• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Clinton to hand over email server to FBI

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Now reports are coming out that many of the classified docs were "born" classified, as was stated here repeatedly. She knew that as SoS.

She knowingly broke the law. She has hid probably the worst of it by self selecting and deleting the rest.
Link

NEW YORK (Reuters) - 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.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

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.

"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."

Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.

"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.

The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.
...

So State says the analysis is wrong, but will not explain how. :colbert:

Similar to the way the US security systems works when put on trial.
Claim something is classified, but because it is classified, you can not see why. :p


What a tangled web is weaved, when first attempting to deceive.
but the sheep will follow no matter what the cost.
Any they complained about the same with Bush.():)
 
Last edited:

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
She treated email that arrived in her internet inbox as not classified because it was not marked as such and came from an insecure source. She has no way to know if that information was deemed classified by another govt entity.

The fact that it may end up classified is completely immaterial.

I'm sure that the same issue can easily be found in the emails of any modern SoS.

It's different, of course, because it's Hillary.

I'll play your silly little game.

Generally speaking, even if the email itself doesn't have a classification controls (because Hillaroid's roll-your-own server doesn't support them, making it impossible to conduct official business with regard to anything of a sensitive nature), the subsections will frequently also have classifications. It could be reasonably assumed that any attached documents would have their classification markings intact.

Most importantly, which is why this sentence is separate from the above paragraph - as secretary of state and classification authority for the same she should be able to determine what could or could not cause damage (Confidental), serious damage (Secret), or grave damage (Top Secret) to the national security of the United States. She should be able to do this while reading her email or she has no business wielding the power. Further, why didn't she report the malicious insider that was feeding her classified information over an unclassified information system for the appropriate security violations?

The fact that it may "end up" classified is not immaterial. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the information that was on her server. If that information is classified then she is responsible for not protecting it. Why the chicken crossed the road isn't and will never be classified. What we knew about x,y, or z revolution and how we knew it probably is or will be. I can't help but notice as the story changes in material ways you find new excuses for her behavior.

If classified information was leaked to unclassified systems by other Secretaries of State then find it, prosecute them, and put them all in the same block at Leavenworth. You have my endorsement, 'other people did it' is no excuse. It isn't different at all. Clean house.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
She treated email that arrived in her internet inbox as not classified because it was not marked as such and came from an insecure source. She has no way to know if that information was deemed classified by another govt entity.

The fact that it may end up classified is completely immaterial.

I'm sure that the same issue can easily be found in the emails of any modern SoS.

It's different, of course, because it's Hillary.

Communication from a foreign government is supposed to be automatically treated as classified.

That is not her determination to make/ignore. :mad:

She both received and transmitted such. :colbert:
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
But she never received anything 'marked' classified. Remember, the Clintons are all about parsing their phrases.

I've said it before, Hillary could walk into a daycare center and molest every child on live national TV and the libs in here would still defend her.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
But she never received anything 'marked' classified. Remember, the Clintons are all about parsing their phrases.

I've said it before, Hillary could walk into a daycare center and molest every child on live national TV and the libs in here would still defend her.

Can she say she never sent anything regarding communication with a foreign government from her server :confused:
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
But she never received anything 'marked' classified. Remember, the Clintons are all about parsing their phrases.

I've said it before, Hillary could walk into a daycare center and molest every child on live national TV and the libs in here would still defend her.

Looks like that carefully parsed statement is going to crumble as well.

Reuters is reporting that 'dozens' of emails were actually classified at the time, so it's not just things that were classified after the fact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

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.
If this is confirmed, it proves that there wasn't just classified info on the server or that it was just information received, but that hildabeast and her minions actually personally sent and received classified information through insecure channels.

Isn't there some sort of law around mishandling of classified data? I seem to recall something about that .... :whiste:

Looks like the bummer is going to have to make a decision soon. Uphold the laws and torpedo the presumed potus-to-be, or use his position to make further digging / investigation go away.
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
But she never received anything 'marked' classified. Remember, the Clintons are all about parsing their phrases.

I've said it before, Hillary could walk into a daycare center and molest every child on live national TV and the libs in here would still defend her.
And she could be Mother Teresa, and GOP shills would still attack her. Don't point with a dirty finger, friend.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Just like she could be a proven child serial killer and you and your ilk would still defend her.

