2nd Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton's Email

[askew]

So much for this being a nothingburger.

From the NYT:

WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails, which are being released to the public, had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

President Obama signed an executive order in December 2009 that defined “Top Secret” as information that if disclosed could “reasonably” be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

In the months after the disclosure, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign were unequivocal in their stance that there was no classified information on it. But after it was revealed in August that the F.B.I. was investigating how classified materials were handled in connection with the account, Mrs. Clinton’s aides began saying that she never sent or received anything that was classified at the time.

Hillary's campaign and the State Dept are still spinning this as a turf fight between agencies, however, that just isn't true. The department from which the information originated (CIA, NSA, etc.) get to determine the classification level of the data and can't be overridden by State.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. STILL a nothingburger.....

She didn't send classified materials....some were retroactively classified but were SENT to her! We have known about these two emails for some time....they are what has been the focus of for weeks....but they were not sent BY HRC

I note "when Mrs. Clinton received them".

no boom....nothingburger!

[leveymg]

60. That is false. She sent presumed classified materials to a non gov't person, Sid Blumenthal

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

Read more: (Reuters) http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/


Here's the kicker, HRC received training on how to handle classified information as SOS, and proceeded to continue to use her own unsecured personal server for all Department email, nonetheless:

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.

Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this.

P.S. - Note the part of the article that sources the former head of the Office of Information System Security (the guy who decides when federal officials have breached security clearances) says Hillary sent email containing foreign gov't information to Blumenthal over her own private server? I seem to recall a couple things: 1) Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were hacked by a Romanian and released, and that's what brought public attention to this, initially; and 2), several months ago, Hillary claimed she didn't (respond to)(Correction: her spokesman used the term "solicit&quot Blumenthal's messages. She (her spokesman) appears to have misspoken, (or mischaracterize) again. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/politics/benghazi-emails-put-focus-on-hillary-clintons-encouragement-of-adviser.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. Not according to every other article I have read...

and why they said she is not the focus of the investigation...

You understand we are talking about 2 emails right?

and Retroactively Classified...

Where's the beef?

"Benghazi Emails Put Focus on Hillary Clinton’s Encouragement of Adviser"


BENGAAAAAZEEEE!!!!

not buying!

[leveymg]

64. What have you been reading? We are talking about 5% of the total number of emails reviewed contain

presumed classified materials of various levels of classification ranging from Classified to Top Secret.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. "presumed"

and "retroactively classified"

[leveymg]

66. "Presumed classified" is the same thing legally as "deemed classified."

"Retroactively classified" isn't even a legal term. It's a campaign term.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. but it DOES happen....

and they explained how with Intra-Agencies not using the same Classifying system

and you used the term "presumed"


BENGAHZEEE Witch hunt

[leveymg]

68. The source of "presumed classified" is a 2009 Presidential Order that impacted all agencies

The classification system is what the President has ordered it will be, as interpreted by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which determines that there is cause for each agency to initiate administrative proceedings to strip a federal official of his/her security clearance. By the way, the source of the the Reuters analysis linked above is the previous head of the ISOO.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. then why has she been cleared of charges?

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784


In what has to be one of the most snide journalistic defenses in a long time, Margaret Sullivan, the Times public editor, calls detractors of the piece as just Hilary supporters and dismisses most of the criticism by helpfully linking to the 2009 Federal Register, which lists an exceptionally technical series of regulations relating to the use and preservation of emails. She even cites a place to look, section 1236.22b. With all those numbers and letters, and the information coming out of a document as dull as the Federal Register, the story must be true, right?

Well, no. In fact, the very rule that Sullivan cites contradicts the primary point of the Times story. For everyone except the two people who actually followed the link Sullivan posted, here is what the section actually says:

"Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

Catch the problem? The regulation itself, through its opening words, “specifically designates that employees of certain agencies are allowed to use non-federal email systems.” And one of those agencies just happened to be…drumroll please.… The State Department. In other words, not only was the use of a personal email account not a violation of the rules, it was specifically allowed by the rules.

BENGAHZEEE!!!

[leveymg]

72. That references a federal regulation, not the 1917 Espionage Act and 2009 Presidential Order that

determines what constitutes classified materials and the actions that violate the law. Not relevant.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. read the full article...

