Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
Last edited Fri Aug 21, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: Reuters
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
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.
. . .
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: 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:
Anyone else would have been indicted by now for this.
P.S. - Did anyone else spot the part that says that 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
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Hillary can do no wrong!
SHE IS AWESOME! HEAR HER ROAR! 
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)
Darb
(2,807 posts)She will be the nominee and she will be the next president.
There is NO safe place from hackers, as we can all attest. I am waiting to see what harm was caused. So far, all I see is innuendo about some Bhengazi bullshit, which has been cleared up 6 times already. And maybe some "classified" tidbits got put in emails that weren't on .gov servers, but are you suggesting that they were sent to Russian spies? The emails were sent to Chinese spies? Are you suggesting treason? What are you suggesting?
Again, what is so terrible about what transpired? So far, I don't see a goddamned thing. Can someone who is not out to harm the Democratic front-runner, either overtly or covertly, please explain why this means anything other than jack shit? It is clearly a tempest in Clinton hating teapot and won't make a hill of beans to anyone but those same Clinton obsessing asshats.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)And I'd venture to guess that the classified network at State is a little harder to break into than a server set up in someone's basement. No it's not treason, I'm sure Clinton had no intent to hand over sensitive information to the Chinese. But it sure was negligent and stupid. I wouldn't even say she deserves most of the blame for this situation, because a lot of other people had to be involved for this setup in the first place, and not one of them told her No. if she's surrounding herself with only Yes people, there's going to be a lot more mistakes like this in the future.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... the antiquated computer system at State Department. Rice and Powell used non-government, private email while serving, also. It has been reported that at times, it can take 4 hours for an email to make it's way through the State Department email system, if it makes it at all.
Just another, "defund government and then show everyone how government(or Hillary) doesn't work right".
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2458180/state-department-computer-crash-slows-visa-passport-applications-worldwide.html
"
The U.S. State Department has shut down its unclassified email system in a last-ditch attempt to purge its network off hackers, who were discovered lurking in the Department's unclassified network since November."
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/39729/20150316/state-department-toughens-up-computer-network-against-cyber-threats.htm
Darb
(2,807 posts)Did you see the Morning Joe thread today? He's pushin bathroom, you're saying basement. Both are bullshit.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)No matter How Hillary breaks laws and regulations, no matter how much she lies about how things occurred, you insist it is nothing.
Let me think about this, Hillary received training on security procedures that all government personnel who handle classified are supposed to follow. She refused to follow the rules and continued to use her own server. You will just have to ask her why she is superior to the rest of the government.
Then she put information on that server regarding foreign governments, information that is automatically classified when received. For this reason and possibly other types of classified material the FBI is investigating whether she broke a long standing US law regarding classified information. Oh she also apparently sent some classified information via email from her server to Blumenthal. Blumenthal does not even have clearance and why did she need to tell him anything. But apparently his account was hacked possibly revealing classified information Hillary sent him. Then after freedom of information requests came in asking for the emails which presumably should not have been classified, Hillary puts her spin out that she released all this stuff before reporters asked for it. Spin or lying that is up to you, but I find her actions detestable and betraying a sense of privilege far exceeding what I would expect in a responsible government official. I do not believe Hillary did any wrong regarding Benghazi but I do understand government security procedures and the needs to follow them. Hillary really blew it, and now she is trying to cover up what she did. Running against a candidate who comes across as truthful and one of the people, this is really going to destroy her campaign as it certainly destroys that image of a capable secretary of state, so necessary for her campaign. But you should never mind, just keep calling it jack shit as she buries herself deeper and deeper, Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all the time, and I think he was talking about people like you who spout desired conclusions without facts.
candelista
(1,986 posts)From your post:
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)daybranch
(1,309 posts)I will wait until DOJ finishes their investigation until I decide once and for all. I recognize that where there is smoke, there is not always fire, but there already seems to be burning embers here.
Biden sees this as do other insider democrats who are pushing him to run. I personally believe these dems like repubs will eat their own and Hillary will become unpopular with the insiders soon due to flubs like she makes. Gore may be a better choice.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)That the NYT is a mere instrument of the Republicans.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)What's the hold up?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The relevant federal law requires Clinton to intend to hand over information to another country, or to sell it. She obviously didn't sell it.
That leaves intentionally giving it to a foreign country. Proving that intent would require a lengthy investigation.
