Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't Confirms Clinton Emails Contained Top-Secret Information (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Just days before candidates begin primary season with caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Obama administration confirmed for the first time that Hillary Clinton's emails did contain sensitive information. The Associated Press reports that seven of these email chains, are being withheld from the press because they contain information deemed to be "top secret" and that 37 pages included messages described by intelligence officials as "special access programs" — meaning, highly restricted and closely guarded government secrets.
I'm not voting for her in the primaries, and she probably did fuck up w/operational security big-time. I don't think it was with malice
Doesn't matter. Carelessness with Secret information is a federal felony. These "Special Access" documents are "above Top Secret", and likely contained names of covert sources - that is, when this server was hacked by foreign intelligence services, this carelessness caused deaths. That's why it's a felony.
But there is evidence of malice - there is an email instructing a subordinate to strip off the classified header from a document and "send it insecure".
There are important issues like who does and doesn't get massive financial support from wall street to complain about.
Off topic, but Hillary's top lifetime donors have been investment banks and our friends the cable companies. That is the legal donors. The FBI is also investigating Hillary for illegal contributions to the Clinton fund.
We'll know the truth of all of this when it goes to trial, or we'll know we're in a banana republic if it doesn't. In either case, this isn't some trivial issue - people likely died behind this.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The only one that will profit from this is Bernie Sanders. So far he hasn't been touching the email issue, probably because it's contaminated.
Hillary has so far not been convincing in the denials around that - or a lot of other stuff that she did during her time as secretary of state.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
To me the problem isn't so much the legality - regulations can be a huge pain and how can you remember them all while trying to conduct diplomacy in a complex world? What bothers me is the lack of judgement. Even if she tried to keep classified stuff off the server and did a pretty good job - she's the Secreatary of State. Nearly everything that is emailed to her is something an enemy might be interested in. She agrees to go to lunch with Joe from accounting again? Joe seems to have her ear he would be a great guy to gain influence over to get him to influence her policies and gain information.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
She repeatedly broke the rules because she wanted to beat the system. She runs a farce of a charitable foundation which gives almost no money to charity, and which doubles as a campaign slush fund. And she lied at every step of the way.
I'm a democrat and that's not some partisan attack. She's a corporate whore. Her donor list is a who's who of the banking, insurance industry and big-Pharma elite. Why on earth is she even considered to represent the people's party?
Screw Hilary and her elitist cabal of sell-out faux-populists.
She's the absolute worst,
I wish news organizations would press her harder with followup questions. I was listening to a NPR (my main source of news) doing a question and answer with Hillary.
NPR: Did you send or receive classified e-mails?
Hillary: I did not receive or send e-mails marked classified.
NPR should have followed up with: Did you discuss with anyone over your private unsecured e-mails system anything that should have been classified? (To have done that would would have been illegal)
During this Q&A with Hillary, she laughed and said that one of the e-mails that is now being classified was of someone sending her a New York Times article. How could it be classified if it was in the newspaper?
(I spent a year in Iraq supporting the US Army. At one point, a co-worker gave a google earth picture to me (by hand) of area around us. He pointed out that the picture originally was not classified because it came from google earth. But then he pointed out that he had made some markings on the picture and now it was classified.)
NPR should have followed up with Hillary: In this e-mail did the person have classified knowledge about the subject of the newspaper article, and did he make comments about the article. (As in my example above, if someone with classified knowledge made any comments about the article and sent it over a non secure e-mail system, it would be illegal)
(disclaimer: I am a Bernie Sanders supporter)
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal. It doesn't matter if the data was leaked or not. What matters is that she knowingly had classified (the lack of markings also doesn't matter...when you know material is of a classified matter, and she claims openly that she does, then you report it and turn it over), and claimed she didn't, and then tried to whitewash the entire matter.
Now her campaign is taking the tactic that it's because the govt. is overclassifying the material. Answer this...how would they know unless they know what's in those 22 emails that nobody has seen. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be lowered from Top Secret to Unclass, and anything about that would be admitting that she had stored classified. And nobody, but nobody, gets to "just get shit done" with that.
As for your misdirection with Trump, yes he's a jackass too. But it's off-topic.
Just another day in Paradise
Her intent was not to "get shit done", it was to keep as much as possible from being subject to FOIA requests; remember that she directed at least one aide to circumvent classified channels by manually retyping classified information, stripping it of its classification markings, and sending over the internet. And are you seriously suggesting that it's okay because there's "no evidence anything was leaked"? Because the fact that it was on a non-secure server IS evidence that it was leaked.