[leveymg]

74. I did. It's an Oped not an article. I also read the regulation.

That opinion piece talks about agency rules and doesn't begin to address the actual statutes under which HRC might be charged. It's more smoke and mirrors by a HRC supporter, not a exoneration. I know you want to believe what you want to believe, but please embrace reality and argue from it. It is your friend.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. Just like your nothingburger is an opinion

[Skwmom]

78. They were retroactively MARKED classified B/C they were not properly marked

classified in the first place - but they were classified upon creation (just not properly marked).

Plus, she did send out classified info. Of course, it was not properly marked classified b/c it wasn't sent over a classified system - if it would have been the proper classification marking would have been applied.

This seems so simple. I don't know why I'm not confused.... I hear I'm supposed to be...

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. and....

John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, echoed Mr. Merrill.

“Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”

[DURHAM D]

5. NY Times is still lying.

They refuse to use/acknowledge the retroactively classified aspect of this entire discussion.

I don't know when they became the Fox News of print media but it is sickening and sort of sad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. They did....this Poster is the one that is not recognizing it....

[HappyPlace]

7. “We maintain a principled position – no to coup”.

This was part of one of the emails released, referring to our work in Honduras.

Nothing special there, nope.

[Metric System]

12. I was just going to post this. Why is the OP so dismissive of the State Department?

[revmclaren]

3. Still digging for pay-dirt in the same old holes....

[Buzz cook]

4. The NYT is not a credible source

When a Clinton is the issue.

[DURHAM D]

6. So true. nt

[leveymg]

62. If it isn't posted in the HRC room, it isn't credible? What's a credible source, now?

I wonder if her supporters here even realize how ridiculously defensive the statement, "The NYT is not a credible source" appears to the rest of the world.

The NYT isn't infallible, and it has its biases, as we've known for a long, long time. But, not credible? That just comes across as pure denial.

[Buzz cook]

83. The NYT has repeatedly

Printed false allegations against the Clintons since Jeff Gerth's original hit piece about Whitewater.
If you have the chance read "The Hunting of the President" or "Fools for Scandal".

It is not being defensive it is stating a fact.

[mcar]

8. Another hit piece by the NYT

[magical thyme]

38. and NBCnews, and Christian Science Monitor, and the CIA

all out to get poor Hillary. That vast right wing / left wing conspiracy at it again.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/second-review-finds-classified-material-was-hillary-clinton-email-report-n423201

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0908/CIA-Hillary-Clinton-s-emails-contained-Top-Secret-information

[zappaman]

10. Keep working it!

Chew that burger!

[SidDithers]

11. Benghazi!!...nt

Sid

[HereSince1628]

13. Well, the likeliehood that some poor sod who sent that will be ruined just surged

Unfortunately, this is also a pattern of the so-called unscandals of the Clintons. Low level folks get ensnared in intrigues and the blood thirsty pursuing Clintons fend off their anger on the flesh of small-fry.

[Gman]

14. Blah blah blah blah blah

Benghazi.

[stevenleser]

15. Very unlikely, and as I have said during on air discussions, irrelevant to the whole private email

server issue.

If Hillary had been using state.gov email instead of her private server, and someone sent it to her there, it is just as big of an issue in terms of a security issue. State.gov email is not authorized to handle classified information. So it is irrelevant whether she was using personal email or the state.gov email.

In order for this to have been an issue against Hillary, she would have had to know it was classified. Properly marked classified documents look like the below image which is a training document used to illustrate what classified documents look like. I highly doubt that is what we are talking about. If it is that is a whole other issue.

If classified, or secret or top secret information made its way into non-secure email, be it state.gov or Hillary's private email, my bet is that it was not marked as such and thus folks would have had to guess. That's not something you can hold against either Hillary or the folks with whom she was corresponding.

[DURHAM D]

16. Some people, including the media, are just too damn dumb

to get this. Perhaps the Clinton campaign should send out some reps with hand puppets or dry erase boards or even some Ross Perot charts. I can not think of anything that has been as erroneously reported as this story and I don't think it is just political bias, it is massive stupidity.

[Capn Sunshine]

18. beyond stupidity, the words "Clinton" and "scandal"

especially when linked, create the kind of clickbait journos and their sites lust after.
Plus , there's the Karl Rove bonus of repeating something ad infinitum until it becomes true

[Skwmom]

21. No. People are not stupid. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

27. Classified material didn't "make its way" to her server. Someone sent it to her.

Someone took something out of the classified network and sent it to her, markings left off. And it was not reported or investigated. In fact, it had the potential to be accessed by a host of people with no clearances to handle such things. This is not "Whoops, how did THIS get in here?", this is appropriately the stuff of an FBI investigation that I predict will soon turn criminal for one of her lackeys. Probably the guy that's taking the fifth and won't talk to the FBI.

