Hillary Clinton Email Said to Contain Classified Information

[uhnope]

Source: NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON — Government investigators have discovered four emails containing what they say is classified information on the personal email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, the investigators said in a letter to Congress released on Friday.

Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, said Friday that she would stay focused on the issues at the heart of her presidential campaign, and that she was concerned about “a lot of inaccuracies’’ in the reporting of her personal email account.

“Maybe the heat is getting to everybody,’’ she said at a campaign event at New York University. “We are all accountable to the American people to get the facts right, and I will do my part,” Mrs. Clinton added. “But I’m also going to stay focused on the issues, particularly the big issues, that really matter to American families.”

The government investigators discovered the four emails while reviewing a sampling of 40 emails from Ms. Clinton’s account. Of those, four contained information that should have been marked classified and should have been sent and stored on a secure computer system, I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, the internal watchdog for the nation’s intelligence agencies, said in the letter to Congress.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html

[magical thyme]

1. 4 out of a random 40. 10%. Not a good sign. nt

[mcar]

2. So they changed the story yet again?

NYT commits journalistic malpractice yet again.

[TwilightGardener]

55. It was a headline story as well in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

[TwilightGardener]

3. It would be almost impossible for her and her staff to have been able to

avoid receiving material that was to be classified (either immediately or later), if email was a preferred way of conducting State affairs. Who was sending this stuff knowingly to a private email account that couldn't legally receive classified material? Maybe THAT needs to be investigated as well.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. I could be mistaken, but thought handling classified information part of the SoS's job.

[TwilightGardener]

31. I believe Clinton said she didn't handle classified material via her email.

That's true, because apparently some of the emails or information conveyed therein never saw the government process of classifying...because it was held in private email. It's circular--I don't have classified info in my email because my emails were never examined to determine if they held classified info. Until now. I'm not sure who buys this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. oh ok

[24601]

51. DOS is on at least three government networks, one Unclassified, one secure to SECRET and one

accredited for TOP SECRET material and Sensitive Compartmented Information, which must be on this third network even if it is SECRET/SCI or CONFIDENTIAL/SCI.

SCI is a generic term, there are multiple compartments which apply.

If you remember the wiki-leaks information that came from PVT Manning, it was SECRET with no SCI and would have been on the middle network.

Individual users are responsible for the content of their communications and ensuring the network they use is accredited for that classification and access.

[TwilightGardener]

53. I think someone on her staff collected or relayed info from classified networks

or sources and put this into emails sent to/from her private system. Knowingly, unknowingly, hard to say. If she relied on her personal email to communicate and keep informed as SoS, that seems the most likely scenario. My husband had a TS/SCI, but he was military, I don't know how State works. I do know that if he did what she did, he'd have been in deep kimchee.

[24601]

59. Any cabinet secretary is responsible not only for his/her personal conduct, but also for the

whatever the department does or fails to do.

[murielm99]

4. This again?

Yawn.

[asjr]

17. Darrel Issa is going to step in it again. That man

is evil!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. He Issa POS, no question.

[pnwmom]

5. Information that wasn't identified as classified. What's with the deceptive headlines, NYT?

[TwilightGardener]

9. Information which, had it gone through proper government channels, would have been kept classified.

They're classifying it now upon review because Hillary finally decided to hand some stuff over. Edit to add: this is why you don't rely on a private email system exclusively to conduct one of the most top-secret-heavy jobs in government.

[pnwmom]

11. I wonder how many of them, if they had been probably sent on the "secure" classified server,

would have ended up with Wikileaks? Along with 250,000+ others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251473106

[uhnope]

12. well said

hope that will help some people get it

[MBS]

22. " " " " n/t

[msrizzo]

18. I don't even understand what your are saying.....

Information is classified independent of whether or not someone sends it in an email. Do you think that the only way the State Department would have been aware of this information is because it was in an email sent to or from Hillary Clinton? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I'm saying that there's content in her emails that she turned over to State this past year

that SHOULD have been made classified--or would have been if they'd gone through whatever procedure or channel makes that determination. But instead they were held in a private email server. That's what they're finding upon review of what the State Dept. holds now.

