What I want to know about the emails

[planetc]

Today, I did the barest minimum of research about the us government's handling of secret information. I read most of the Wikipedia article, which seems to be a little out of date. But it was reasonably clear on several points. There are several levels of secretness: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. But this is actually just the beginning of the convolution, because there are some emails which can only be circulated to a specific list of government departments, and others that are Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU), and others that are Sensitive Security Information (SSI). And the reason I think the article was a little out of date was that most of the handling and labeling rules had to do with paper documents--they have to be stamped on the front cover and the top and bottom of each page that they are secret. Only one of the handling advisories had to do with electronic transmission of documents that were, or contained, classified or secret or confidential information. Those are supposed to be encrypted via one of the government approved algorithms. So, with this very sketchy information in mind, my questions about the "secret" emails found among Sec. Clinton's business emails are these:

1. Who sent and who received the emails?

2. Were any of them marked for a level of secrecy when sent, or encrypted?

3. If none of the emails were marked secret or encrypted, who assigned the "secret" classification, and when?

Clearly, we don't know enough to draw any conclusions about these emails, because the leakers have not confided who sent and received them. If Clinton received them, and they contained classified information that was unmarked and unencrypted, then the sender is perhaps at fault for sloppy email handling. If Clinton sent them without proper labeling or encryption, then she would be at fault. If neither sender nor receiver knew some of the information was secret because no one had declared it secret, then we have another set of questions.

If the information described as secret was not declared secret at the time it passed through Clinton's email program, then I would like to suggest that the stories I have seen thus far are wildly misleading.

Perhaps I'm the only voter who is frustrated by the lack of precision in the reports I have seen thus far. But "secret" + Clinton server + FBI does not constitute a story for me. We have, as so often with news reports about either Bill or Hillary Clinton, a sketch of a possible story, a set of unanswered questions, but very incomplete information. Dear Media: please elucidate.

[HFRN]

1. 'classified' is somewhat of a red herring on this issue - FOIA, in my opinion, is the larger issue

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) has very strict rules on the handling of communication amongst government workers on official business, doesn't matter if it's classified or not.

handling emails off of official government equipment can be interpreted as an evasion of FOIA

THAT, in my opinion, is the larger issue here

(I know someone who works for the Federal Gov, and have heard a lot about FOIA long before the Hillary/server issue came up)

[pscot]

4. Are those completely the wrong question to be asking about this?

Classification seems to mean different things to different people at different times. That's too many permutations for us Commoners to follow. And there were major FOIA issues under W that were resolved, if at all, well after the get-away. This looks like just one more Republican attempt to pin something heinous on the Clintons. How seriously should we take it?

[HFRN]

7. well, from what I understood about FOIA, before this (hillary/server) issue even came up

in this person's agency, where I would guess actually a very small percent of what they handle is 'classified', someone in their agency would be in *deep trouble* for doing what Hillary did, no matter how high up they were - and it wouldn't be over that agency's rules it would be GAO (Government Accounting Office) rules, which apply to all Federal activities

[seveneyes]

2. No peeking under the hood

[TexasProgresive]

3. I think it is troubling that classified material especially top secret

would be in emails. One is not suppose to carry those documents around and they are often, maybe always, for eyes only, and only for people who have a need to know. Just having a top secret clearance does not automatically give one the right to view any top secret document.

[planetc]

8. It's more troubling, I think, that something can be declared Top Secret after the fact.

So, what the story seems to be now is that several emails being inspected have been declared top secret, like last week, several years after Clinton left office. At least the NPR commentator said yesterday that they were top secret. But what is the responsibility of the sender and receiver for material which is just business until some point in the future when it's declared top secret? Unless the government has a time machine they're not telling us about, it doesn't seem there's much the correspondents can do about it after the fact.

[TexasProgresive]

9. I don't understand that either.

If it wasn't classified earlier how can it be classified later. That's just stupid, plain stupid. Once data is out it is no longer secret. Or as the old adage is, "The cat's out of the bag."

[planetc]

13. Well, yes, now you mention it.

I believe State Dept. employees are now required to use the government's system, but this was not required at the time Clinton was in office. So, could some of these emails have been sent from another State employee on their own private email account to Clinton's private account? Even if sent from and to a government account, no special markings or handling would have been used except for normal prudence in who gets a copy of what you're sending.

As for whose email system is more secure, that strikes me as another can of worms. I believe that the Dept. of State's email has been hacked, and certainly other government computers have been hacked. I am wondering if Clinton's private server wasn't more secure than the government's? The NYTimes would laugh at that suggestion, but I still wonder.