[jeff47]

28. You're ignoring the storage issue.

So far, no one has provided an email that Clinton sent that contains classified. Only emails she received. So she isn't in trouble for sending anything.

But storage is a big problem. She caused the emails to be stored on a private, unsecured server by setting up this arrangement.

If she used state.gov, then storage is a problem for State's IT department. Since she used her own server, it is her problem.

Also, you are presuming that the information was not obviously classified. With TS/SCI being found, that is exceptionally unlikely. Obviously we don't know specifics since they're redacted, but usually it is completely obvious that TS/SCI should be classified at some level, even if you don't realize it is TS/SCI.

[stevenleser]

29. You're framing this incorrectly

He issue to the American people is data that could have harmed the country being in insecure resources.

Whether that is on her server or state.gov doesn't change the problem and risk to the country.

[Fawke Em]

30. Actually, it does matter.

State is required to perform vulnerability assessments.

I don't know that a private server is required to undergo such scrutiny.

[TwilightGardener]

33. Well, no--when it's a .gov unclassified system that either accidentally or deliberately

receives, stores, or sends classified material, then the issue is to be properly reported, investigated, and resolved--potentially with some folks getting reprimanded or getting into trouble (because the systems are separated physically). That's on the agency and the people within the agency who use and maintain the system. Private email accounts or servers--whose responsibility is it? If it was a one-time accident that was reported and stopped, no problem. If the account or server was SET UP in such a manner to be separated from normal agency oversight and responsibility, and no attempt was ever made to correct or prevent the flow or storage of classified info in the system--there may be a problem.

[jeff47]

46. It changes who's fault it is.

Clinton storing it on her server makes it her fault, and her liability. She is the one that failed to keep the information secure. She is the one who bypassed the usual vulnerability assessments, and usual scans for classified information. She is the one who put it all in the hands of a guy who left the default VPN keys installed, thus making the system utterly and completely insecure.

A State.gov account means the State Department failed to keep the information secure. And regular practices would have found the VPN key problem.

The State Department isn't running for president. Clinton is. Fault is extremely relevant. And she really, really, really screwed this up. In the initial creation of this problem, and the "drip...drip...drip" way she has handled the aftermath.

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. Here comes Biden!

[stevenleser]

19. Nope. Folks have been alleging this for weeks. It doesnt make sense as I noted above.

When time comes to prove this it will fall flat.

[Puzzledtraveller]

22. I bet you a virtual Coca-Cola

or beverage of your choice.

[stevenleser]

23. Make it a diet coke and you are on! nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

24. Deal!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. This board has a "samey" feeling to it.

eom

[oasis]

69. As Yogi Berra would say, "Deja vous all over again".

[TwilightGardener]

25. There's no interagency dispute--State for some reason is still trying to defend her, but

they are flailing and tap dancing, the findings are clear. She received classified material on her home server. She did not immediately report this OBVIOUS BREACH to the State Dept. IT staff. Instead, she held the material for years on a private server, and now claims that because it wasn't marked, she herself is just too fucking dopey to recognize classified info and images, thus shouldn't be held responsible for what was on the system SHE HERSELF very deliberately set up, complete with her own IT guy. She wants us to believe she's brilliant, except for these occasions when she's an ignoramus--because she and her campaign people believe that clueless and hapless will play better than deceptive, Nixonian, paranoid, arrogant, and dishonest.

[magical thyme]

36. her spinning is terrible to boot. "I didn't think about email" allows only one of two possibilities:

1. she never heard of computers and emails being hacked and it didn't occur to her that as SOS, she'd be a prime target of hacking by our enemies trying to get inside info on state secrets, so therefore didn't give any thought to how her email was set up, as long as it was convenient to her. In which case she is too stupid to hold government office, or

2. she put her convenience and personal privacy and control above national security, and is now lying through her teeth.

Either way, do you really want this person taking that 3am phone call?

[TwilightGardener]

39. Agree completely--you framed the issue well.

[Romulox]

26. ut-oh! nt

[HassleCat]

31. They'll argue about this until doomsday

The "intelligence community" believe everything ought to be classified. They would refer their very existence be a secret, and it is in some cases. Yes, there are US government agencies that do not exist. The final paragraph of this post is very telling.