[msrizzo]

52. Still don't understand.

All those emails that she turned over were written to State Dept. people who received them on State Dept. emails. I really doubt that every email sent during the course of usual business is scrutinized by a group of elves before it is forward to the recipient. If Hillary was conducting shady business or leaking State Dept. secrets she wouldn't have sent those to State Dept. employees. And she would not have been using a government email to do that even if she had one. So are you saying that the Clinton should have had every email she ever sent scrutinized by someone before it was sent because .....Clinton? And no, I don't think that the "finding upon review of the State Department" says anything like what you say it does. As far as we know it says that when the emails were released to the public by the State Department, some classified info may have not been redacted. This really doesn't have anything to do with Hillary Clinton's server. It has to do with how information that was released to the public was reviewed by internal state department procedure before release to the public.

[TwilightGardener]

54. So you don't understand the fact that she and her staff communicated what is now known

to be classified information outside of the proper/secure government channels or networks--and this information was held in a private non-government-secured server for years? There's a reason they're supposed to use encrypted phones and government-issued Blackberries and specific networks to communicate.

[msrizzo]

57. Yes, I don't understand it....

...primarily because I must be one of the morans you are referring to and also because you don't know it either unless you specifically know and have read the information in the emails or you are just happy to take someone's word for it cause it really sounds like something you'd sure like to believe.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Wondered same thing. Wouldn't caution dictate that Hillary should of known not to use private email as info might later be determined to be classified.

[OKNancy]

6. they were classified AFTER she left State

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. If that's true, I agree, no problem. But if it's discovered there was Classified information on her server BEFORE she left State, I take it you would agree that's problematic.

[TwilightGardener]

45. No, actually the statement by the IG states specifically that the information

within the emails was considered classified by the intelligence community AT THE TIME they were transmitted, not retroactively. So the emails themselves were not marked or identified as classified, but the info they contained was classified and should not have been sent to a private server.

[newblewtoo]

7. Not a good

thing if true.

Of those, four contained information that should have been marked classified and should have been sent and stored on a secure computer system

Someone has got some real explaining to do (with counsel in the room). Classified material has to be sent on something other than your gmail account using the family laptop. There are severe penalties for mishandling classified material, ask Gen. Petraeus how it worked out for him. If this is another case of material that was classified after it was sent that is one thing but if the sender knew or should have known it to be classified and sent it on an unsecured system then it's Katie bar the door.

[Sunlei]

10. so who sent the emails to mrs clinton mr. judge sir?

[Sunlei]

8. so who sent the emails to Mrs. Clinton?

[7962]

13. So most people find her not trustworthy, yet she still leads all the polls

What does THAT say about our voters.

[pnwmom]

14. Maybe they remember that $250,000+ classified emails went from State to Wikileaks

during this same time period.

Kind of a big deal.

[7962]

21. And millions of private accts are hacked every year. Without knowing.

Which very well could have happened to her little "private" server. And she'd never know. Who knows WHAT she may have lost? She certainly doesnt.
But I forget; the Clintons have their own set of rules.
Bernie Sanders has to bend over backwards to show black voters that he understands their problems, while Bill Clinton gets away with saying (in 08) that a few years back, Obama wouldve been getting them coffee.
The good ol double standard.

[JonLP24]

19. That they know who she is

[840high]

23. I can answer that - but won't.

[7962]

24. Well, shoot!

[TM99]

48. That on the whole,

we are all ignorant as fuck.

[restorefreedom]

15. i am the last person to defend hillary

and I'm not going to defend her now. If something was done with that email account that should've been done, then there's gonna have to be an explanation and some transparency about it. That said, this does nothing but hurt the Democrats and help the Republicans. If Hillary is not the nominee, it could still provide the repugs with the "dems can't be trusted with national security" meme. if she is the nominee, it's going to be a bloodbath all the way to November, and the Republicans will not stop hammering this, BenGhazi, or anything else to undermine her trustworthiness or credibility. Either way, it's not going to help us keep the White House.

I really don't think she had any ill intent by using a different server, but if she had any idea that she was going to run for president man was it dumb.

[JonLP24]

25. I think the most damaging thing is to look the other way

when it comes to corruption because it may "hurt" the party. I think the focus here from the GOP standpoint is the wrong places as they generally do. The real scandals are easy to prove but would also implicate them as well so they focus on this left field stuff. Consider the times when Obama has "Republican allies" bipartisanship is rare but on "national security" issues remarkably there it is.

On or worry about "memes" on "national security" is, I think, a loser's strategy (2004 campaigns). Particularly when the narratives expressed on "national security" are completely full of shit have little to do with "security" of the country when multinationals influence foreign policy and the spy apparatus expanded and grown and more so to avoid another Snowden. There are very real victims at the end of "national security" decisions which is always about money. Money is the goal why does the US pay attention SO much to Iran? (rhetorical question). Same with Libya that I wasn't even aware he was still alive (this was before I began researching foreign politics/economics on a weekly basis) when I started hearing the terrible dictator meme again during the "Arab Spring" -- which worked out favorably for our allies but unfortunately not the people.


