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
Hillary And The Democrats' Dilemma
Hillary And The Democrats' Dilemma
by Steve Denning
Forbes
9/8/15
....large snip....
As in the case of General Petraeus, who was found guilty of mishandling classified information merely by leaving notebooks in an unlocked drawer in his house, Clinton clearly mishandled classified information by keeping emails containing classified information in a private server, without appropriate security arrangements to protect the information, and to which people without proper security clearance had access.
Regardless of what other information will be revealed, Clinton is already at risk of prosecution for mishandling classified information. As in the case of Petraeus, no proof is needed that Clinton personally or knowingly revealed classified information to anyone, although that of course would be an aggravating circumstance. All the government would need to show in a prosecution is that Clinton mishandled classified information, because she knew that the information in the private server was classified and should have known that the security arrangements were inadequate.
.....snip....Democrats now face a dilemma. With Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Presidential nominee, she is at risk of being indicted for the crime of mishandling classified information any time between now and the election in November 2016.
If such an indictment were to occur in the near future, Democrats could presumably re-group and find an electable replacement, such as Joe Biden.
If on the other hand, the indictment were to occur at a later period, say, in the middle of 2016, after Clinton had effectively secured the Democratic nomination, the indictment would threaten, if not doom, the Democratic Party’s chance of winning the election, even if the Republican candidate were to be flawed.
The maddening thing for Democrats is that there can be no clarity on the matter. The threat of a prosecution will be ever present, no matter what any official says, since no one knows which government agency might emerge from the shadows at any time with a duly authorized prosecution....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/09/08/hillary-and-the-democrats-dilemma/
by Steve Denning
Forbes
9/8/15
....large snip....
As in the case of General Petraeus, who was found guilty of mishandling classified information merely by leaving notebooks in an unlocked drawer in his house, Clinton clearly mishandled classified information by keeping emails containing classified information in a private server, without appropriate security arrangements to protect the information, and to which people without proper security clearance had access.
Regardless of what other information will be revealed, Clinton is already at risk of prosecution for mishandling classified information. As in the case of Petraeus, no proof is needed that Clinton personally or knowingly revealed classified information to anyone, although that of course would be an aggravating circumstance. All the government would need to show in a prosecution is that Clinton mishandled classified information, because she knew that the information in the private server was classified and should have known that the security arrangements were inadequate.
.....snip....Democrats now face a dilemma. With Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Presidential nominee, she is at risk of being indicted for the crime of mishandling classified information any time between now and the election in November 2016.
If such an indictment were to occur in the near future, Democrats could presumably re-group and find an electable replacement, such as Joe Biden.
If on the other hand, the indictment were to occur at a later period, say, in the middle of 2016, after Clinton had effectively secured the Democratic nomination, the indictment would threaten, if not doom, the Democratic Party’s chance of winning the election, even if the Republican candidate were to be flawed.
The maddening thing for Democrats is that there can be no clarity on the matter. The threat of a prosecution will be ever present, no matter what any official says, since no one knows which government agency might emerge from the shadows at any time with a duly authorized prosecution....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/09/08/hillary-and-the-democrats-dilemma/
This is indeed a dilemma. From The Daily Beast a while back~
....snip....Although it will be months before intelligence agencies have reviewed all Clinton emails, counterintelligence officials expect that the true number of classified emails on Hillary’s servers is at least many hundreds and perhaps thousands, based on the samplings seen to date.
Excuses that most of the classified emails examined to date are considered Confidential, which is the lowest level, cut no ice with many insiders. Although the compromise of information at that level is less damaging than the loss of Secret—or worse Top Secret—information, it is still a crime that’s taken seriously by counterintelligence professionals. Most of the classified emails that Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised dealt with diplomatic discussions, which is a grave indiscretion as far as diplomats worldwide are concerned.
“Of course they knew what they were doing, it’s a clear as day from the emails,” opined one senior official who is close to the investigation. “I’m a Democrat and this makes me sick. They were fully aware of what they were up to, and the Bureau knows it.” That Hillary and her staff at Foggy Bottom were wittingly involved in a scheme to place classified information into ostensibly unclassified emails to reside on Clinton’s personal, private server is the belief of every investigator and counterintelligence official I’ve spoken with recently, and all were at pains to maintain that this misconduct was felonious.
It’s clear that many people inside the State Department had to be aware, at least to some degree, of what Clinton and her inner staff were engaged in. How far that knowledge went is a key question that the FBI is examining....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/will-hillary-clinton-s-emails-burn-the-white-house.html
Excuses that most of the classified emails examined to date are considered Confidential, which is the lowest level, cut no ice with many insiders. Although the compromise of information at that level is less damaging than the loss of Secret—or worse Top Secret—information, it is still a crime that’s taken seriously by counterintelligence professionals. Most of the classified emails that Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised dealt with diplomatic discussions, which is a grave indiscretion as far as diplomats worldwide are concerned.
“Of course they knew what they were doing, it’s a clear as day from the emails,” opined one senior official who is close to the investigation. “I’m a Democrat and this makes me sick. They were fully aware of what they were up to, and the Bureau knows it.” That Hillary and her staff at Foggy Bottom were wittingly involved in a scheme to place classified information into ostensibly unclassified emails to reside on Clinton’s personal, private server is the belief of every investigator and counterintelligence official I’ve spoken with recently, and all were at pains to maintain that this misconduct was felonious.
It’s clear that many people inside the State Department had to be aware, at least to some degree, of what Clinton and her inner staff were engaged in. How far that knowledge went is a key question that the FBI is examining....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/will-hillary-clinton-s-emails-burn-the-white-house.html
We just have to hope this all is let go, an unfortunate mistake to learn from and not repeat. What a mess...
*******************
eta - From today's Daily Beast~
A new review revealed that two emails Hillary Clinton received on her private account while at the State Department were determined by the intelligence agencies’ inspector general to contain highly sensitive information, senior intelligence officials told The New York Times on Monday. The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency review concluded that the emails were “top secret,” which is the highest government intelligence classification, when they were sent to the then-secretary of state in 2009 and 2011.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/09/08/review-classified-info-in-hil-s-email.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/09/08/review-classified-info-in-hil-s-email.html
Its now a major dilemma.
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"How can you be on notice if there are no markings?" said Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases.
Rhetorical question. Ms. McAdoo should know that foreign government sourced information are "presumed classified," and that Secretary of State Clinton was trained to recognize and handle classified materials.
1) She was trained by the Department on infosec; 2) she sent presumed classified info to 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 report at http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/
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 report at 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"
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?_r=0
what do you suppose HRC's defenders of Classified Security breaches and mishandling should compare to Snowden? I think I can just hear it now. HRC's was all unknowing and accidental.. Snowden was intentionally deliberate. So he's a "traitor" and guilty of espionage. But HRC just goofed up on this one. D'ya think?
Interesting information in this OP by the way, I really hadn't kept up with the details wrt to specific revelations. Like the Blumenthal thing as an example.
So I'm thinking this doesn't portend well whatsoever for 2016. How long will this thing drag out I wonder while all of the political juice dries up .. drip by drip.
Personally I am a Warren supporter, and Bernie is my candidate for POTUS all the way, I think enthusiasm for his nomination may have the power to overcome the negative consequences she's created. I hope. 