Does the cleanliness of the pointing finger change what it's pointing at?
No, you're projecting your own blind partisanship on me. I'm defending facts and truth, not Clinton. I'm defending innocent until proven guilty, clearly an obsolete concept among the GOP faithful. I've said repeatedly that if the FBI finds she broke the law she should be prosecuted appropriately. You started with her convicted and now search for things to reinforce your bias.

This is merely the latest example of the GOP smear machine in action. Like every other RNC "outrageous scandal," they've cherry-picked bits and pieces out of context, blended them with heaping helpings of supposition and innuendo, and spewed them generously through their army of propaganda organs. I won't guzzle their spew, preferring to get information through less blatantly biased sources. YMMV.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I do love it. Information transmitted by email from foreign dignitaries is "classified" upon receipt, even though its provenance is entirely insecure. I can appreciate that in terms of public release. OTOH, the person sending it has de-classified it security-wise in their selection of transmission media. That's fundamental.

So what we get is pretense on the basis of nonsensical interpretation of rules that the information can somehow be rendered truly secure by treating it as if it were secure in the first place. That works in terms of public perception management in document releases, but is merely an illusion in terms of foreign govts. In that sense, all internet connected networks must be considered to be compromised, at least for honest purposes. Any security geek who claims otherwise is dishonest.

Oh, wait- we're not talking about honest purposes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Looks like that carefully parsed statement is going to crumble as well.

Reuters is reporting that 'dozens' of emails were actually classified at the time, so it's not just things that were classified after the fact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

If this is confirmed, it proves that there wasn't just classified info on the server or that it was just information received, but that hildabeast and her minions actually personally sent and received classified information through insecure channels.

Isn't there some sort of law around mishandling of classified data? I seem to recall something about that .... :whiste:

Looks like the bummer is going to have to make a decision soon. Uphold the laws and torpedo the presumed potus-to-be, or use his position to make further digging / investigation go away.

Did they bear classified stamps while on Hillary's server? Is there some honest point to be made in claiming they might have w/o substantiation?

Oh, wait, that's classified, right?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
No, you're projecting your own blind partisanship on me. I'm defending facts and truth, not Clinton.

:D :D :D :D

.... oh, you were being serious. Ok then :eek:

I'm defending innocent until proven guilty, clearly an obsolete concept among the GOP faithful. I've said repeatedly that if the FBI finds she broke the law she should be prosecuted appropriately. You started with her convicted and now search for things to reinforce your bias.

Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law, and for criminal offenses. I'm 100% on board with that. What she did may or many not have been criminal -- hopefully we'll find out at some point, but we already know it was inappropriate. So yes, she's being "convicted" in the court of public opinion for doing something inappropriate and for being arrogant and deceitful about it. Nothing wrong with that, we'll find out about the criminal charges later. I'm assuming there won't be any.

This is merely the latest example of the GOP smear machine in action.

Yes, it's the GOP smear machine that made her use a private email server, and to have classified information on that server, housed in an insecure location. Yep, all the evel gop smear machine at work.

I won't guzzle their spew, preferring to get information through less blatantly biased sources. YMMV.

Oh, yes, unbiased sources like dailykos, huffpo etc. Funny man :)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I'll play your silly little game.

Generally speaking, even if the email itself doesn't have a classification controls (because Hillaroid's roll-your-own server doesn't support them, making it impossible to conduct official business with regard to anything of a sensitive nature), the subsections will frequently also have classifications. It could be reasonably assumed that any attached documents would have their classification markings intact.

Most importantly, which is why this sentence is separate from the above paragraph - as secretary of state and classification authority for the same she should be able to determine what could or could not cause damage (Confidental), serious damage (Secret), or grave damage (Top Secret) to the national security of the United States. She should be able to do this while reading her email or she has no business wielding the power. Further, why didn't she report the malicious insider that was feeding her classified information over an unclassified information system for the appropriate security violations?

The fact that it may "end up" classified is not immaterial. Hillary Clinton is responsible for the information that was on her server. If that information is classified then she is responsible for not protecting it. Why the chicken crossed the road isn't and will never be classified. What we knew about x,y, or z revolution and how we knew it probably is or will be. I can't help but notice as the story changes in material ways you find new excuses for her behavior.

If classified information was leaked to unclassified systems by other Secretaries of State then find it, prosecute them, and put them all in the same block at Leavenworth. You have my endorsement, 'other people did it' is no excuse. It isn't different at all. Clean house.

Basically, you propose that every cabinet member who ever used email should be in prison simply because somebody somewhere with a smidgen of authority classifies information in a public release of their email.