[TexasProgresive]

15. Email is not secure, period.

The most secure way to transmit classified material is a closed system no cloud, no internet, no servers that can be accessed externally. The way it was done during the cold war was with crypto machines that were in secure locations whose operators were cleared top secret. I remember reading that our embassy in the U.S.S.R. had a huge dynamotor. All commercial power was used to run a gigantic electric motor which ran a generator through a gigantic flywheel. The principle was to prevent the KGB from analyzing power fluctuation that might indicate the crypto machine in use and patterns since they were monitoring the radio transmissions.

We were not allowed to use the telephone to speak about classified material unless it was a hardened secure line and those were hard to come by.

My mother worked in a big computer complex at Langley AFB (not to be confused with the CIAs Langley) At that time all programs were originally compiled and tested on IBM punch cards. My mother thought the security protocol regarding the massive amount chad generated by a thousand key punch operators and programers was rediculous. 3 men, 2 as witnesses and one who would shovel this classified waste into the furnace. She could not believe that anyone could put together intelligence from all this miss mash of paper dots.

It seems that we are so enamored with the "information highway" that we have forgotten how to secure data.

[Recursion]

22. There were incident reports we would write up on notebooks in the Marines

The text in the notebooks was SBU (sensitive but unclassified). Once the sergeant typed the same words into the platoon laptop, they became classified.

The whole system is ridiculously outdated.

[HereSince1628]

18. Clinton's communication as SOS -created- sensitive gov't documents as a matter of course.

Last edited Fri Aug 14, 2015, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The assignment of documents to different levels of security as a formal process pretty much always happens later. And any classification given can be changed. I think everyone who has ever worked around sensitive materials is told the same thing...always treat the stuff like it has the highest clearance.

But here's something that you may not have considered... perhaps more germane to the immediate problem Clinton has (which I don't think is criminal, unless she was purposefully evasive).

The US Government demands to OWN all government documents, and it expects them to be stored in the National Archives, unless for other reasons the documents are stored -in- their department of origin.

Without -any- doubt, the new and old regulations about archiving stress appropriate secure handling of the documents. When they aren't in the archives they are -required- to conform to security standards of the individual Dept (which are actually determined by the individual departments).

And that is what's unclear. The IG suspects that sensitive government documents were not handled correctly.

Were all the documents always kept secure, as appropriate, according to governing regulations and departmental rules? The Obama administration had a rule against storing gov't documents on private equipment. It's not perfectly clear whether the Sec of State was exempted from those rules or not.

[planetc]

24. Yes, a very interesting set of questions...

The government owns all documents, which is fine, because we the people ultimately own the entire work product of our employees, and much of the material needed to produce it--their computers (mostly?), the paper for documents, the printers, the electricity to run everything, and the contents of documents. We the owners of the government and its equipment should have the right to archive any and all documents for the purpose of keeping the historical record straight (archiving) and responding to FOIA requests (unless the material is classified, or classified for now but available later). So all this is absolutely right and proper.

I wonder, though, about two things:

1) is every email needed or wanted for the National Archives? That is, if you're writing a White Paper, or outlining policy, or justifying policy, then yes, it should be archived, and even classified in some cases. But in my office there was a lot of email that was setting up appointments, gathering information, asking for clarification, and reacting to suggestions by other people. It was talking about stuff that hadn't yet been solidified into a plan of action or an agenda. It's not clear to me that we need all this stuff, even if the National Archives had the capacity to store it. Ya gotta draw a line somewhere.

2) All email goes from one email address to another. If any government employee sends an email, it goes to a government email system or it doesn't. If Clinton's emails of potentially archivable material went routinely to government servers, did that satisfy the needs of the Archives? And if the sender to her was using the government system, then Clinton's reply would probably go right back into the government system. So, I'm wondering whether any of the Clinton email now under review went from private to private systems, and eluded the government system altogether?

Okay, I thought of three--if you have satisfied (or not) the National Archives, have you met the needs of the FOIA office? Or do you need to do anything extra?

[HereSince1628]

25. No, not everything rises to being a document that must be part of the archives

There are rules about this, and curiously enough, the standards for those decisions are largely made up by the departments.

I don't think the real issue centers on archives, although that's where one of the complaints arose as Congress wanted Benghazi documents.

The IG's concern, as I understand it, is mostly about the security of documents and handling that undermined that security.