Most likely, she won't face charges for this. The punishment if she was government peon #4726 would be losing her clearance and getting fired. She'd face a similar punishment, except that she doesn't have her job as SoS anymore, and doesn't have a clearance anymore. So the punishment is moot.
That doesn't mean there should not be an investigation. There are other people involved, and finding out what may have leaked to where is very important.
candelista
(1,986 posts)(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, the currently leaked information is that the information was intentionally sent over unclassified email.
Essentially, there's a hole in the law. This hole is why they couldn't manage to come up with charges against Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers case), and flailed about until the judge cut them off.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The rules involving what is classified and what isn't are often quite complicated and subjective. I guarantee you that ANYONE who handles a significant a,ount of classified data and subjected to this kind of fine toothed comb can be protrayed in the same way. This is bullshit. In the U.S. Navy alone there are 14 guides describing the rules for classifying information. Each one has at least several hundred rules. No one... I mean NO ONE knows them all.
Some people HATE Clinton and will do ANYTHING to take her down, no matter how ridiculous. That includes people here.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)It was already given to Congress. Under this "legal theory", all the members of the oversight committee and all the news services who already shared the "now classified" email that has recently been discovered should be investigated!! All of their government computers should be turned over to the FBI!
https://www.facebook.com/TheBriefing2016/videos/vb.415405165314505/452560401598981/?type=2&theater
It goes to show that the whole thing is a farce. The classifiers didn't even know they had previously seen the same email and didn't think it was classified!! They aren't even consistent with themselves a few months later! 
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/14/ap-exclusive-top-secret-clinton-emails-include-drone-talk
Darb
(2,807 posts)In case you didn't know, you are jumping a shark.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)But shark jumping is the pastime here on DU these days. It's more like The Discussionist around here.
cali
(114,904 posts)Not legally, but in all kinds of different ways
840high
(17,196 posts)Why do we need to close our eyes to the truth all because it's Hillary?
Darb
(2,807 posts)Make your case.
I will wager this "truth" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
frylock
(34,825 posts)try and keep up.
Darb
(2,807 posts)There has not been one item that has been proven to be "classified" that was intentionally leaked or handed over to anyone for nefarious purposes right? Prove your assertion please, with complete documentation. Otherwise, quit carrying so much teabag water, it doesn't mean jack shit that it was sent over telegraph or however.
And FYI, Foreign Government Information is not considered the same as "Classified". But that doesn't matter to the folks over at Free Republic either.
Thanks in advance.
frylock
(34,825 posts)"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."
Darb
(2,807 posts)Prove somebody did something nefarious, because that is what you all are wetting your pants over right? If not, a mistake of letting some foreign government tidbit go over a particular server doesn't amount to a hill of shit and you know it, except to those that like to play in hills of shit.
I am backing Clinton, but I like O'Malley too. And Joe Biden too. And Bernie as well. So you won't catch me out there parroting Free Republic to bring down any one of them. Pretending some bullshit "server" issue actually means jack fucking squat. I am not inadvertently, or otherwise allying with the Tea Party and the fascist fucks trying to take over our country. I am too smart for that. But apparently, there are plenty here who are not.
frylock
(34,825 posts)but perhaps you'd like to share your credentials of expertise in this field.
And the only reason I'm wetting my pants is from laughing so hard at the excuses being made to cover Hilary's poor judgment. Comedy gold!
Darb
(2,807 posts)It's pathetic and destructive. Most of the Hillary supporters just ignore this ridiculous shit. Some of us Democrats see the harm and try to stop it. It is fucking stupid and the term "useful idiots" comes to mind.
Poor judgement"? You sound just like many others I have heard. Oh yeah, because that is the EXACT meme that is being used by the fascist right wing and their nitwits in the media. You sound just like them. Hmmmmm. You should wet your pants over that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)keep fucking that chicken.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
If you are wetting your pants over this then I think you might be on the wrong site.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1184419
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Wetting your pants? Useful idiots, etc
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 21, 2015, 04:40 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wetting pants, useful idiots - not over the top. Should not have been alerted on at all.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I was going to hide it until I read the alerter was upset over "wetting your pants". LOL Really?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree wetting paints and useful idiots don't belong here
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not hiding this one post when the person they are responding to is just as bad with "keep fucking that chicken". Sorry Sanders-alerter. You and your crew should keep looking for posts to hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The pant wetting meme was exchanged between Frylock and Darb upthread, and both of them have used it to describe a fearful response--why are you crying about it NOW, alerter? Darb might want to watch his back (admins/check?); alerter, you need to stop alerting on a term that both conversationalists have used and to which neither has expressed objection in the thread. Everyone should try being nicer to one another--it's not that hard. They might also try not using right wing sources to "prove" their points, and maybe people would object less to their comments. LEAVE.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Time to stop the tit-for-tat.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
candelista
(1,986 posts)That suggests a great bumper sticker:
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2016
She didn't do anything nefarious
frylock
(34,825 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)But since when does that matter to the waterboy club.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I mean, technically, he would be the liar, but you opted to attack me instead. Moreover, the former director of ISOO isn't lying.
