Dar's Handy Data on the Email Flap

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8169
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville

Dar's Handy Data on the Email Flap

Postby Dardedar » Fri May 27, 2016 9:05 pm

A Comprehensive Guide To Myths And Facts About Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, and Those Emails
FACT: Clinton's Use Of A Personal Email Account Was Legal And Did Not Violate State Department Policy
FACT: Clinton Is Not The Subject Of A Criminal Investigation Over Her Emails
FACT: Clinton Did Not Receive Any Emails Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret" At The Time They Were Sent
FACT:Clinton's Use Of A Private Server Did Not Raise Additional Questions About The Retroactive Classification Of Her Emails
FACT: Conservative Comparisons Of Clinton To Petraeus Ignore The Fact That Unlike Petraeus, There's No Evidence Clinton Knowingly Emailed Classified Information
FACT: CIA Says Clinton Did Not Expose Classified Information About Libyan Intelligence Source With Email Contrary To Conservative Claims
Links and background for each claim here:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/1 ... out/206289


- "OIG reviewed the Department email accounts of senior Department employees who served on the immediate staffs of Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice between 2001 and 2008. Within these accounts, OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business"

- "During Secretary Powell’s tenure, the Department introduced for the first time unclassified desktop email and access to the Internet on a system known as OpenNet, which remains in use to this day. Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet’s introduction. He has publicly written:
"To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues"
- "Director of Policy Planning wrote: “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”
- "OIG reviewed hard-copy and electronic records of Secretary Rice’s immediate staff and discovered that other staff who did not reply to the questionnaire did use personal email accounts to conduct official busines"
- "In September 2013, NARA published a bulletin that stated that, “while agency employees should not generally use personal email accounts to conduct official agency business, there may be times when agencies authorize the use of personal email accounts.”
- "Conclusion. Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State."

Full report here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... -Final.pdf

Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have
existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of
State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since
Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the
Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the
legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications,
particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its
recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks."

"U.S. government agencies are still using Windows 3.1, floppy disks and 1970s computers"
"Some U.S. government agencies are using IT systems running Windows 3.1, the decades-old COBOL and Fortran programming languages, or computers from the 1970s.
A backup nuclear control messaging system at the U.S. Department of Defense runs on an IBM Series 1 computer, first introduced in 1976, and uses eight-inch floppy disks, while the Internal Revenue Service's master file of taxpayer data is written in assembly language code that's more than five decades old, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
Some agencies are still running Windows 3.1, first released in 1992, as well as the newer but unsupported Windows XP, Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, noted during a Wednesday hearing on outdated government IT systems.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3075284/ ... uters.html

Hillary factsheet on email
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... ail-facts/

"Brian Fallon, a Clinton spokesman, said the report rebutted criticisms of Clinton made by her political opponents.
“The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic recordkeeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor,” he said in a statement.
"“It’s digging and digging and digging,” Amy Rao, the chief executive of data company Integrated Archive Systems and a Clinton fundraiser, said in an interview, comparing the investigation to probes the Clintons faced in the 1990s. “Trust me: There’s no there there. It’s Whitewater.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cli ... bb117113ff

Field guide to defending Hillary Clinton against every fake scandal
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/fie ... als/24710/

Bakaian explained most carefully why this Comey interview changes nothing:
"The FBI pursues many types of investigations. Criminal investigations are certainly one type of investigation the FBI pursues. But they pursue non-criminal investigations, for example involving security, national security, etc. Not all of their investigations are criminal.
Comey was asked directly if it was a criminal investigation, and Comey refused to answer. Note Comey DID NOT say "we only do criminal investigations." Because that isn't the case. He was asked several times, and he would not answer.
Anytime there's a possibility of a breach of confidential national security information, the FBI investigates -- perhaps to see if a criminal act has been committed, but perhaps just to see what info was compromised and what steps should be taken." --bakaian

Media Debunk Misinformation Surrounding Clinton's Use Of Private Email
Washington Post's Ignatius: Experts Say "It's Common" And "Inevitable" That Classified Information Is Transmitted On Unclassified Systems.

New Yorker's Toobin: Classification Rules "Have Little To Do With National Security."
AP: Clinton's Actions Are "Consistent" With State Department Culture "During The Past Two Administrations" And Are "Very Common."
Clinton's Handling Of Email Is "Not Something A Prosecutor Would Take To Court"

Washington Post's Ignatius: Former Prosecutors Say Private Email Use Is "Generally Seen As [An] Administrative" Matter That "Wouldn't Normally Lead To Criminal Cases."