Treason has specific legal meaning...What she did was criminal, but doesn't come close to treason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Just another day in Paradise
Right? She "confirmed" they didn't. 100% honest to goodness. No way jose.
Except... turns out she lied.
Again.
No, not really. According to this NY Times article, and reports I heard on NPR earlier:
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
So, they're classified *now* after the fact but were not earlier. From what I know, and is noted in the article itself, this is not that uncommon. Furthermore:
“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.
Officials at the State Department have said the “upgrading” of the classification of Mrs. Clinton’s emails has been routine. Mr. Kirby said Friday that the classification review was “focused on whether they need to be classified today.”
Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
OK Mr Smartass conservative, if what she did is criminal, then why have charges not been filed?
Lifelong Democrat here...et me be blunt:
Charges not been filed because she was the Secretary of State AND a former First Lady. There's no way the government will blacken its own eye by doing a goddamn thing to her. They'd NEVER put a former First Lady in jail. She could behead a 9-year old boy on the steps of the White House on national TV and she'd still get off.
I'm a Democrat, and a pretty liberal one at that. And yet, I have NO love in my heart for Hillary Clinton- she's a fascist tool of the banking industry and rich, moneyed, concerns. She's a crook and a liar, basically a Republican-Lite masquerading as a Democrat.
Let's face it- she fucked up and broke the law with the whole private email server thing and we both know it. If you or I had been found to have a single classified email on OUR private server we'd already be serving time in prison somewhere. But not her, oh nooooooo.
So no, even a lifelong Democrat like me won't vote for her. I just can't do it. I gotta call 'em as I see 'em, and she's dirty, as dirty as they come.
The impeachment (and subsequent acquittal) of her husband was clearly part of a smear campaign. It is of no interest to anyone but Bill's wife into whose mouth he puts his cock. The e-mail scandal, on the other hand, is a big problem.
I don't know what is " turbo-liberal" about Planned Parenthood: it's an organization that provides health services. Some people disagree with some of those services on religious grounds. The resulting debate is given far too much importance on the National political stage. In reality, the issue is used as a tool to divide the electorate and everyone seems to fall for it.
I don't much like Hilary, but I like less silly ad hominem like saying "incontrovertible proof of mental illness", which just lower the standard of discourse and contribute nothing.
soylentnews.org
Apparently, at least one of the emails was about a NY Times article about the US classified drone program. Hard to imagine why an email about an article in a public newspaper would be classified.
If the person who sent the article from the public newspaper has classified knowledge and that person makes comments about the public newspaper article, then the e-mail has classified information.
What a silly, non-sensual argument.
Hillary Clinton, as a Harvard educated lawyer is not, simple-minded, and she knows ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Hillary was taught, first as a Senator, then as Secretary of State, how to identify, mark, and handle classified information (classified means 'confidential', 'secret' or 'top secret' classification).
Hillary was taught that material does not have to be marked with a classification to be secret/require special handling.
Hillary knew that removing a classification marking from a document doesn't make the contents less secret.
Hillary has turned over at least one email exchange in which she instructs an aide to print out material from the classified email system and send it to her insecure home server, the act of doing so is a breach of security protocols and a crime.
As Secretary of State she refused to allow her official email from passing through secure gov't email servers - that is NOT the same as forwarding emails from your gov't email account to a private account, a practice frowned upon, but employed by many gov't workers, including past Secretaries of State.
The argument Hillary supporters would have you believe is that every email sent or received on her server by her or her aides were not classified, that anyone could have read them at the time she got/sent them, but it is only with the passage of time that the information in these emails became secret, requiring classification and special handling.
At it's simplest, the moment Hillary handed her attorney the flash drive containing the 55,000 pages of emails, some of which contained classified information, she committed a crime. General Patraeus showed secret documents to his mistress and was convicted of mis-handling state secrets. Hillary, in handing over state secrets to her lawyer committed the very same crime.
Ken
Not only that: just sending the article can make it classified. Suppose I have classified information about the North Korean nuclear weapons program, and someone sends me an email asking for a good overview of the NK nuclear weapons program. That's a classified query about classified information. My response, even if it's just sending a link to the NYT article, is a classified response.
ObDisclosure: I hold a U.S. security clearance. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. The example I gave is straight out of (non-classified) briefing materials about how to take care of classified information.