Because Hillary, obviously.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Did they bear classified stamps while on Hillary's server? Is there some honest point to be made in claiming they might have w/o substantiation?

Oh, wait, that's classified, right?

Hold on a sec, just to make sure we're on the same page, is Reuters in on the vast right wing conspiracy as well? I need to know so I can appropriately discount their findings accordingly ():)

Read the article, it answers your question.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Basically, you propose that every cabinet member who ever used email should be in prison simply because somebody somewhere with a smidgen of authority classifies information in a public release of their email.

Uh, if they send out information that is classified, then yes. It's called mishandling classified information and is a crime.
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
But she never received anything 'marked' classified. Remember, the Clintons are all about parsing their phrases.

I've said it before, Hillary could walk into a daycare center and molest every child on live national TV and the libs in here would still defend her.

I'd say I lean hard left and I never once defended her. In fact I believe she has so many moneyed interests behind her that she may disastrously win the primary. If that happens I believe her baggage could cause defeat in the general. But just as worse would be a Clinton presidency with exponentially more gridlock and vitriol in Washington. Hillary's not the way forward in any respect.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
:D :D :D :D

.... oh, you were being serious. Ok then :eek:



Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law, and for criminal offenses. I'm 100% on board with that. What she did may or many not have been criminal -- hopefully we'll find out at some point, but we already know it was inappropriate. So yes, she's being "convicted" in the court of public opinion for doing something inappropriate and for being arrogant and deceitful about it. Nothing wrong with that, we'll find out about the criminal charges later. I'm assuming there won't be any.



Yes, it's the GOP smear machine that made her use a private email server, and to have classified information on that server, housed in an insecure location. Yep, all the evel gop smear machine at work.



Oh, yes, unbiased sources like dailykos, huffpo etc. Funny man :)

You merely claim it was inappropriate. If it was, she's certainly not alone. If we extend the standards you claim to written correspondence we'd have to condemn every cabinet member from the beginning of the republic.
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
I do love it. Information transmitted by email from foreign dignitaries is "classified" upon receipt, even though its provenance is entirely insecure. I can appreciate that in terms of public release. OTOH, the person sending it has de-classified it security-wise in their selection of transmission media. That's fundamental.

You're really just pulling things out of your ass now. By this logic, anything sent to HRC on her email has been "de-classified security-wise" (whatever that means), so I guess there's nothing to see, investigation over.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
[ ... ]
Yes, it's the GOP smear machine that made her use a private email server, and to have classified information on that server, housed in an insecure location. Yep, all the evel gop smear machine at work.
No, it's the GOP smear machine that fools the rubes into feeling this is scandalous, while having Clinton's GOP predecessors, as well as the Bush White House doing comparable things was somehow not noteworthy at all. You're being played, and you love it.


Oh, yes, unbiased sources like dailykos, huffpo etc. Funny man :)
You're still projecting. I don't believe I've ever even visited Dailykos, and I rarely read Huffington Post (almost exclusively if someone here links an article). I also don't confuse op-eds with factual stories. I prefer solid, credible sources and original materials whenever possible. Unlike the GOP faithful, I don't seek partisans to tell me what to think.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,806
10,100
136
So State says the analysis is wrong, but will not explain how. :colbert:

Is Secretary Kerry attempting to be complicit in covering up Clinton's crimes?
The depths to which his employees go to bat for Clinton is quite impressive.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Hold on a sec, just to make sure we're on the same page, is Reuters in on the vast right wing conspiracy as well? I need to know so I can appropriately discount their findings accordingly ():)

Read the article, it answers your question.

Uh, if they send out information that is classified, then yes. It's called mishandling classified information and is a crime.

You're really just pulling things out of your ass now. By this logic, anything sent to HRC on her email has been "de-classified security-wise" (whatever that means), so I guess there's nothing to see, investigation over.

No, it means that classifying it is pointless other than for public release purposes. Assume all internet email to be insecure from an espionage POV, proceed from there.

The one example we know much about was an email discussion about a news article about drones. Anything about drones is automagically "classified" because the whole program is classified, including the news article. What I just typed is also "classified" because I mentioned the super-sekrit drone program. So, if the security geeks notice it, they'll slap a classified label on it & put a copy of it in a vault somewhere so that nobody can see it, ignoring the fact that it's already in the public domain.

It's not just "military intelligence" any more, it's now "security apparatus intelligence" & there's no real intelligence behind it at that level.