"Hillary's campaign and the State Dept are still spinning this as a turf fight between agencies, however, that just isn't true. The department from which the information originated (CIA, NSA, etc.) get to determine the classification level of the data and can't be overridden by State."

It is absolutely correct that the originator of the information is responsible for classifying and marking it appropriately. What our brilliant "intelligence community" is saying is that they didn't need to label it because everybody who saw it was supposed to know it was secret, top secret, etc. by looking at its content. This is the typical, bogus, CYA nonsense I'm accustomed to hearing from out "intelligence" agencies. They screwed up by not labeling the messages, and now they're trying to shuffle the blame onto Clinton's office. Until the NSA and CIA manufacture more evidence that Clinton was wrong, I'm going with what corresponds to my experience with these "intelligence" people, and I believe Clinton is correct.

[magical thyme]

34. satellite data on NK nukes only came from one source

and is the epitomy of "classified from birth." This isn't a case of the CIA wanting to classify everything. It is Top Secret, the highest level of classification they have.

Hillary is not the target of the investigation because she did not send the data. Somebody sent it to her. She should, however, have recognized it as top secret and immediately reported the security breach, versus harboring the top secret data on an unsecure server.

However, it is likely that somebody on her staff is in big trouble.

[HassleCat]

37. At the risk of repeating myself

The originator of the information is responsible for classifying and labeling it. In the case of the NK nukes, this would be the CIA, I am guessing. They're going back now and saying, "Of course it's classified. All that stuff is classified. We shouldn't have to tell you that." They failed to appropriately label classified information, and they're trying to shunt the blame off themselves.

[magical thyme]

41. or somebody left off the heading when they copied the data, vs copying the original source

Because the original source wasn't photocopied or scanned or an electronic document forwarded. Data was copied from the original source and typed into the emails without the appropriate heading. That is why the FBI is tracking back the emails to see who did that.

And the likelihood of human error is why using a private server without appropriate security and encrypted emails was really not smart.

[HassleCat]

44. Too late, but not too late

The originating agency, whether NSA or CIA, is fully capable of going back and adding a label, and they would do so in a heartbeat. On the other hand, examining the Clinton server might reveal an instance of the recipient (Clinton) removing a header or label. It's good to be skeptical of competing claims from both sides.

[leveymg]

76. HRC is still very much in trouble for lesser classified email she sent and for operating an insecure

system that was a conduit for classified materials, regardless of who sent them.

Why she did this is a question that hasn't been answered.

[JoePhilly]

32. How dare you let me send you classified info.

Especially when its not marked as such.

[emulatorloo]

35. Nailed it.

[JoePhilly]

51. If ...

... Snowden had gotten hold of these emails, these folks would have been thrilled.

[TwilightGardener]

40. You can't receive and store classified info or materials on non-classified systems.

Marked or unmarked. If someone sends it to you by mistake, it has to be investigated and corrected and prevented from happening again. If someone sent it to you deliberately (because classified systems are separate, there are no truly accidental transmissions in terms of "oops I just hit send to the wrong system!&quot or you deliberately never report it, then someone is in trouble. That's why Hillary is trying to play dumb here. If any of this was done deliberately, then it's a criminal matter.

[JoePhilly]

42. So you mean out of around 30,000

emails, there are a what 5? That might contain info that is potentially classified?

Definitely something we should crap our pants over.

[TwilightGardener]

43. How much classified info did Petraeus hold on his computer or in a binder?

Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Probably not tons. How much did he pass to his girlfriend (who was in the Army and actually had a security clearance, but NOT a Need-to-know)? Probably not tons. His problem is, he held it in an unauthorized place, and gave it to someone who was not authorized to receive it. But you're saying that it's the QUANTITY of material that matters? BTW, the IG's and FBI have not seen the totality of her emails yet.

[JoePhilly]

45. Patraeus GAVE the information to his GIRLFRIEND ...

... so she could use it in a book.

He GAVE it to her!!!!

Intentionally!!!!!!

GAVE it to her!!!!!!

Who did Hillary give the information to, and where did they publish it?

Who did she GIVE it to?

Who did she GIVE it to?

Its amazing that I can go to DI and debate a RWer on this EXACT point, and then come to DU and see a liberal making the same silly argument.

