IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[Bowfinger]

Let's be real transparent here, from your article..

So do you have a link to that article to see who suggested that?

The only politico articles I've found, are quoting Fallon. So is Fallon referencing an article which is referencing himself?

My guess is he's referring to this:

Watchdog: Clinton's server had classified material beyond 'top secret'
[ ... ]
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.” ...

This is the biggest reason I think we need to withhold judgment and wait for the facts to come out. It's clear that the CIA and State are in a pissing match over what should be considered classified. I tend to think that if something's appeared in the New York Times, only the most anal-retentive bureaucrats are going to stomp their feet and insist it's still their precious secret. Rational people will concede the barn door is open and move on. Until the FBI finishes its investigation, we aren't going to know how much, if any, of Clinton's "classified" information was truly secret and threatening to national security, and how much was bureaucratic turf squabbling and RNC smear.

 

[fskimospy]

This is not necessarily true for her. As Secretary of State she was a classification authority, that means that she would get pre-classification information and is one of the people that can determine it's classification. If she did not take care with that information she could be liable even if it was not classified at the time she received it because she should have treated all information as possibly classified. It is one of the major reasons she should have keep personal and professional communication separate.

Treating all information as possibly classified means never using an unclassified computer for any reason. This is not within the operating procedures of the State Department and no official anywhere, ever, should treat all information as possibly classified. This would cripple their ability to communicate. Additionally, while I'm not privy to the workings of the State Department I doubt she was involved in the classification of much material. She would delegate that to any number of other people. The secretary has better things to do most of the time.

If you're saying that she got material that she should have used her classification authority to classify and failed to do so that's fine, but that would be an entirely separate issue from running her own email server. If she failed in that capacity the information could have just as easily gone out over NIPRNET.

 

[Darwin333]

How would you expect her to destroy a classified email? Delete it? Melt the server down? And if the sender is already sending highly classified info via inappropriate means then is it possible that these emails weren't properly labeled? Is your expectation that government officials should know what is and isn't classified?
And how do you know she didn't report anything?

I don't know if she did or did not report it which is why I brought it up. As far as deleting them, I can personally download a program that deletes something to DOD standards which I believe is overwriting it with 1' and 0's a full 10 times which makes recovering the file impossible. The file would have been on her server that she had complete control over, correct? I am also making an assumption that she would recognize something so highly classified, according to the article it wasn't just a run of the mill classified document. I could very well be wrong about the assumption but I think it's a fair one to make considering her position at the time.

 

[Zorba]

Is this another Benghazm? The only people who care about it are those who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the only choice.

Move on, find something new...

I will vote for Hillary if she is in the general. I still think it is BS that anyone is conducting government business on a private e-mail server. But, I've sign my name on the document saying I will handle data properly or face jail time or worse.

This thread shows who the real left wing political hacks on this forum are (many many other threads show the right wing political hacks).

Going through every e-mail and trying to prove she really really messed up, instead of she just really messed, doesn't do much for me. We need to enforce the laws going forward, and make sure no one is doing government business on personal equipment. Considering this practice appears to have been widespread, Hillary should probably get a pass her (at least legally), but the next guy/gal should be nailed to the wall for it.

 

[Darwin333]

Desperate, huh?

It's the partisan back biters who claim some nebulous victimhood in all this, even though they cannot show any real harm has been done. It's flimsier than Benghazi.

In all fairness, harm is not required to be found guilty of a criminal offense. For example, if I get pulled over for speeding I will still get a ticket despite never having harmed anyone. The reason is because of the potential for harm due to my actions and to attempt to dissuade those actions before actual harm occurs.

 

[Bowfinger]

I will vote for Hillary if she is in the general. I still think it is BS that anyone is conducting government business on a private e-mail server. But, I've sign my name on the document saying I will handle data properly or face jail time or worse.

This thread shows who the real left wing political hacks on this forum are (many many other threads show the right wing political hacks).

Going through every e-mail and trying to prove she really really messed up, instead of she just really messed, doesn't do much for me. We need to enforce the laws going forward, and make sure no one is doing government business on personal equipment. Considering this practice appears to have been widespread, Hillary should probably get a pass her (at least legally), but the next guy/gal should be nailed to the wall for it.

Based on previous threads, I think most Clinton supporters have agreed using a personal email server was inappropriate. The open issue is whether she did anything criminal.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Treating all information as possibly classified means never using an unclassified computer for any reason.

No. That means never using an unclassified computer for anything related to her job. Which is exactly what the laws require that she does. That is why having her own email server is so problematic.

This is not within the operating procedures of the State Department and no official anywhere, ever, should treat all information as possibly classified.

