazing part was that anyone with the authority to do so approved the use of a private server. And exactly for what is going on now. Data spills are an extremely common occurrence and it was a virtual guarantee that this would happen. To have that on a server out of the direct control of the government was foolish. But apparently it is a far more common practice than I think anyone realized, at least within the State Department and the embassies.

What they've found to date that anyone has actually reported upon is that she received things that after the fact appeared to be classified to the CIA. I'll admit that some of the resistance to reclassifying this stuff will be because State knows it is already widely disseminated in an unclassified condition and therefor would be a major problem to reverse. But that is in essence the point. State, no just Hillary, did not consider it classified, and right or wrong, to change their mind now would be a major headache. But none of that will affect Hillary directly and will be merely an institutional problem for State.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Um, no. Again, your argument (Hillary's argument) might work for a few items.

The arguments that "this is already out there" or a dispute between State and intelligence agencies may be true for some things on her server. It's highly implausible that EVERY...SINGLE....ITEM out of a THOUSAND (so far, they haven't all been examined and released) falls into that benign gray-area category, now when the IG and his staff have to be read into programs to view documents related to her emails and at least two of her emails were top secret BEYOND DISPUTE. The excuses for her behavior have run dry, and now we're just slogging to the probable conclusion that at someone on her staff will face charges or be given immunity to testify. If that DOESN'T happen, at this point, it's because Obama is putting his thumb on the scale, and I would be disgusted. And no, I don't believe it's common for anyone at State, Defense, etc. to possess a non-government server for official use. That's fucking laughable. I'm not talking occasional use of a private account, mind you. Name another official who set up a home SERVER.

[zipplewrath]

8. Do you have any personal experience?

This isn't about "excuses", it is about effectively "intent". The absolute worse thing that could happen here is that it was decided she was willfully careless. Otherwise, considering the 50K plus documents they are reviewing, one or two being determined to be highly classified after the fact will not lead to very much. Unless they can demonstrate that she knew, and either avoided acting, or willfully left them unclassified, not much will come of this. The GOP would love nothing better than to find something with which they could seriously nail her, and they have not yet found it. And this point, barring information that neither of us have, nothing will ever come from this.

After receiving reports concerning the use of private email, the Office of the Inspector General "conducted a review and confirmed that senior embassy staff, including the Ambassador, used personal email accounts to send and receive messages containing official business," the report states. It goes on to say that some emails were "labeled Sensitive but Unclassified."

State Department Spokesman John Kirby said today that the practice of sending "Sensitive but Unclassified" information on private email is strongly discouraged, but not forbidden outright.

"We've seen no indication that Ambassador Kennedy violated any department policy with respect to her email practices and she ... continues to use a government e-mail account for her official business," Kirby said today.

The report also provides an explanation of the risks that come with using a commercial account.

"Such risks include data loss, hacking, phishing, and spoofing of email accounts, as well as inadequate protections for personally identifiable information," the report says.

Kirby also noted that the report was focused on an overall review of the U.S. embassy in Japan, not solely the use of Ambassador Kennedy's email.

Kennedy is the daughter of late President John F. Kennedy.

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community -- a federation of the 17 government agencies that conduct intelligence activities -- has said that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email server to handle classified information. Kennedy is only said to be dealing in Sensitive but Unclassified material.

link

[TwilightGardener]

9. She willfully avoided using a government server, willfully set up her own to conduct

her business. Her intent was to have all emailed material on her personal server--with disregard for the classified nature of the information held therein. I already pointed out the difference between using a personal ACCOUNT OCCASIONALLY (Kennedy, most other gov officials) vs. using a personal SERVER EXCLUSIVELY. The classified material just makes it worse.

[zipplewrath]

11. For which she got approval

That's the key phrase. What she was doing was approved. Whomever approved that should be taken out and beaten severely with a very wet noodle. But that's her "get out of jail free" card. It takes that part completely off the table such that the rest of her actions will be considered in the context of "on her approved server".

[TwilightGardener]

12. I haven't yet seen who "approved" it.

It certainly wasn't approved for holding all of her work--including classified material--for years, unsecured and out of reach of oversight and FOIA. Also out of reach of the State Dept., who had to beg her to turn it all over.