Darb
(2,807 posts)You got jack shit and you are pretending that you do. Just because that one guys says so doesn't make it rise to the level that you and the fascists are trying to take it. It is inconsequential and was not intentional, and quite frankly, not really considered classified, and definitely not nefarious. So by pretending it is because of one quote then I'd say you were leaving out a great deal of the information, and therefore, lying by omission.
frylock
(34,825 posts)please do enlighten me.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)for a conviction as "mishandled classified material." See the posts on this thread.
840high
(17,196 posts)things for America. I'm through with you.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)Do you also speak in tongues?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Its an O'Keeffe stunt: NPR are was given its story by
GOP people with right wing ties.
The Corporate media with the GOP are attacking Hillary
with phony stories.
Darb
(2,807 posts)You are a partisan. And a suspect one in my book. Your actions are not helpful to the Democratic Party, they hurt it.
Keep up the bad work.
cali
(114,904 posts)
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)One of these had to be true:
1. There was indeed no classified information on her server, despite the analysis of the intelligence community to the contrary.
2. There was classified information on her server.
If number one is true, then she really did not do much in her role as Secretary of State,since the role required much classified communication.
If number 2 is true, then she violated the law.
I suspect the underlying issue is WHAT classified info. was involved and possibly hacked.
WashingtonConsensus
(29 posts)
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)pocoloco
(3,180 posts)LOL
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But this will probably hurt Hillary, even though I, a Bernie supporter, think the mistakes are very understandable.
I have tried numerous times just to get a name for Twitter. Can't seem to enroll myself.
Yet I am really good at word processing and dealing with spread sheets.
The internet is baffling. I have been hacked on my e-mails. I have somehow gotten Herndon, Va. as my default weather report on Yahoo (no longer since the law on NSA snooping changed just a bit), and many other strange internet phenomena. I can totally sympathize with Hillary on this issue.
840high
(17,196 posts)so it's ok for us to do it, too. Crap logic.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Bush/Cheney did it to hide malfeasance. Clinton did it to keep your private shit private from criminals like Bush/Cheney and the rest of the fascists fucks that some folks here just cannot keep themselves from aiding and abetting.
They are not the same and only an uninformed, partisan would think otherwise.
frylock
(34,825 posts)but instead, she elected to set up a mail server for both her private shit, and SoS shit.
What happened? Besides the whining of course.
frylock
(34,825 posts)all up and down this thread. You haven't provided any rational argument in defense of this. None. Just personal attacks.
cali
(114,904 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)I'm always amused by those who know that intentions of others.
Unless - you are a Clinton insider ?
Darb
(2,807 posts)I back every Democrat in this race. I am defending Hillary because she is the one who is being attacked by a healthy portion of DU for bullshit reasons. The attacks are pretty much the same shit they are bellowing over at Free Republic and every other right wing shithole on the net, and yet, here they are, one after another. Lather, rinse, repeat. And many times, the same folks.
So again, cut to it, what the fuck are you suggesting was the motivation? If you cannot come up with a reasonable motivation, then be a decent Democrat on the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and quit aiding the baggers.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)My personal guess is that there is nothing "there". However, her own actions suggest otherwise.
And this is why I jumped on your comment; we can't be so blind (partisan) as to believe that our side can do no wrong.
Whether or not Hillary did anything wrong (and neither you nor I actually know if she did), her actions and responses regarding inquiries into her email accounts/server(s) are those of a person trying to hide something! And the fact that the RW is making hay out of this shouldn't be a surprise; Hillary is handing them a gift for cripes sake!
If there is nothing "there", then why has she been trying so hard to cover it up? Just hand over the fricking emails, stop playing cute with the law and be done with it - stop giving the RW any more ammunition!
Bottom line: the "reasonable person" will conclude that she is not completely forthcoming. And they will be wondering: "why?"