[TwilightGardener]

80. Neither you or I know everything she received, what she may have sent, what she

directed her staff to send her, etc. I guess we'll find out.

[jeff47]

47. No. They found 4 out of a sample of 40 emails.

The review of all of the thousands of emails is not complete.

So far we're up to about 130 classified emails, but I can't find the total number that have been reviewed.

[jeff47]

48. Clinton was required to report the security breach

and then take whatever remedial action that was required (essentially, delete the email from the server. And no, that's not clicking "delete" in your email client).

She didn't. Random government peon #2847 would be in deep shit for this.

[JoePhilly]

50. So out of 30k emails ...

... she gets a couple, and doesn't realize those few might have sensitive info (that's still being debated btw) ... so does not delete them or do anything else with them ... and that's the end of the world apparently.

I doubt your hair on fire claim is accurate.

[jeff47]

53. No. 4 out of 40 emails.

They are still going through the entire list of emails. We're up to around 130 with classified, but I don't know how many they have gone through to get 130.

The initial sample that created this problem was 4 emails out of a sample of 40.

and doesn't realize those few might have sensitive info

With TS/SCI involved, that excuse doesn't fly. Something that manages to get TS/SCI is obviously classified at some level. This isn't like SECRET where you can reasonably be surprised.

(that's still being debated btw)

Not really. The rules say the originating agency sets the classification level. That's the DNI in the case of the emails. The DNI says it's TS/SCI, so it's TS/SCI.

State is trying to say it should not be TS/SCI, but there's a formal review process they would have to take in order to get it declassified. They didn't do that, and instead just treated it as unclassified.

Which is why this is a problem.

so does not delete them or do anything else with them ... and that's the end of the world apparently.

No, it's not the end of the world. It is, however, a much larger deal than you want to believe.

From everything that has been revealed so far, Clinton could not be prosecuted. The IT guy who just took the 5th could be prosecuted for negligence for leaving the default VPN keys installed. But there's a hole in the federal law between negligence and selling the info/giving it to a foreign government. So far, Clinton fits neatly into that hole.

If Clinton still worked for the government, she'd be fired and her clearance revoked. Since she doesn't work for the government and no longer has a clearance, that's moot.

But that's the legal situation. She's running for president. This will hurt in the general. It is absolutely perfect for a 30-second ad, and can not be countered without making people feel like you are pulling a fast one. And her handling of it has been a constant stream of self-inficted "drip...drip...drip".

It's bad. It's not doom. We'll see if it ends up getting worse.

[JoePhilly]

55. This article says TWO emails.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

It also says the classification is being debated.

Was there a Fox News article I should be looking at?

[jeff47]

57. Two are TS/SCI. Two are SECRET. That's 4.

It also says the classification is being debated.

Only in the sense that the State Department spokesman says one thing and the DNI says another. The problem is the information came from under the DNI, so the DNI "wins" the argument.

[JoePhilly]

58. If the info came from the DNI ...

... why was it not marked as classified?

Also ... in the article I supplied ... the note that the same info can come from different sources, which means one of the sources may have classified it one, way, and the other source, another way ... which means ... there is an ACTUAL debate.

Finally ... let's remember how this started ... the GOP was sure Hillary had secret emails about Benghazi hidden on her server. Those emails, they claim, will prove she let Chris Stevens die, or maybe even had him killed.

Every wonder what happen to those?

Or are we simply reliving the Whitewater investigation? An investigate of a land deal that wnet on for years, until it morphs into a BJ.

That's what it looks like to me. How long has this Benghazi investigation gone on now?

Long enough that some don't seem to remember that it started as a Benghazi investigation apparently.

[jeff47]

59. The emails are not verbatim copies of classified documents.

Apparently, they are summaries of classified briefings. They were retyped from memory, but still contain classified information.

Also ... in the article I supplied ... the note that the same info can come from different sources, which means one of the sources may have classified it one, way, and the other source, another way ... which means ... there is an ACTUAL debate.

Nope. First source wins.

As I said, there is a way to dispute the classification level of some information and get the classification level reduced. But you have to treat it as the higher level until that is done. And it was not done here.

Finally ... let's remember how this started ... the GOP was sure Hillary had secret emails about Benghazi hidden on her server.