[zipplewrath]

13. I've wondered that too

If the GOP was actually serious about this issue, that guy that approved that would be hauled up, along with many of his bosses and ask what the heck he was smoking. Because when you look at all the things you just listed, that was all predictable in advance. Heck, many large companies don't allow employees to use personal email for business purposes basically for exactly all the problems you listed. Quite honestly, he may have approved it, but I suspect legally he didn't have the authority to do so.

[razorman]

10. I am pretty sure you are right. My greatest fear about all this, though,

is that it is almost certain that foreign governments (China, Russia, etc.) were accessing her server. She was Secretary of State; therefore a prime target for espionage.

[karynnj]

7. At this point it is too early to even see if there is anything there

Here is the segment on the emails from the State Department briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: Emails. Fox has a report out citing a letter from the inspector general to the intelligence community responding to a – it’s an unclassified letter responding to a member of Congress. And the letter, as has been described to me, says that intelligence community elements, whatever that means, have told the inspector general that some of the emails that were found on former Secretary Clinton’s home email server had so-called SAP classified information on them – Special Access Program. Do you have any comment on this, and do you have any reason to believe that there was any such highly classified information on her email server?

MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn’t speak to a letter written by the intel community. I think that would be for them to speak to. What I’ll tell you is that we are focused on and remain focused on releasing the rest, the remainder, of former Secretary Clinton’s emails in a manner that protects sensitive information. And as you know, nobody’s going to take that more seriously than we are.

We’ve said repeatedly that we do anticipate more upgrades throughout our release process, and we’ve been very open and honest about that – those upgrades when they’ve occurred. Our FOIA process – I’m sorry, our FOIA review process is still ongoing. And once that process is complete, if it is determined that information should be classified as top secret, then we’ll do so, as we have consistently done throughout the process.

QUESTION: I understand you don’t want to comment on a letter written by a different set of agencies or by the inspector general to a different set of agencies. But it makes an allegation that concerns a former secretary, and therefore I think it’s a reasonable thing to ask you about. Are you in a position to say anything about whether you believe there may have been information classified at that level, which I gather is beyond top secret, on her home email server, or deny it?

MR KIRBY: I’m not in a position to comment any more than what I’ve already done here. I’m afraid I’m going to have to leave it at how I left it.

QUESTION: Do you have in your book there the number of redactions made because of top secret information?

MR KIRBY: I do not. You mean total from --

QUESTION: Total top secret. You said, “as we have consistently done throughout the process.” And I’m just – I don’t remember off the top of my head. Do you remember how many were redacted because of top secret, not confidential or – I mean, if you don’t have it there, it’s okay. I can get it afterwards.

MR KIRBY: I’ll see if I can dig up the redactions. I mean, as you know, every time we’ve done this we’ve kind of laid out how many redactions there were. Most of them – in fact, the vast majority of them – have been at the confidential level. I don’t have the accumulated number, but we’ll see if we can get it for you.

QUESTION: Are you still on track to wrap up by the 29th of this month, which I think is the final deadline?

MR KIRBY: We’re still working very hard to be able to meet that deadline.

QUESTION: Do you think you will?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t want to predict right now. We’re working --
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251415.htm#DEPARTMENT

This story has been very strange in the way that it has moved across the news media. I first saw it several days ago on Fox, then it was out the next day on several other easily defined as right wing sites. Late yesterday it started to appear - almost with the same information - on more main stream sites. Today the NYT, ABC and NBC have stories.

I wonder if the slow motion nature of the appearance of this story in the mainstream media, which usually tries to scoop news is that they recognize the impact that this story could have at this point of time shortly before the caucuses. I thought the full response of Kirby would be interesting to people trying to follow this.

I have not read all the press briefing that the State Department has, but my overall impression is that Kirby, more than his predecessors has hewed very close to just defending the CURRENT work of the State Department in processing and releasing the emails. (This was clearer in an earlier briefing when he was asked about emails speaking of how her aides could not get the secure fax working - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251068.htm#DEPARTMENT )

My take away on this is that the State Department - and likely the Obama administration itself is trying to keep its head down, get every out that they legally have to in as careful a way as they can. One concern I have is that the State Department has been complying with a schedule of monthly releases of email. The last one is scheduled at the end of fthis month - I think January 29 - right before the primary. Let's hope there is nothing contentious in that batch - that deals with the end of her term. (When she was preparing for her testimony, when she had the concussion and when there was a transition to Kerry, who IMMEDIATELY got a state.gov account.)

[Gothmog]

14. Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous'

Here are some more facts on this matter http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.