Still the vast majority of the outrage over this is that something classified was sent here rather than what was classified because so far the spy apparatus has gone overboard in abusing "classified" that really secrets are being kept from us, whoever the target is knows more about spies and what the spies are up to than we do. Strategy. If both lie or be incredibly misleading (omitting the truth is the most powerful propaganda technique) & pursue double standards foreign policy for our "enemies" then in the end it doesn't matter who has the better line or meme if the argument is a lie. It just plays into their hands playing their game that's why discrediting, ridiculing, etc are being used. Decades of information warfare have gave public opinion largely false & incorrect perceptions which is why there are those far out there conspiracies like one world governments and all that when its just about money.

There are numerous issues and problems here that are too many to do a line by line, not just strategy or views but dishonesty in narratives that if genuine are incredibly hypocritical and double standards but anyone can read it

The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

Based on over 100-200 or so Saudi Cables I translated (machine) which many of them just aren't clear though certain ones especially wish was a little more clear but it really showed to be how biased & bought they are, incredibly even the way NY Times or Foreign Policy reported in. Both make assertions (the NY Times) is an incorrect one and FP.com is a I don't know yet) of what isn't in 63,000 documents in Arabic and simply the ones the suggest bad behavior on Iran's part (The Sudan especially is because I came across Sudan so many times in what I've translated thus far -- Saudi Arabia wants in big time in the nuclear energy trading game).

anyways other people can do what they want but I favor an honesty is the best policy on foreign policy position. What the US does creates enemies therefore making us "weak" but it justifies "perpetual war". Is a very ugly cycle that is accelerating, I'm don't want to be hear for it but pretty much stuck on this planet.

[restorefreedom]

29. good points

my 2 issues with this are

she used a non secure email server that could have been hacked

she wiped her computer clean before turning it over to be examined

the first mistake makes any info she transmittes vulnerable. and both mistakes indicate an "i am above the law" mentality. even today she said it must be the heat why people are pursuing this. i found that condescending and indicative of her belief that this whole thing has become a bother and she shouldn't have to deal with it.

[onehandle]

16. The New York Times has been discredited and now will keep the knives out for Hillary. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. I'd be the last one to defend the NYT, as they've shown their true colors long before this, but I'd be interested to see what facts Obama's administration comes up with.

I think we should wait for the facts to come out before passing final judgment.

[TwilightGardener]

56. Wall Street Journal broke this one. Are they discredited?

[cstanleytech]

20. I am confused, should we be angry at Clinton over this handling of classified information?

If yes then shouldnt we also be angry at Edward Snowden or do we give him a pass even though atleast some of what he revealed was about active current efforts at gathering intelligence in other countries?

[Beauregard]

36. I don't know about anger in this case, but--

Your comparison of Hillary to Snowden is off the mark. Snowden's purpose was to reveal; Hillary's, to conceal.

[cstanleytech]

44. Why is it off the mark?

She sent emails that include classified information improperly, correct? He released classified information about US intelligence efforts on Germany and other countries on purpose, correct?
Now, which of them was in the wrong more?
If you think its Hillary, thats perfectly ok because we are all allowed to have an opinion but to be honest I lean towards Snowden being in the wrong and thats just because imo there is a difference between her being ignorant about her security and handling of classified intel vs Snowden and his deliberately releasing such classified information.
Dont get me wrong, some of what he released I honestly would consider to fall under what alot of people consider to be a whistle blower such as revealing more details over how in bed the NSA was with the phone companies (wasnt exactly surprising given the news since the late 80s) but some of it such as revealing details over US intelligence gathering efforts on EU leaders crossed that line.
A whistle blower doesnt reveal legal efforts, illegal like the NSA database of numbers? Ok
Details on efforts to listen in on the German Chancellors phonecalls? No

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. China and Russia probably hacked her email accounts

The New York Times reported Monday night that, during her tenure at the State Department, Hillary Clinton never used her official e-mail account to conduct communications, relying instead on a private e-mail account. As the Times notes, only official accounts are automatically retained under the Federal Records Act, meaning that none of Clinton's e-mail communication was preserved.