On a partisan would think otherwise.
840high
(17,196 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... all one has to do is some googling on, "state department computers obsolete", and a whole bunch of tech and news links come up, take your pick.
frylock
(34,825 posts)because now SOME people are using Bush's email scandal to excuse Clinton.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)email system ANYWAY? At least the Bush Admin can TRY to claim they didn't know better, but given what she had already seen by 2009, Clinton can't even claim that.
still_one
(92,219 posts)today
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
still_one
(92,219 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cheers!
secondwind
(16,903 posts)have always had "Hillary" as a backup... in case Bernie didn't make it.
NOW WHAT?
This sounds very frightening to me... 
first time I use this emoticon since I started here 8 yrs ago
leveymg
(36,418 posts)My biggest fear was that I wouldn't be able to hold my nose tightly enough to pull the lever for Hillary. Now, I think I won't have to face that dilemma.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Presumably that includes this lot:
Oh wait....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)I wouldn't rely on that. Since she was trained to recognize such information as "presumed classified," she can't claim anymore that transmitting that information was okay because the materials weren't stamped classified.
She's had piss-poor counsel (including her own) on this from the beginning. Time for her step away from the plate and get new lawyers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She needed good advice in 2009. She didn't get it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)really wants to be President.
candelista
(1,986 posts)
Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance. President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.
All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work on it on his unsecured home computer.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This has been left to someone else.
candelista
(1,986 posts)As one of his last acts as President. You know, "In light of all the contributions she has made during a long and distinguished career of public service...."
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I sure would be howling.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But I could be wrong, so no need to reply.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Then Hillary fans could have a new campaign slogan:
Hillary for President 2016
She Was Pardoned!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)She would become a saint-like figure. Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, she would give great joy to her supporter(s), and others. I don't think either of these scenarios will happen. Possible? Anything is possible today. 
candelista
(1,986 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But he was expendable. He also got his sentence commuted and received a pardon.
24601
(3,962 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
24601
(3,962 posts)didn't pardon Libby when he was acting president during Bush's last colonoscopy in office. Bust was under anesthesia and Cheney had the authority under the 25th amendment procedures.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) candelista
(1,986 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But I saw him in a recent video, and he doesn't look well.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Another speculative analysis breathlessly forwarded - complete with rhetorical outrage - on DU as something, something, to take down the Democratic Party Presidential nominee front runner?
Just another day at DU of "no one is attacking Clinton at DU" at DU.
The only thing that needs to be "indicted" are certain transparent faux outrages at DU.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The markings that have been applied include the reason for redactions. That is what this story is talking about. They are not guessing.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)it looks like it will take down someone they don't like in the short-term. They don't realize that if the GOP and the corporate media
can successfully pull this against Clinton, they can do so against Sanders as well. It's just a matter of time before they find something they can twist and blow out of proportion about his past.
I'm about as uncommitted as they come in this primary race, so I just hate to see the circular firing squad in full effect, especially when it's about something where the outrage is pretty manufactured. It doesn't do anyone on our side any good in the long run.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)to listen to Sanders regarding the media assault on Clinton, so that is what logic tells me.
Attacking Clintin is supporting the propaganda of the mass media.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)If you say so... 
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
renegade000
(2,301 posts)And that none of these investigations will ever turn up anything that could possibly be turned into a smear campaign?
Look, I don't have any particular attachment to Clinton. I also don't have any particular attachment to Sanders either, so I don't view sacrificing Clinton just to boost Bernie's chases to be a good trade. If you want to start a crusade to also launch mass investigations into how everyone else in the federal government (named Clinton or otherwise) handles their sensitive information and hold everyone to the same standard, then I'd say we'd have a deal (because I'd suspect there'd be a lot of high-level GOPers with mud on their faces too).
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I'm not launching anything. It's a fricking news article! Hillary is the subject, not Bernie. So, you'd like to kill this investigation because you're all worried about Bernie? Sorry, I don't buy it. Nice try though.
frylock
(34,825 posts)so, nah.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Rule #1 - Don't post bad news about Hillary
Rule #2 - If someone dares to do #1 - you can't comment on it, unless you say she is the greatest person on the planet
Rule #3 - It's A-OK to slam any Bernie Sanders supporter that DARES to criticize "she who is today and forever, the frontrunner - and how dare you think otherwise."
Have any additional rules we should follow for you? 
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)unless of course they were Republicans.