New Yorker's Toobin: "There Is No Realistic Possibility" Clinton's Email 'Scandal' Will Turn Into A Criminal Matter. Toobin noted that finding Clinton guilty of a criminal violation is not a "realistic possibility" as such a charge would require "evidence that Clinton knew that the information was classified and intentionally disclosed it to an unauthorized person"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... ton/205240

Let's see what executive order 13526 says (emphasis mine):
"Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.

"US Officials Report No Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke The Law"
"U.S. officials say they have not yet found evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton willfully broke the law with use of her private email or that her server was hacked, according to two new reports, undercutting the conservative witch-hunt for a bombshell in the Democratic presidential front-runner’s email setup."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05 ... ten/210266
Citing, primary source, the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... &tid=ss_tw

"Law enforcement officials said the FBI investigation into Guccifer found no sign he got into the Clinton server" http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/ ... index.html

" U.S. officials “dismissed claims [by “Guccifer”] that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server,” according to the Post, noting, “investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion.” NBC News also reported that the hacker “could provide no documentation to back up his claims,” and Politico reported that an “internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/05/05 ... ten/210266

Guccifer is quoted as saying "the Clinton email server wasn't interesting to me -- just a bunch of political talk." This is the same guy who has breached numerous political people's email accounts (Colin Powell, Sid Blumenthal, Lisa Murkowski, etc) to both post damaging info and also to try to sell info to the Russians. Yet he can't describe what was in Clinton's server because it "wasn't interesting."

"Email Scandal Crushed As FBI Finds No Evidence Clinton Broke The Law With Private Email"
US officials who have been briefed on the investigation say that the FBI has found no evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law with her private email server."
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/05/ ... email.html

Nice complilation of the fake sources
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... dge/209835

Clinton’s private email server may have been penetrated by the Russians, though we don’t know that. But we do know that the official State Department nonclassified email system was indeed penetrated by the Russians, along with the White House unclassified email system.
The bottom line: If she had followed the rules and used her official email address, Vladimir Putin might actually have had a leg up on reading her correspondence." --Nicholas Kristof
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opini ... email&_r=1

Law Experts And Media Say Clinton Will Not Be Indicted

TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall reported on February 1 that law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him an indictment is a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness." Marshall writes, "The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment." [Talking Points Memo, 2/1/16]

ABC News' Dan Abrams: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media claims that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage, writing that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time." Abrams also refuted the claim "that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus," stating that Clinton's situation "is nothing like that case" and "there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective." Abrams concluded that "there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her." [ABCNews.com, 2/1/16]

NBC's Andrea Mitchell: "I Don't Think There Is Legal Culpability Here." On the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell noted the lack of "intent" and "motive" in the FBI investigation over Clinton's email server. Mitchell said based on her intelligence community sources, there isn't "legal culpability." [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 2/1/16]

National Law Journal's Laurie Levenson: "An Analysis Of Classified Information Laws Shows It Takes Intentional Disclosure To Get An Indictment." The National Law Journal's Laurie Levenson noted in a September 21 piece that most criminal statutes involving classified information require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of the classified information. Levenson further pointed out that"it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosure." [National Law Journal, 9/21/15]

LA Times' Del Quentin Wilber: "Legal Experts Believe Clinton Faces Little Risk Of Being Prosecuted For Using The Private Email System." A March 27 Los Angeles Times report by Del Quentin Weber stated that "legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business." Weber reported that experts say that "using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business." He also notes that the "chances she will be found criminally liable are low." [Los Angeles Times, 3/27/16]

AP's Eric Tucker and Michael Biesecker: "Several Legal Experts" Agree That "It's A Stretch" To Say That Clinton Could Be Indicted. In a March 22 article, Eric Tucker and Michael Biesecker of the Associated Press reported that "several legal experts" said that "it's a stretch" to apply "laws that govern the handling of classified materials" to Clinton's email use, pointing out that Clinton's "communication of sensitive materials was with aides -- not a national enemy." [Associated Press, 3/22/16]

Former Homeland Security Classification Expert: "There Is No Reason To Think Clinton Committed Any Crimes With Respect To The Use Of Her Email Server." In a March 21 piece for The American Prospect, Richard Lempert -- a University of Michigan professor of law and sociology and a former Department of Homeland Security classification expert -- said that thus far there's "no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information." [The American Prospect, March 2016; Media Matters, 3/21/16]

Former House Judiciary Officials: "There Is Clearly No Evidence Of Any Kind Of Crime." In an August 23 column for USA Today, former counsels to the House Judiciary Committee Julian Epstein and Sam Sokol said there is "clearly no evidence of any kind of crime" committed by Clinton through the use of her private email server. The article noted, "receiving or transmitting information that was not known to be classified at the time also was not a crime. This is true even if the information was mislabeled or misclassified." [USA Today, 8/23/15]