Yes it is. Any agent that handles potentially classified information must treat all information as classified until it can be determined it's classification. How do you think information gains it's classification status anyway? The classification authorities don't collect it personally.

Additionally, while I'm not privy to the workings of the State Department I doubt she was involved in the classification of much material. She would delegate that to any number of other people. The secretary has better things to do most of the time.

Does not matter if she does it personally or not, the key is that she is able to, and would regularly handle pre-classification information.

If you're saying that she got material that she should have used her classification authority to classify and failed to do so that's fine, but that would be an entirely separate issue from running her own email server. If she failed in that capacity the information could have just as easily gone out over NIPRNET.

She was intentionally bypassing security measures put in place to prevent unauthorized access. That alone should be enough to get her busted.

 

[fskimospy]

No. That means never using an unclassified computer for anything related to her job. Which is exactly what the laws require that she does. That is why having her own email server is so problematic.

Can you point me to the law that says the secretary of state should never use unclassified computers for anything related to their duties? Be as specific as possible please.

Yes it is. Any agent that handles potentially classified information must treat all information as classified until it can be determined it's classification. How do you think information gains it's classification status anyway? The classification authorities don't collect it personally.

Of course they don't collect it personally. I guess you could say that all materials should be treated as classified until its classification can be determined, but that would be true in only the vaguest and least useful sense as no one actually has time to definitively research all the information they come into contact with on a daily basis.

Does not matter if she does it personally or not, the key is that she is able to, and would regularly handle pre-classification information.

Of course it matters.

She was intentionally bypassing security measures put in place to prevent unauthorized access. That alone should be enough to get her busted.

Now you're off on another tangent.

 

[Jhhnn]

I tend to think that if something's appeared in the New York Times, only the most anal-retentive bureaucrats are going to stomp their feet and insist it's still their precious secret. Rational people will concede the barn door is open and move on.

Ya think?

Hillary hate overrides all rational considerations, unfortunately. Well, other than the ability to rationalize its own existence.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know if she did or did not report it which is why I brought it up. As far as deleting them, I can personally download a program that deletes something to DOD standards which I believe is overwriting it with 1' and 0's a full 10 times which makes recovering the file impossible. The file would have been on her server that she had complete control over, correct? I am also making an assumption that she would recognize something so highly classified, according to the article it wasn't just a run of the mill classified document. I could very well be wrong about the assumption but I think it's a fair one to make considering her position at the time.

I don't think those are fair assumptions at all. You have at least some knowledge of technology and are capable of knowing what to search for to achieve your goal. The same can't be said for a neophyte who doesn't have a basic understanding of technology.



The issue I have with this story is the lack of details. The necessary details to make an honest judgement about the situation has been filled in with those with an agenda and this same exact articles, "breaking news", "explosive new information", had all played out before and at the end of the day it was all much a do about nothing. Classified info found on Clinton's servers so far have been things that were classified after the fact or retransmission of a public story that contained classified info. Neither of those, to an honest, unbiased person would hold anyone responsible for those types of breaches. It's probably went ZERO people actually answered my question about the scenario with cold porn.


If anyone should be mad it should be those that have been continuously lied to and misled for the last several years about this benghazi scandal! Hell, can you tell me how this "email scandal" is even related to benghazi? No? Then what does that tell you?

 

[theeedude]

FBI is looking at it now. I believe nothing will come of it, since these weren't classified at the time. But we'll see.

 

[Jhhnn]

If anyone should be mad it should be those that have been continuously lied to and misled for the last several years about this benghazi scandal! Hell, can you tell me how this "email scandal" is even related to benghazi? No? Then what does that tell you?

They *are* mad, just at the wrong people. True believers have an astounding capacity for cognitive dissonance. Trumpism is a great example. They know that the Repub leadership has lied to them & strung them along but only in a very vague fashion. What's really happened is that Repubs have accumulated a lot of quixotic "causes" & made a lot of false promises they can't keep in order to win those votes. *Nobody* can keep those promises. Those who claim they can know it as well as everybody else even as they exploit the believers. The real lie is in telling them that they can get what they want. Even when believers have lost faith in the liars they seek out a different liar to tell them the same thing. That's the Donald.

 

[nageov3t]

The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News.

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

sounds like this latest tempest is all about the drone program, which has been publicly acknowledged by a whole slew of people.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Can you point me to the law that says the secretary of state should never use unclassified computers for anything related to their duties? Be as specific as possible please.

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.