In 2007, when Congress asked the Bush administration for emails surrounding the firing of eights U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales revealed that many of the emails requested could not be produced because they were sent on a non-government email server. The officials had used the private domain gwb43.com, a server run by the Republican National Committee. Two years later, it was revealed that potentially 22 million emails were deleted, which was considered by some to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/web-video/missing-white-house-emails
Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure as secretary of state, as questions remain whether Hillary Clinton broke the rules when she conducted State Department business using a personal email account.
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” an aide for Mr. Powell said in a statement, Politico reported.
“He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends,” the statement said.
So whats your point?????????????
They still haven't found them either.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I'd welcome a whole string of indictments for Bush era war crimes, and a long frog march down Pennsylvania Ave of orange jumpsuits.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)"respond" is.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Where does one go to hear inane comments like that? Hmmmm, I cannot put my finger on it.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Hilalry's campaign office?
She has serious weaknesses as a candidate, and now that the press is taking notice of them, people bitch about us being anti-Hillary. Well, I have admitted that because of my prior dealings with her personally, I really do not care for her, but if she was the nominee, I would hold my nose and vote.
It is beginning to look like that won't be the case, now that a judge read her attorney the riot act.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Try Free Republic.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But if I was this would be a prime candidate.
You Hillary or NOBODY people should be careful. If Hillary wins the nomination with all her baggage, as well as the smoke and mirrors the repubs will throw out, we could very well end up with a President tRump. 
Darb
(2,807 posts)I am only pushing back because I know it is only helping the dickwad republicans. I support all of our candidates, Bernie too. But it seems like the attacks are coming at Hillary almost exclusively, which is pretty damn stupid thing to be doing on the Democratic Underground, being that she is the front-runner.
I don't attack any Democratic candidate. None. I do see quite a few attacks coming from the Bernie folks though, and they sound a lot like things I could hear in a number of other places, all bad.
Promote your candidate and don't dog pile with the teabaggers and everyone will be fine.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump, a poster on Democratic Underground said.....
Not likely. If I thought that was a possibility, I'd post with my real name so I could get some personal publicity!
And it's not a damn stupid thing to say if you DON'T WANT Hillary to be the nominee. The differences between the two is stark, and I'm going to keep pointing it out. I think Bernie is our only hope, and I am serious about it. I have twenty-something children and could be a grandfather soon. I really care about their future, and if we keep the status quo, that future looks very bleak.
If Hillary is the nominee, she very likely COULD lose. It won't be little ol' Elmer's fault.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
HFRN
(1,469 posts)PatrickforO
(14,577 posts)Not trying to be a jerk, or be snarky, but she has done a few things over time that have caused me to question her judgement just a bit.
This isn't to say I won't vote for her if she's the nominee, but when it comes to judgement, I'm supporting Bernie and hoping he is our nominee. Because I really WOULD rather vote for him.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I won't mention from where you cut and pasted because pulling back curtains around here gets one banned.
That's weak.
frylock
(34,825 posts)oh whoops.
Darb
(2,807 posts)not at your foot.
That "trustworthy" meme is a right-wing fabricated pile of shit and that poster above was repeating it. I know a number of places that you could go to cut that horseshit from, and bring it right back here to posit your "concern".
HFRN
(1,469 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Look there are about 5 levels of violation in these situations and it isn't clear which one this is.
1) After the fact, it is decided that some information should have been classified.
This comes up often because information becomes classified in certain contexts. The shifting of that information to a new context that makes it classified is often not noticed or detected. It is the unfortunate reason that a very large amount of information is inappropriately classified in the first place. Because it becomes a gray area when the proper context has been achieved. So the knee jerk/easy thing to do is to just classify "everything".
You don't go to jail for this stuff. You don't get indicted. You get to go to "refresher trainings". Probably so does your staff.
2) They "should have known" category.
People should have been aware that something was classified, but because they got into bad habits, they forgot that they had moved into a classified area of information. (By the way, this is probably the bulk of what this stuff was). You deal too much in unclassified information that you stop reviewing material to ensure that you are still there. It's also common when someone else sends it to you first in an unclassified context. You're suppose to notice, you don't always.
You don't get indicted for this. You may lose your clearance if you do it too often. Losing a clearance can mean losing a job in some situations.
3) Tried to avoid.
People will try to send only some information, hoping that by excluding other information that it isn't classified. Or they'll speak in euphemisms or "coded language" that isn't all that "coded".
