State Dept. To Release Final Batch Of Clinton Emails With None Marked ‘Top Secret’

[William769]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration settled a long-running dispute over a sensitive email on Hillary Clinton's private account, as intelligence agencies classified part of an exchange on North Korea's nuclear program for containing "secret" information, but no "top secret" material as previously claimed.


State Department spokesman John Kirby said the message will be published Monday in a batch of nearly 4,000 documents, finishing the release of Clinton's work emails from her time as secretary of state. A portion will be censored and classified at the lower, secret level, he said. The intelligence community had argued for months that the email included material at the highest classification level.

"Based on subsequent review, the intelligence community revisited its earlier assessment," Kirby told reporters. He added: "The original assessment was not correct and the document does not contain top secret information."

The announcement comes a day before Clinton competes in 11 Democratic primary contests. She is the front-runner to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

The North Korea email is one of two that Charles I. McCullough, lead auditor for U.S. intelligence agencies, identified last year as particularly problematic. The other concerned the CIA's drone program and led to officials classifying 22 emails from Clinton's private account last month as "top secret." They were withheld from publication.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/clinton-email-north-korea-classification

[msanthrope]

1. Oh, my. Nt

[William769]

3. No smoking gun.

Look at all the time & effort that went on here to crucify Hillary. All that energy could have been spent showing why their candidate should be President. Talk about a missed opportunity!

[msanthrope]

5. Nope....No smoking gun. Another Benghazi. Nt

[John Poet]

22. This document was still classified, and on her server--

and subject to the laws regarding handling of classified documents--

just not classified at the "top secret" level of classification. This story headline is misleading.

Some other documents were classified at those higher levels, and present on her server, as I understand it.

[dchill]

30. You've GOT to be kidding...

Yourself.

The last "batch" has no classified emails. BFD. They don't have to be classified to be damaging or proof of conspiracy. Don't forget all the stuff in the previous releases that are evidence of wrongdoing. Get real.

Hillary inhaled.

[doc03]

2. That should give Fox News something to talk about for the next

fucking decade.

[SidDithers]

4. Aaaaaand, just like Benghazi...

there's no there there.

Sid

[Bleacher Creature]

6. So basically, another Clinton "scandal" completely debunked.

How many are we up to now?

And I hope that all the DUers who bought into this nonsense are proud to have been played by the Republicans (yet again).

[William769]

7. ...

[John Poet]

23. When or IF the F.B.I. gives Hillary a clean bill of legal health,

the matter would be "debunked"-- and NOT before then--

That is, unless you're a Hillary partisan who really doesn't give a shit whether she broke the law or not.

[DCBob]

8. Much ado about nothing.

As most of us knew from the very beginning.

[Iliyah]

9. Yep . . . and K & R this

[William769]

10. This thread seems to be staying awfully quiet.

[litlbilly]

11. Oh boy that's a relief, wow I guess its all over now for Bernie

[William769]

13. This has nothing to do with Bernie.

It has to do with no cloud hanging over Hillary's head for Super Tuesday as so many had wished for.

[jfern]

12. She did have 20 or so top secret emails

On her unsecured e-mail server and they'd been sent in plaintext over the internet. Not something to take lightly.

[grasswire]

26. yes nt

[Gothmog]

44. 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

[Gothmog]

43. 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.

[NurseJackie]

14. "The American people are sick of hearing about the damn emails!"

[pkdu]

27. Crickets!.......

thankyou

[NWCorona]

32. It's not the American people but the FBI

That Hillary needs to worry about.

[NurseJackie]

39. Ha! :-D

[NWCorona]

41. I'm glad I can entertain you

😀

[Gothmog]

45. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

[GoneFishin]

15. Uh yeah. The ones they release won't be marked Top Secret.

[Cha]

16. Good information.. Thank you, William!

[sheshe2]

17. Kick/ Rec

[ismnotwasm]

18. K&R

Sick and tired of the damn emails....

[Grassy Knoll]

19. HeHeHeHe.....

[LW1977]

20. K&R

[SunSeeker]

21. Another big pile of nothing. nt

[John Poet]

24. That would be a good description of Hillary's platform.

[SunSeeker]

37. Expanding Obamacare is not nothing. Obamacare saved my brother's life.

Fighting for equal opportunity for all is not nothing. Affordable childcare is not nothing. There are so many important, smart, implementable plans in Hillary's platform. They are all tied together by her inspiring theme of breaking down barriers. She does a wonderful job of laying out her platform in this 16-minute speech from the night of the SC primary:

[rbrnmw]

25. OMG is this what they think she is going to be impeached for?

[Gwhittey]

28. Wait why are people saying this is nothing?

Ok there was email marked secret on her server..
". A portion will be censored and classified at the lower, secret level, he said."

How do people now think Oh ok they where not Top Secret so that is all good. Do you realize that stuff from our Nuclear Propulsion program is considered Confidential which is a step below Secret This stuff was not something you wanted people to have access to that could use it to do harm. So anything that was marked Secret was guarded a ton more.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Well, good. We should be hearing that the FBI is wrapping up its investigation any day now, right?

Gee whiz, What a relief that'll be.

[In_The_Wind]

33. And ... this is why you signed up ....

[William769]

36. I hope Skinner takes a serious look at who was on that jury.

[In_The_Wind]

40. I was shocked

2:24 AM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message

On Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why are you still even allowed to post on here, you little creep?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1377992

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Holy shit.... nasty troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:24 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How audacious to alert on this post. There is nothing wrong with throwing someones own very insulting words back at them.

The alert should have been made against William769 and the other foul mouthed people he associates with.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Attention MIRT ...

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is with much regret I vote to hide this post. Cox is a new poster, and he should not have called William769 a "creep." However, William769, does not exactly have a stellar reputation, and he certainly did deserve this dressing down. Overdue. I think he should be banned from DU because of the comments he made elsewhere, especially the obscenity directed toward Skinner. Looking at the appalling things he said about DU, he probably won't mind being banned from a place he apparently holds in such contempt....

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

I didn't copy the offensive post ... as I often do ... but they were naming names, calling out DUers by their usernames

[rbrnmw]

34. ...

[DURHAM D]

35. lol

[mcar]

42. Let's hope this ends the "controversy"

But I won't hold my breath.