Source

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

EO 12356 defines foreign government information (FGI) as:

(1) information provided by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof with the expectation, express or implied, that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence; or

(2) information produced by the United States pursuant to or as a result of a joint arrangement with a foreign government or governments or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, requiring that the information, the arrangement, or both, are to be held in confidence.7

FGI either retains the classification assigned to it by the foreign government or is assigned a U.S. classification at least equivalent to the foreign government classification level.8 Documents containing FGI "shall include either the marking `FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION,' or a marking that otherwise indicates that the information is foreign government information," except when the fact that the document contains FGI must be concealed.9 FGI is not usually declassified by the United States without the express permission of the foreign government that generated the information.

Because FGI is generally identifiable from its source (e.g., a foreign government) and because it is presumed classified (see Chapter 4), there will be little further discussion in this document about its classification.

Source


She dealt with and knew she would deal with foreign government officials via email on an unsecured server knowing full well that said communication would be, by default, classified. Her and her supporters can cry all day that nothing was marked as classified in any way but by definition a great deal of her communications were classified and subject to proper handling.

 

[Jhhnn]

Source



Source


She dealt with and knew she would deal with foreign government officials via email on an unsecured server knowing full well that said communication would be, by default, classified. Her and her supporters can cry all day that nothing was marked as classified in any way but by definition a great deal of her communications were classified and subject to proper handling.

So lame. It's not like any SoS can communicate with people in foreign govts exclusively on secured networks. We can't let them into ours nor can they let us into theirs. Such communication would only *become* classified after the fact, not *be* classified in the first place.

It's all a great catch22. If the SoS & a foreign counterpart talked about places to eat, why, that's classified, right? And we'll never know it was that innocuous because.... it's classified, but back biters can point to it as a security breach because it's classified, of course.

See how that works?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.

Source

So she knowingly provided access to classified information to someone who did not have a security clearance. Lets see, I believe there's a law against that as well?

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information


There's a whole mess of conjecture about what other wrong doings may be involved and I for one would not be surprised to find that her actions were criminal beyond the basics outlined right here. But what is currently know to be fact is that she provided access to classified information and needs to be brought up on charges for such. The depth and breadth of those charges will obviously hinge on what may be found by the ongoing investigation.

 

[fskimospy]

Source

Source

She dealt with and knew she would deal with foreign government officials via email on an unsecured server knowing full well that said communication would be, by default, classified. Her and her supporters can cry all day that nothing was marked as classified in any way but by definition a great deal of her communications were classified and subject to proper handling.

First, that's not the question I asked. He said specifically that the law said the Secretary of State is never to use unclassified computers in the performance of their duties. Your attempt to show that she should have used secret communications in the performance of SPECIFIC duties is very, very different.

Secondly, this exact point has been brought up before. Politifact has brought up that even this is a pretty murky situation:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

They have one part that argues something similar to what you say, and then follow it with this:

But not all experts agree that Clinton’s handling of foreign government information is an obvious violation.

First of all, the confidentiality of the email is not 100 percent clear. Yes, the memo was intended solely for Clinton. But Miliband’s aide sent the email from his own personal account to Abedin at her state.gov email address -- not the State Department’s secure system. The memo also didn’t carry a marker indicating the British equivalent of classification.

If the confidentiality of the information is not explicit, there’s room for disagreement about whether there was a violation, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

Also, information can’t be classified until someone with the proper authority declares it so. Because the memo didn’t come with an official British classification marker, someone in the U.S. government would have had to make that call. So even if the memo required classification, it was not classified when it landed in Clinton’s email -- meaning it does not necessarily go against the claim that she did not receive classified material, Goitein said.

While Abedin may have misstepped in forwarding the memo along, "Clinton’s own culpability in simply receiving the email is a much murkier question," Goitein said.

 

[OutHouse]

So lame. It's not like any SoS can communicate with people in foreign govts exclusively on secured networks. We can't let them into ours nor can they let us into theirs. Such communication would only *become* classified after the fact, not *be* classified in the first place.

It's all a great catch22. If the SoS & a foreign counterpart talked about places to eat, why, that's classified, right? And we'll never know it was that innocuous because.... it's classified, but back biters can point to it as a security breach because it's classified, of course.

See how that works?

so you are an expert on how foreign correspondence is conducted now?

 

[fskimospy]

Source

So she knowingly provided access to classified information to someone who did not have a security clearance. Lets see, I believe there's a law against that as well?

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

There's a whole mess of conjecture about what other wrong doings may be involved and I for one would not be surprised to find that her actions were criminal beyond the basics outlined right here. But what is currently know to be fact is that she provided access to classified information and needs to be brought up on charges for such. The depth and breadth of those charges will obviously hinge on what may be found by the ongoing investigation.