That's a no-no that gets you in trouble and can get you retraining, slaps on the wrist, and if you don't stop it, you'll lose a clearance and/or your job. You still won't go to jail or get indicted unless it can be traced to some serious breach. Even then jail is unlikely.
4) Intentional leak.
This is Petraeus. You knowingly transmit information to someone you know is not cleared, by means that were inappropriate. Either one is trouble, together it's serious trouble. They don't care whether "well they could have gotten a clearance" or "they wouldn't tell anyone". You're in trouble. The FBI is gonna get called. You're gonna get fired. You're gonna lose your clearance. And depending upon who ELSE found out, you may get indicted.
5) Espionage.
You stole/obtained it specifically to give it to someone whose interest was to undermine the interests of the US.
You're going to jail, and there won't be much of a trail unless you have a stupid lawyer.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This is far worse than taking classified laptops home. He was pardoned by Bill on his last day in office.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Look, I think the dumbest moment was when anyone approved this arrangement with the servers, and when Hillary thought it would be a good idea. None the less, once the approval was had, everything after that falls into one of the "inadvertent" categories. Unless it is determined that she intentionally used the system to transfer classified information to unclassified systems, what you basically have is a "spill".
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's lots of recent precedent for convictions of gov't officials for loading classified materials onto private home computers and media:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-6412917.php
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/sailor-pleads-guilty-mishandling-documents
And, then there was Petraeus.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)He told the court that he understood the regulations and knew he wasn't supposed to take the documents. But he said they were useful for training purposes, so he kept them for his own reference, and didn't share them with anyone.
This is basically #4. This will get you in trouble. You knew you weren't supposed to, but you did it anyway. Hillary has not copped to this and no one has yet accused her of doing this (no on in the IG's office or other investigator).
leveymg
(36,418 posts)by the State Dept.
She has apparently deemed that these procedures and laws don't apply to her. She's about to find out otherwise.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Yes, she was trained. Yes, she claims to have understood that training. Yet people make mistakes. I outlined many of the ways those mistakes get handled. Up until it becomes repetitive, or intentional, it won't lead to criminal prosecutions. The lone exception is when it results in a serious breach that causes damage. None of these criteria has yet been met in this situation.
She sent and received departmental emails on a server approved for that activity. It was NOT approved for classified use. As such, if classified information gets onto those servers, it is handled as a "spill". If the spill is traced back to her mistake, or if she failed to report the spill, it can lead to administrative actions. Up until it is determined to be habitual, OR intentional, it is not going to get criminal treatment.
Now, if the use of those assets had NOT been approved for departmental use, that in and of itself would have been an issue, AND it would have made the spill something that could have been considered for severe treatment because the intentional use of unapproved assets lead to the spill of information onto uncontrolled (and unmonitored) assets. THAT starts to move into the "intentional" category. Depending upon the severity of the spill, THAT could have lead to criminal treatment. So far, nothing here has reached anywhere near that level of severity, AND those assets WERE approved for departmental use.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Look at the links provided in this thread.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)6) Person knows about it, but just doesn't care enough to do anything about it. That is gross negligence when it come to classified data at the top 3 levels.
Any other person not named Clinton would be out on bail right about now.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)That's #2 with a bit of #3 thrown in. You'll note, neither she nor the investigators have suggested any "intent" on her part. And I presume she's not dumb enough to announce "I just didn't care". As such, it gets put in the "I should've but didn't know" category. First time it gets you retraining. After that it gets more severe. The game can change if the info actually got out and did harm, but that hasn't been established either.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If you get caught intentionally mishandling classified information, which can include moving it to unapproved systems, that's trouble. I'm dubious that's what happened here, and it's even more dubious that she'll either cop to it, or they'd be able to prove as such.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But you never know in Washington, DC. 
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I suspect that sometime next year the FBI or DOJ or something puts out a report explaining that there was nothing criminal here and that it was handled "administratively" or something. The GOP won't let it go though and they'll all go around about "what was deleted" or "an issue of trust" or other vague charges.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)On the face of it, it seems like it strikes at Clinton's competence, which would seem to be a big selling point in her as a candidate.
Of course attacking a strength is a GOP tactic so it's hard to determine if this is something really bad or something cooked up to LOOK bad.
Owning her own server, I would think, would be done to control her emails and prevent snooping by political enemies, however at the same time anybody who was paranoid enough to do that I'd think would be paranoid enough not to send classified info over it because if you are a Clinton the GOP IS going to try to go thru all your private stuff to try to get you or at least embarrass you anyway.
