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

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 02:53 AM Aug 2015

Et Tu, Reuters? (Hillary email)


http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20150821&t=2&i=1073447292&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEB7K06G

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

"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."
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)
1. I don't understand this
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 03:29 AM
Aug 2015

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

What I don't understand is why SoS communications would be made public. I mean she was dealing with foreign countries who may have had an expectation of privacy when having a private conversation with SoS. It's just seems weird.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
2. Anyay, nothing to worry about. It's not like Reuters is a big news organization or anything.
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 05:27 AM
Aug 2015

Very few people even know who they are....

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. I don't find the classification stuff nearly as troubling
Fri Aug 21, 2015, 06:18 AM
Aug 2015

as what this whole mess says about Hillary's penchant for secrecy, disregard for rules, flawed judgment and disdain for accountability.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Et Tu, Reuters? (Hillary ...