Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I have two questions about the email controversy [View all]IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)43. You've probably already seen some of this.
1) Yes. A letter sent on Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee: https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffnn.box.com%2Fs%2F48oj2j79cp73l66p6afj73rkthwlpt5j
To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC (Intelligence Community) element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.
It is unlikely he suborned perjury or didn't validate his sources.
There have also been issues with the emails going back and forth with Sidney Blumenthal containing classified information he shouldn't have been able to see, particularly one about Sudanese rebels, while another had the name of an asset that had to be redacted. Plus the Korean nuclear stuff and the Libyan Civil War stuff -- and she wrote over a hundred that shouldn't have left the State Department for years/decades.
2) As others have stated AND YOU SPECIFY ("created by the State Department" she can only "declassify" the stuff her department created, so for example, dropping the names of CIA assets when copying their classified reports word for word = Very Bad. Having them on email (when they aren't supposed to leave the building) = Very Bad. Having them hacked and plastered all over the Internet because you were chatting with a guy with no clearance = Unbelievablely Very Bad. And doing all of that while using an insecure computer with inadequate security backup and a easily hacked smart phone = Totally Stupidly Very Bad.
Welcome to the "conspiracy" or as we like to call it, "reality". This isn't "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" -- this is just Someone Being Really Stupid (about national security).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, the issue is destroy Hillary, at any and all costs. Even if that means world war three
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#14
Your response was funny. Destroying Hillary is what matters, I know.
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#26
Yes, and Obama's FBI and DOJ are not going to destroy the Dem party and its . . .
brush
May 2016
#58
She may have allowed passage of sensitive material that wasn't marked. Marking is not the measure.
CentralCoaster
May 2016
#19
Remarkable, and it sounds real and sincere. The goal to make sure the Democrat does not occupy
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#27
She ran the business of this country on personally owned equipment in the basement of her home.
CentralCoaster
May 2016
#32
I know you must really want Drumpf if you continually, repeatedly post stuff about how
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#60
Calling me stupid wont change the fact there are people here who will work against
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#67
No, "the worst" that you describe is less bad than the actual facts on the ground.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2016
#73
Lol! Just because you are oblivious and fail to even do a rudimentary search doesn't make you right.
NWCorona
May 2016
#40
Answer: she violated her security agreement that says classified is "marked or unmarked" classified
leveymg
May 2016
#56
Seems she conspired to spy on the CIA using the Clinton Foundation as a front to cover Blumenthal
HereSince1628
May 2016
#104
What she did was allowed her server to be a conduit for unauthorized swapping of classified info
leveymg
May 2016
#106
It seems she conspired to get him -paid- for doing that. That's beyond simply unauthorized swapping
HereSince1628
May 2016
#111
I'm just describing the charges most likely to be cited in the upcoming FBI report
leveymg
May 2016
#112
Yep. A nice warm office in which collect and communicate information from CIA leaks.
HereSince1628
May 2016
#116
declassify date codes indicate that several were born classified...you forgot the links
Bill USA
May 2016
#90
omg, this stuff is common knowledge to anybody who has been following the issue at all.
ContinentalOp
May 2016
#63
Think about that sentence "Well they were marked classified after the fact" Kind of redundant AGH
Joob
May 2016
#11
If you truly care about transparency, then I don't know why you want to defend secrecy so badly
ContinentalOp
May 2016
#44
Neither of your questions gets at the fact that Hillary blatantly and intentionally violated FOIA
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#34
Plus the "was it classified at the time" argument is legally irrelevant, particularly since all her
JudyM
May 2016
#68
There are over three dozen lawsuits where State is going to get hugely fined because of Hillary's
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#97
It is unclear what the evidence will show in the criminal cases, but the evidence is clear Hillary
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#99
Classification level is not, as is often mistakenly stated here, based on marking, but on content.
JudyM
May 2016
#72
You are right. But she also had a legal duty to report this breach of security, and failed to do so
leveymg
May 2016
#64
I doubt she needed Blumenthal to access materials on the interagency classified system.
leveymg
May 2016
#83
And there is no evidence that she used her server to communicate with the Commander of USCC.
pnwmom
May 2016
#103
In what way does the article disprove the fact that Petraeus and Clinton corresponded insecurely?
lumberjack_jeff
May 2016
#109
So you are not going to read it. Your mind is made up so further discussion is pointless. n/t
pnwmom
May 2016
#110