I really want Clinton to stay strong because I think she has a good chance at winning. A chance she blew last time and I hope she doesn't blow this time.
I love and am going to vote for Bernie but would be totally fine with Hillary but at this point I'd like to see a few more credible candidates jump in just in case, OR I'd like to see a way larger surge in the Polls for Bernie or O'Malley.
Darb
(2,807 posts)When you've got more than jack squat let us know.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) randome
(34,845 posts)It's depressing to hear the glee in your post when you pull at a thread that you fervently pray will lead to a fellow Democrat's destruction.
But your prayers will still go unanswered. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I don't pray, as I am an atheist. I don't depend on fantasy. But apparently some of you do.
randome
(34,845 posts)Is that how this goes? If something is not clearly labeled as 'Classified' when it was sent to Clinton, then why would you think she should know before she even reads it?
I honestly don't get it.
Or is it the worry that someone, somewhere might have hacked her email and read something that should have been marked classified?
It's really stretching reality to find something to tar her with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
jonno99
(2,620 posts)especially if I knew (and everyone knew that I knew) that you were a drug dealer and the event occurred when I invited you over to my house!
Having the private server they absolutely should have expected that classified material would be sent to them.
Don't you agree?
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)But please don't blame me. I'm just a faceless internet junkie. And yes, if this was all about Bernie, I'm not sure I would want to buy into it either.
lamp_shade
(14,836 posts)From AOL
leveymg
(36,418 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Does Bernie have to draw you a picture?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Most non-partisans don't buy into this kind of horseshit. It just smacks of political mudslinging and crying.
Where is the beef?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This isn't going to help her with them, or anyone.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)renegade000
(2,301 posts)So no, I don't think "anyone else would have been indicted by now for this." In fact, this just muddies the water even further about what the proper info sec. procedures are for the state department and such. As someone who has worked on US classified networks/materials but not FGI (and thankfully not had to do both at the same time), I would have been hesitant to place FGI information on US classified systems, because that's basically working at cross purposes. The purpose of a US classified system is to keep ALL foreign individuals (and all non-"need to know" US individuals) away from said information. FGI information has been shared by foreign governments sometimes for the expressed purposes of collaboration with their representatives. It doesn't strike me as being the most efficient or secure practice to have to constantly access US classified systems in the potential presence of foreign nationals. Yes, you have to protect FGI information (as in you can just leave it sitting on top of your desk and such), and perhaps the State Department has a good method of storing both FGI and US classified materials together, but it's emphatically NOT the same level of "classified" as US classified information.
candelista
(1,986 posts)You seem to know what you are talking about, but Executive Order 12356--National security information--lists FGI as a Classification category. Has this changed?
Sec. 1.3 Classification Categories.(a) Information shall be considered for classification if it concerns: (1) military plans, weapons, or operations; (2) the vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects, or plans relating to the national security; (3) foreign government information; (4) intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods; (5) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States; (6) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security; (7) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; (8) cryptology; (9) a confidential source; or (10) other categories of information that are related to the national security and that require protection against unauthorized disclosure as determined by the President or by agency heads or other officials who have been delegated original classification authority by the President. Any determination made under this subsection shall be reported promptly to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There isn't a legal distinction between the two.
There's a third purpose you don't seem to acknowledge - is to keep third-countries away from our communications with foreign gov'ts.
If you can't produce a source for your assumption, you'd better go back for a refresher on this subject.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Some of this explanation sounds like government ass-covering and double talk. I'm assigned to the State Department in Spain and the guy where I buy my morning coffee says, "My cousin tells me it's hot in Malaga this week. I wouldn't go there until it cools off." Was that told to me in confidence? By a non-US source in that country? Could it be classified? If so, at what level? If not, why not?
Without knowing the contents of the remarks, it's difficult to tell if any truly valuable information was compromised. But what about the information that came from a "spy chief?" Because this person is a spy, we assume the information is sensitive, but spies pass along far more than secret codes and weapons locations. "Watch out for Xiang Feng. He has an important position and he doesn't like you." Classified, right? Yes? No? Maybe?