In March 2013, an adviser to Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, had his e-mail hacked by "Guccifer" -- the Romanian hacker perhaps best known for revealing George W. Bush's paintings to the world. At the time, Gawker reported that Blumenthal was communicating with an account that appeared to belong to Clinton at the "clintonemail.com" domain. The content of some of those e-mails was published by RT.com.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/02/hacked-emails-indicate-that-hillary-clinton-used-a-domain-registered-the-day-of-her-senate-hearings/

And Hillary believes China is hacking EVERYTHING...
obviously, everything included the email of
the Secretary of State, right?

“They’re trying to hack into everything that doesn’t move in America — stealing commercial secrets, blueprints from defense contractors, stealing huge amounts of government information — all looking for an advantage,” she said. “Make no mistake: they know they’re in a competition, and they’re going to do everything they can to win it.”

Clinton’s remarks come three months after the U.S. government learned of a “massive breach” of federal databases that compromised the personal records of millions of federal employees. State officials believe the hackers were operating out of China, an allegation Beijing has called “irresponsible and unscientific.” A year ago, the New York Times reported that U.S. security agencies traced a similar incident last March to China, though it remains unclear if those hackers were state mercenaries or acting alone.
http://time.com/3946275/hillary-clinton-china-hacking-cyberwarfare-usa/

The issue IS NOT if Hillary committed a crime.

The issue IS, did she allow classified information
to be hacked by adversaries because she broke protocol?

[Thinkingabout]

32. NYT has changed their story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141156073

Elijah Cummings investigated this story also, the NYT did not get the right story.

[COLGATE4]

33. Not only that - the documents in question were not in

any way identified as "Classified" or any other designation indicating restricted circulation/viewing. They were sent to her by a third party - she had no way of knowing that these were confidential (if in fact they were! There seems to be some dispute as to whether these were classified as 'confidential' AFTERWARDS). Another NYT hatchet job on Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Exactly, bookmarking several post today.

[uhnope]

35. oh brother. You do realize this is the SoS of the USA you're making excuses for, not some

assistant manager at McDonalds?

"She had no way of knowing." WTF. That's total incompetence at best. We expect the top officials of the US gov't to have a "way of knowing" basic things. Or at least to use a government email server so it doesn't become an issue. Double WTF. I can't believe anyone is trying to dismiss this. It's a BFDFU.

[COLGATE4]

37. Not making excuses, merely stating a fact:

If a document is not MARKED "Confidential" or similar and is sent to you by a third party, tell me how you would know that it was in fact confidential? None of these documents was marked in any way. And, BTW, whether it was on a government server or not would not affect that basic question in any way.

[uhnope]

43. Easy

I would say "Wow, I'm the Secretary of State, and with my experience I know that sure could be confidential! Maybe I shouldn't be using my own private server for work because it's kind of weird to have top secret messages next to my yoga class notifications! Yessiree, now I'm making top level decisions, woohoo!"

It's pathetic really. This is small-town level management skills, not presidential.

[COLGATE4]

49. So she is required get out some type of.

crystal ball and guess as to whether an e-mail sent by someone (out of thousands of e-mails) sent her might be confidential even though it's not marked "confidential"? Really??? And, BTW, 'Confidenttial" is not at all the same thing as "Top Secret". In fact, it's the lessor category when classifying documents. You would be amazed at some of the mundane junk that gets dignified with a 'confidential' stamp.

[Telcontar]

50. No, it's real easy to assess classified material

Does it contain means and methods? Classified

Does it name sources? Classified

Does it discuss cause and effect (i.e., Romanian-built RPG struck back quarter of RG33 MRAP, penetrating armor and killing 4 soldiers)? VERY CLASSIFIED

A SoS would, by default, HAVE to know this kind of information and thus would HAVE to know it required safe handling.

[Laser102]

42. Wow! Obviously not the latest breaking news!

LOL! New York Times was also home to Judith Miller. We all know how that worked out. Sorry sacks of, well you get it. You just can't believe everything you read or hear. You would think they would have checked on the story instead of running with a right wing manufactured one. Makes them look REALLY bad.

[Reter]

46. Time to do the right thing and drop out

Before it's too late and she wins the primary.

[johnfunk]

47. Another sensationalized story with dishonest healine by Michael Bullschmidt

[videohead5]

58. The State Dept

In most cases the state department was suppose to keep track of what was classified.there is no way Hillary could keep track of everything that was suppose to be classified unless someone told her.if she had been using a .gov account it would have still been a problem because a .gov account is not for classified information either.no one is perfect and mistakes happen.

[still_one]

60. The NY Times blew this story, and what they did is disgraceful

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027010298