Sensitive documents should -not- have been communicated to the outside of the government system. Sending a sensitive document to an outside email is just like walking out the door with it.

My old memory isn't working at the moment, but someone from either the Clinton or Bush, sr. admin, got access to classified material and walked away with some documents in his pants. That was actually intentional and it didn't end up being a criminal case.

So, something that was handled mistakenly, but unintentionally ought to draw even less concern.

I think the problem that has emerged for the State Dept is it has got to get its act together on sensitive documents. It's got to make sure all its rules are in place and makes sure that there is compliance with the rules.

[Adrahil]

20. Classified info is generally....

Not to be sent electronically, except via specific authorized systems. Generally normal email is right out, though it is possible for information to be classified at a later time (after it was already sent via that means). When info is sent electronically it must properly marked.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Part of the problem in this case....

The emails were unclassified as Hillary created them and stored them on an unsecured private server. They were then classified as secret in some degree but left on the same unsecured server. So that's being careless in the creation and storage of sensitive documents.
At least two of the documents examined (10s of thousands still unexamined) appear to have been classified top secret at the time, in which case the manner Clinton handled them is illegal.
Compounding Hillarys problem is her stalling turning over emails, and her lying about them. Even if she doesn't have anything to hide, her actions make it appear she does.
I don't see this going away as long as Hillary is running for office or holding office. And even though most of the GOP led investigation is just a partisan witch hunt, there only needs to be a few items turn up that interests the FBI for it to turn from political squabbling into a valid legal problem.

[planetc]

10. "classified top secret at the time"? Whoa! I haven't seen that reported.

As far as I can tell, if they were Top Secret when sent (or received), they should have been encrypted. Can you remember where you saw this reported?

[HooptieWagon]

12. Reported as labelled top secret.

It doesn't sound like they're referring to emails later classified top secret, but actually labelled top secret on the docs.
hang on a min, having trouble posting link on ph.
Here: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/private-clinton-emails-included-two-top-secret-messages-investigators-n408186

[Adrahil]

21. That article does not say...

That the documents were labelled. Further, if they were, then the sender blew it by sending the info via an authorized means.

[moondust]

6. We may never know many details.

Last edited Thu Aug 13, 2015, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

The public does not have a "need to know". Even if some committee finds some security breaches, they may not release many details since information classified less than 10 years ago is probably still classified. This could conceivably allow Republicans to make wildly false claims against Hillary that they wouldn't have to disclose the details of because..."CLASSIFIED."

ETA: Some Democrats would have access to the same information and could deny any false allegations, at which point it becomes a matter of whom do voters choose to believe.

[planetc]

11. Of course. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The Benghazi committee can misinform to its heart's content, but it would violate classified procedures to ask them to prove it.

My main beef with this story is with the news media: it doesn't rise to the level of a verifiable story without several more facts. Perhaps the media know quite well that it can't be verified, and published what they had, despite the fact that they might be slandering Sec. Clinton. Well, they've done it before, certainly.

[Romulox]

14. I don't where your facts are coming from, but this is indeed a "verifiable story". nt

[planetc]

16. Oh, great. If it's verifiable, I want to know ...

whether Clinton sent or received the emails. Also, on what date they were determined to be Top Secret. And perhaps, in general terms, why they were classified.

[Romulox]

17. That's what the investigation will need to uncover. nt

[Metric System]

19. Quick, get Trey Gowdy on the phone!

[emulatorloo]

26. Yes he is a very trustworthy person. I an sure he would never make up shit

about a Democrat.

[Sancho]

23. This might help...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Updated: The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails
We’ve put all of the information about Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails here. Just the facts, all in one place.

Clinton said she did not use her email to send or receive classified information, but the State Department and two Inspectors General said some of these emails do contain classified information. Was her statement inaccurate?

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.

[madville]

27. They leave out some key numbers

The inspectors found 4 emails out of 40 sampled that contained potentially classified information. By those numbers there are potentially 5,500 emails that may contain such information.

The inspector generals are currently in a battle with the state department and potentially the DOJ about access to the remaining 54,960 emails that they need to examine.

Those are just Hillary's emails. That's not counting documents that may have been passed around among staff utilizing that server as well.

The campaign is gambling pretty big in declaring up front that nothing that passed through that server was marked classified at the time.

This is going to drag on for awhile.

[Sancho]

28. Again...please read what happened....

the emails that you claim are "classified" were only classified AFTER Hillary gave them back to the State Dept. and they are only classified for the purpose of PUBLIC release. Even among the staff of the State Dept., they are not "classified".