The bolded is absolute, 100% bullshit. You're reading the law to say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

The law clearly states 'knowingly and willfully' communicates, etc, to an unauthorized person. There is no evidence that she knowingly and willfully communicated even a single piece of classified evidence to that individual. I'll refer you back to my original post. If it comes up that she knew something was classified and transmitted it on an unsecure server that's a problem. So far literally no evidence of that has emerged.

So yeah you're going to want to take about 10 steps back from where you're at now, because it's not supported by the facts.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

The bolded is absolute, 100% bullshit. You're reading the law to say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

The law clearly states 'knowingly and willfully' communicates, etc, to an unauthorized person. There is no evidence that she knowingly and willfully communicated even a single piece of classified evidence to that individual. I'll refer you back to my original post. If it comes up that she knew something was classified and transmitted it on an unsecure server that's a problem. So far literally no evidence of that has emerged.

So yeah you're going to want to take about 10 steps back from where you're at now, because it's not supported by the facts.

So if I hand you a zip drive with classified information on it and provide you with the password am I not knowingly and willfully providing you with classified information even if I say "pretty please don't look at it?" There was classified information on the email server and she gave Justin Cooper access to said server, high level access at that since he was managing the system. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. Or, are we going to go with, in her role as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton had no idea she would be communicating with foreign officials via the email server she gave Justin Cooper access to?

 

[Bowfinger]

Source

So she knowingly provided access to classified information to someone who did not have a security clearance. Lets see, I believe there's a law against that as well?

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

There's a whole mess of conjecture about what other wrong doings may be involved and I for one would not be surprised to find that her actions were criminal beyond the basics outlined right here. But what is currently know to be fact is that she provided access to classified information and needs to be brought up on charges for such. The depth and breadth of those charges will obviously hinge on what may be found by the ongoing investigation.

No, the "whole mess of conjecture" is you asserting things that are unproven. That's exactly the problem I called out earlier:

"That's exactly the sort of BS that's plagued this story from the beginning. The right-wing propaganda machine has been flinging speculation and innuendo as if they are facts, and their sheep lap it up without a hint of critical thought."
​

Stop being played. Learn the difference between fact, speculation, and innuendo. They are not interchangeable.

 

[Jhhnn]

so you are an expert on how foreign correspondence is conducted now?

I merely point out the obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

So if I hand you a zip drive with classified information on it and provide you with the password am I not knowingly and willfully providing you with classified information even if I say "pretty please don't look at it?" There was classified information on the email server and she gave Justin Cooper access to said server, high level access at that since he was managing the system. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that.

Okay, now provide evidence that Clinton knew there was classified information on the server and willingly had it that way. Since you haven't done any of that yet you're right, it doesn't get more cut and dry than that. If you can't show she did so knowingly and willingly that's the end of it. To use your zip drive example, say you had a zip disk that you used for keeping your home improvement list on. When you aren't paying attention someone puts nuclear weapons plans on it. You give it to your wife to look over, who is not cleared for nuclear weapons plans. Have you committed a crime? The answer is no, because you have not knowingly or wittingly provided that classified information to her.

So far you haven't shown anything differently than what was already said on the first page and it faces the same obstacle: no evidence that she knowingly and willingly made any classified information available. Until you can do that there's nothing else to say.

Or, are we going to go with, in her role as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton had no idea she would be communicating with foreign officials via the email server she gave Justin Cooper access to?

She did not generally communicate with foreign officials via the email server she gave him access to. Did you read the politifact article? It is actually entirely about the Reuters article you linked.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Eski, we'll just have to say we're at an impasse. I believe that in her role as Secretary of State she most certainly had expectation that classified information would pass through her email account and therefore meets the criteria for knowingly and wittingly. I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to be. I'm sure she has a team of lawyers dreaming up ways to dispute what the words "expressed or implied" mean and regardless of what's found she'll face no repercussions because she is going to be the next President of the United States and no one is going to stand in the way of that.

There was a president once who deleted 18 1/2 minutes of audio recordings and was forced to resign over it. Now you can conduct State business outside of formal channels with the direct appearance of attempting to avoid oversight and public scrutiny, attempt to scrub all record of it, get called on it, submit what you deem relevant and then run for office and have millions of people back you. It's a sad sad state of affairs but I can't really say there's any better choices being presented to us either so, whatever.

 

[Bowfinger]

Eski, we'll just have to say we're at an impasse. I believe that in her role as Secretary of State she most certainly had expectation that classified information would pass through her email account ...

You are not allowed to send classified material through email. That's not just private email servers, but even the State Department's own email system. It is connected to the Internet and is not considered secure for classified materials. Internet email is inherently insecure. That's why we have entirely separate, internal-only networks for classified materials, use secure fax and secure phones, etc. If everyone follows policy, the Secretary of State will never receive any emails with classified material ... except when it is retroactively classified.