Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Dept. Releases 5,500 Hillary Clinton Emails, 275 Retroactively Classified (nbcnews.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the still-this dept.

An anonymous reader sends this report from NBC News: The State Department on Thursday released 5,500 more pages of Hillary Clinton's emails, but fell short of meeting a court-ordered target of making 82 percent of the former secretary of state's messages public by the end of 2015. The email dump is the latest release from the private server Clinton used during her time as America's top diplomat. The State Department said it failed to meet the court's goal because of "the large number of documents involved and the holiday schedule." Portions of 275 documents in the batch were upgraded to classified, though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email, according to the State Department. In total, 1,274 of her emails were retroactively classified by the government before their release.

7 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. State doing the CYA thing by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"

    Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.

    These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.

    If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.

    1. Re:State doing the CYA thing by tsqr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.

    2. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.

      Yeah, for you. Too bad your last name isn't "Clinton", eh?

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    3. Re:State doing the CYA thing by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the State Department gives you explicit permission to do as she did. Which they did. Until they didn't.

      I'm sorry. You're either being a partisan shell or you don't understand the issue. No one can give you permission to hold classified information on an unclassified server.

      Frankly, I think the problem runs deeper. How does an unsecured server end up on the same network as classified information?

    4. Re:State doing the CYA thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've held a Secret clearance for 38 years, and the rules covering this sort of thing are very clear. The penalties include a huge fine and very serious federal prison time.

      I held a secret clearance for 20 years, as a military officer, and while working on defense contracts. The spooks would hold security sweeps about once a month, checking desk drawers, file cabinets, computer drives. The ALWAYS found violations, and the worst consequences were verbal reprimands and mandatory remedial training. No one was ever fired or demoted or paid a fine. Certainly no one went to federal prison.

  2. Re:Trump to the rescue! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we should make the election like an SAT multiple choice test. There should be an choice "none of the above" . . . no Clinton, no Trump.

    This could toss back both mainstream political parties to come up with some better, more palatable candidates. Hell, maybe even a fringe party might get a chance to squeeze someone reasonable in . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  3. Re:WHY WAS SHE USING HER PERSONAL MAIL SERVER? by meadow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably for some really grubby reason such as making it easier for her to accept bribes, etc.

    On a side note, its really interesting when the oligarchic-controlled news media and political "pundits" crap their pants over they way Donald Trump has verbally thrashed her recently.
    What they fail to understand is that Big Media and "pundits" crapping their pants over his statements only increases his popularity with people, who see through the years and decades of lies and BS.

    If the oligarchic-controlled Big Media and all the "pundits" were such great guardians and watchers of our democracy, how the hell did it become this effed up and broken?

    And now we're supposed to be concerned when they crap their pants because someone insults one of the foremost, lying hypocrites?