That is DESCRIBED over and over in many articles. Hillary did not have ANY emails marked classified on the general email traffic. Government arguments over what should be "classified" happens EVERYDAY. That has nothing to do with Hillary following the rules. READ THE LINK.

ALL the emails marked "classified" were sent on a different system.

All the staff had clearance to see what they saw.

You are repeating the inaccurate account.

[madville]

29. And the inspector generals want to verify those claims

What you are posting are the claims of the party or parties under investigation, of course they claim nothing illegal occurred, it would be moronic for them to state otherwise.

My opinion is that there will be thousands of emails with classified information but not marked or designated as such. I think where some staffers could run afoul is they received properly marked documents or images and removed the classification designations, copied this, pasted that, etc and then forwarded it on up the chain on the private email system.

It's a given in a system of this scale someone mishandled something somewhere, it happens in the military and intelligence community everyday and people get relieved and/or prosecuted for it.

[Sancho]

30. Here we go again...wow...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them. When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified if the State Department or another agency believes its public release could cause potential harm to national security, law enforcement or diplomatic relations.

After reviewing a sampling of the 55,000 pages of emails, the Inspectors General have proffered that a small number of emails, which did not contain any classified markings and/or dissemination controls, should have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department has said it disagrees with this assessment.

Clinton hopes the State Department and the agencies involved in the review process will sort out as quickly as possible which of the 55,000 pages of emails are appropriate to share with the public.

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

[madville]

31. What you posted agrees with what I'm saying

The inspector generals found problems with four emails out of forty they sampled. Now they are trying to work with the State Department to obtain access to the rest of the 55,000 pages for review.

That review by the inspector generals may be much quicker and efficient if they can obtain the electronic copies of the 55,000 email pages that Clinton's attorney has turned over to the FBI, instead of waiting for the State Department to process the paper copies Hillary gave them.

[Sancho]

32. Have you seen what the "problems" are...?

One is an email about a newspaper article. How do you "classify" a public newspaper article?

As I said - they were NOT classified for use as email in the State system.

If one agency wants to argue it can't NOW be public, then fine. Hillary followed the rules. Everything was secure.

The State Dept. rules required paper copies. They were given an electronic copy too, but they already had more than 90% in electronic form ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS.

You don't make sense.

[madville]

33. You are basing your whole argument

On the four emails they picked out of a sample of 40. Based on that you can say with 100% certainty that what's contained in the rest of the 55,000 pages didn't break any laws? I haven't seen what's in the rest of the 55,000 pages, you haven't seen it and the two inspector generals haven't seen them yet.

If there's nothing there they won't find anything, if they do find that some laws have been broken it may get referred to DOJ for potential prosecution depending what it is. It's up in the air at this point, the statement from Team Hillary is nice but is no different than a defense attorney claiming their client is innocent before the trial even starts and the evidence has been seen.

[Sancho]

34. Not true....

The State Dept staff says that NONE were marked classified. The .gov servers already had 90% overlap from government computers that sent of received most of the 55,000 pages.

They have already searched and declared NOTHING was classified.

IF some other government agency wants to CLASSIFY something NOW (after the fact) for the purposes of a FOIA request, they can do that - redact personal names, delete medical information, take out phone numbers of employees, etc.

That is not super secret stuff, but it's not for public consumption - so they call it "classified".

Hillary WANTS all the emails released; NOW!!! It's the State Dept. and other agencies that are arguing.

[madville]

35. That's where the dispute lies

The State Department flat out said there was no classified info anywhere in the emails, then a sampling of just 40 emails by the inspector generals turns up four with potential classified/TS info. Even if nothing was marked classified, that doesn't mean there wasn't info that should have been.

I trust the FBI to be impartial, they are knee deep in this now. Hillary is likely safe but I would bet several of her staff from that era are sweating this out.

The FBI's main focus now is recovering what they can from the server and determining if any staff moved classified info from secure systems through Hillary's private email system.

[Sancho]

36. Haha...the FBI is impartial??

You have to be kidding. The FBI are the RW tools working for the GOP. Along with their CIA and NSA buddies they often go after the Democrats, leak stuff, and do the dirty work of the repubs.

That's one of the most important reasons to NOT trust the FBI to do anything except a witch hunt.

There's nothing to move - the government already had 90% or more of the emails because they were sent or received by government computers.

Don't you see how there is no issue here...

read this:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/