Nope. This started with a Romanian hacker group hacking Sid Blumenthal's email. That revealed the existence of Clinton's email server, which resulted in FOIA requests. The review process for those FOIA requests discovered classified.

The Republicans jumped on this later.

[JoePhilly]

63. So info that was retyped from memory ...

... from an unknown source ... is the "first source" ... because why?

If the email does not indicate the source, its hard to determine which source it was from. If its your only piece of info, you may never know that there are other sources for the same info in other parts of the government, and those have been classified differently.

Which makes the classification level at the time Clinton saw it debatable.

BTW ... Gowdy knew about Clinton's server last summer, long before the Blumenthal hack. He waited until shortly after she announced to make an issue out of it. Surprise surprise.

30k emails, a small number with unmarked classified info ... no info lost or leaked. Total melt down from the RW, and some on the left.

Maybe we'll learn some one got a BJ too.

[jeff47]

71. Because the DNI says it was.

The DNI says "We gave these briefings to these people. They then wrote emails based on those briefings. Therefore, they used classified information we came up with first".

If the email does not indicate the source, its hard to determine which source it was from.

Again, doesn't matter. The first one wins. Even if you hear it from a State Department source, the DNI wins.

Which makes the classification level at the time Clinton saw it debatable.

Nope. First one wins.

Also, finding TS/SCI means that it was obviously classified at some level, even if you didn't know it was TS/SCI. TS/SCI is used for things like the identities of foreigners giving us intelligence (HUMINT is one of the compartments). You'd have to be a complete moron like Karl Rove to believe that is completely unclassified.

There are exceptionally rare oddballs where something unexpected is TS/SCI, but those are exceptionally rare and we're up over 130 emails so far.

BTW ... Gowdy knew about Clinton's server last summer, long before the Blumenthal hack.

Blumenthal was hacked in 2013. Last summer was 2014.

30k emails, a small number with unmarked classified info

No, an unknown number. They have not finished going through all of the emails.

no info lost or leaked.

The default VPN keys were on the server. We can assume China and Russia have copies of everything on that server. Their versions of the NSA are extremely good, and would have found such a giant open door.

And like the NSA, they would not announce hacking her server.

Maybe we'll learn some one got a BJ too.

You have gotten every single fact around this situation wrong. Perhaps you should consider that when attempting to dismiss it.

[leveymg]

75. That batch of 30K emails was on a thumb drive kept by HRCs lawyer. Never heard they were retyped

from memory, nor would that be possible.

[rusty fender]

49. Regular people don't care about the damned emails!

We all receive hundreds of email messages that we ignore; most are throwaways. No one cares if a gov't. official deleted a million email messages, classified or not. This topic doesn't mean jackshit to everyday Americans.

[Maedhros]

52. Anyone with an understanding of information security is concerned. [n/t]

[rusty fender]

81. You "important smart" people are so concerned with your

wittle secrets

There is almost nothing that should be kept from the American people, but oh what fun it is to keep secrets!

[Maedhros]

82. Yes, the information should be made available to the American People via the FOIA

if a request is made. Unfortunately, because Hillary wiped the server that is no longer possible, so if you are concerned with governmental transparency you should be agreeing with me that what Hillary did was a bad, bad idea.

But from an information security perspective, the idea is to protect confidential information both in transit and in storage. Imagine if Putin's people had managed to gain remote access to the server, or could intercept the unencrypted State Department communiques being sent by the Secretary of State. That would represent a very serious breach of security and the information would fall into the hands of foreign agents, not whistle blowers acting in the public interest.

I see instances of server and network compromise every day, many which result in millions of dollars of fraud - and these incidents target better-protected networks than Hillary was using. The risk is real. This was 2008, not 1978. Hillary was not some Unfrozen Caveman Secretary of State, frightened and confused by our complicated series of Intertubes and colored boxes. She should have exercised better judgement.

[rusty fender]

84. Scary Putin

the cold war bogey man of the new century. Really? You cold warriors are dead enders. Just stop with the "enemy" thing

[Maedhros]

85. Your post is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There is a need for confidential communication between government officials. Hillary's actions with respect to her communications while serving as Secretary of State created a situation whereby the confidentiality of those communications were put at risk. This is a real problem. That you prefer it not to be a problem is irrelevant.

[doc03]

54. What does this have to do with Benghazi? n/t

[Romulox]

56. Well, her only crime was breaking US Law... nt

[leveymg]

77. Yes, but we'll try to ignore that.