I don't think anyone is much concerned whether or not US interests were compromised. That seems highly unlikely. The point of this whole exercise appears to be to create another scandal and slow-walk it in front of the public.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)just like her gang gave 35 years to
Chelsea Manning
Veterans For Peace
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts) leveymg
(36,418 posts)Please see my P.S. in the OP. Thanks.
madville
(7,412 posts)Honesty, trustworthiness, and favorbility this definitely is the opening Biden would need to jump in the race and have a shot.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)But, she probably doesn't want to. She's seen this up-close for seven years, and knows what it does to people.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Seems to me this is mostly a Republican fishing expedition bearing some fruit, a few classified emails, possibly one of them was hacked by Romanians, is that right? I don't want to feed that kind of attack on a Democrat, even though I can't stand Hillary, I'll have her back against Republicans unless she's done something truly terrible.
The part of the email scandal that concerns me, is that IMO she did it to have control over any future discovery attempts. She decided what was personal and what was business, deleted the ones she wanted to and said they were personal, turned over the rest, and eventually the server but only after it was cleaned up no doubt.
Those emails are part of the historic record, and should also be available for legal discovery. There is no excuse for them to be discolsed or not based on her personal decisions. It's pretty obvious to me that's why the server was set up in the first place, to allow her to fully control what was disclosed. That's unacceptable to me.
I think historians should be able to look at Secretary of State emails to see what was going on, what our country was saying to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, or what corporations were requesting from our government, we have a right to know what our government is up to, not just what the government is willing to tell us it is up to. I know we can't be told everything in real time, some conversations need privacy, but eventually we should be able to know, otherwise we don't know if they are acting in our interests. It also invalidates things like subpoena power.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)it was not right when bush illegally hid e mails in the us attorney scandal and it was not right for hillary either
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)DWS and the entrenched DNC must be wanting a Plan B, in the event this thing becomes too much for The Annointed One.
Whether the email stuff is true or not, THEY may force her out...can you imagine the debates with the winner of the PukeBagger Party?
randys1
(16,286 posts)NO REPUBLICAN IS EVER INDICTED FOR ANYTHING
practically speaking, that is.
Dear god
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
Vinca
(50,278 posts)I'd like to see a second source before taking this as fact.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This has the markings of a hit piece.
asjr
(10,479 posts)even before she was first lady. So this is no surprise to me. There has been a certain type of hater ever since she first told the media she would not stay at home and bake cookies during her husband's time as president.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)simply handed over the emails/server(s) as she was required to do when she was asked to do it.
Keep in mind she was a public servant and as such, any official correspondence - by definition - belongs to the people of the US - not to her.
With all her evasions and stone-walling she is merely providing the ammunition - which her enemies are using against her.
There is no one to blame - but Hillary...
leveymg
(36,418 posts)They ran these by the former Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) identified in the article, and pursued it with other experts. This is their findings. Reuters is acting as a news reporting and analysis agency. That's their job.
24601
(3,962 posts)more significant than sending classified over an improper circuit.
And, as an Original Classification Authority, it was her responsibility to know what she was doing.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)and the FBI while you're at it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)How can anyone think it's proper to operate their own server at home to do government business, especially handling classified messages. And of course she handled classified messages on the system, because how could she do her job without handling classified messages. Does she think she is above the law?
Now, how can she get the clearance to handle any more classified information, because there's no way she should pass the background investigation.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Sienna86
(2,149 posts)I can only conclude there was arrogance in thinking rules didn't apply to her. Or that she was shamefully ignorant of classification requirements, and like I said, everyone at such an agency knows better.
840high
(17,196 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)and deal with classified info all the time
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)She was keeping client data on personal devices, on her own personal dropbox account and god only knows where else, using a personal me@myname.com email address setup by her son for work and using some free third-party audio conferencing service to host conference calls. She was warned over and over again that this was inappropriate and told those who complained to mind their own fucking business.
I have a very hard time believing this went unnoticed at the time and that the issue wasn't raised, likely repeatedly.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is just under political attack, buy the GOP: they
don't have any ideas so they are make up things.
840high
(17,196 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)This issue demonstrates some combination of severe arrogance and severe incompetence on her part.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)That she used for official business?
Morally wrong or criminally wrong, perhaps not. Wildly inappropriate anywhere in the public or private sector, absolutely.
Sorry, this one is going to stick and she has only herself to blame.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You just don't like Hillary: She would never want to work for
you.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)6000eliot
(5,643 posts)NOBODY CARES!
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)that are far, far worse and were never prosecuted.
On the other hand, corporate Democrats sort of deserve this for NOT going after those more serious Bush crimes.
Leaving GOP sins unpunished is a favor Republicans NEVER repay Democrats.