New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin: "This Is Not Now A Criminal Matter, And There Is No Realistic Possibility It Will Turn Into One." In an August 18 article, New Yorker staff writer and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted, "Criminal violations for mishandling classified information all have intent requirements" and there is "no evidence she" knew the information was classified and disclosed it on purpose to "an unauthorized person.' Toobin concluded, "This is not now a criminal matter, and there is no realistic possibility it will turn into one." [The New Yorker, 8/18/15]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ove/209766

"Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald: "The 'Scandal' About Clinton Using A Personal Email Account" Has Been "Perpetuated For Partisan Purposes." Newsweek's Eichenwald has been covering the story about Clinton's use of private email since it broke and has consistently maintained that the "scandal" is a fiction. Eichenwald has warned that the story is not only a "nothing-burger," but it is based on "reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance." [Media Matters, 3/11/15; Media Matters, 2/8/16]

Vox's Jonathan Allen: Republican Staffers Working On Investigations Related To Clinton Have "Been Accused Of Leaking Something Untrue To A Reporter Before." In the wake of The New York Times' inaccurate and subsequently corrected report that two inspectors general had requested a Justice Department "criminal probe" into Clinton's email use, the Times admitted that at least one of its sources was someone working for Congress. Vox's Allen reported that "House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story," and noted that Gowdy's staff had previously been accused of putting out dishonest leaks. [Media Matters, 7/31/15]"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... dge/209835

aa: "Neither had a server...">>

Is that a no no? Lock her up!
"Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":
[A]s a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.
Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election....
So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.
So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. [TPM, 2/1/16]
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the ... ots-of-it#

Abrams debunk of Hillary charges.
http://lawnewz.com/politics/nothing-has ... t-we-know/

DonRumata • 7 days ago
Here's what got me into the No market: David Petraeus intentionally disseminated classified info (including the names of covert operatives) to a woman he was having an affair with. He then lied to FBI agents about it. Apparently, that's what it takes to get charged with mishandling classified information. What Hillary did was troubling, but more for what it says about her judgment and predilection for obfuscation than because it actually put national security at risk. In addition to a lack of criminal intent, until someone can produce an email she sent that contained classification markers AT THE TIME SHE SENT IT, I'm not even convinced there has been a security breach in the first place.
...bear this in mind - the law provides broad justification defenses for technical "crimes" commited by public officials in the discharge of their duties of office. This is a common sense concession to the reality that when your job places you in circumstances that compel you to come within the ambit of certain laws, you bear less moral culpability for an incidental violation than does someone who places themself in conflict with the law of their own volition. This doesn't place anyone above the law, it merely prevents the law from being applied robotically with absurd results."

DonRumata • 7 days ago
What do you mean, "there is no question that she and her people had to know it was classified in nature"? It's fairly clear there are questions, because otherwise all these agencies wouldn't be having to put their heads together to figure out which emails the State Department can release to the public. Working together, they haven't even been able to meet the court-ordered production schedule, but you're telling me a single woman, on sight, should be able to tell something she's reading is classified just because of its subject matter?

That's the importance of the classification markers - they allow us to seperate negligent, incidental dissemination from intentional, criminally culpable dissemination, because they permit us to infer intent. She saw a big, bold SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION at the top of the document and sent in through unsecure channels anyway? Then she wilfully defied the law. It's harder to make those inferences on the basis that she simply ought to have known a paragraph she was reading was highly classified because, what, the Secretary of State knows everything about every intelligence program happening in every government agency?

I get what you're saying - classified information is classified because of the information it contains, not because of a label at the top of the page. Taking the label off doesn't make it unclassified.
The problem with your point is evidentiary - its compelling to point to big bolded classification markers if you're trying to make the point she knew what she did was criminal. It's much less compelling if your theory of the case is that she could always tell, on sight, if what she was reading was classified regardless of the form she received it in or the markers that were attached to it. Public opinion might not have a law degree, but US Attorneys all do, and they have more to lose than a $850 stake on PredictIt.

We keep coming back to intent. That was the dividing line between Petraeus being prosecuted and Powell/Rice riding off into the sunset. I submit to you this case is more similar to one of those precedents than the other. In the end, I'm realistic about the pressures of high executive office and think federal prosecutors are as well - don't count on them to take a whack at the possible next president of the United States over a marginal case.

"Since January, numerous outlets, including Fox News and The Washington Post, have cited anonymous or discredited sources to claim that up to 150 FBI agents were investigating Hillary Clinton's private email server. But the number of agents has been a moving target, with the Post later correcting itself to say it was "less than 50" and NBC saying March 30 that the number is closer to 12. NBC's source -- also anonymous -- called the earlier figures "ridiculous" and said, "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ent/209653

"It is common for lawyers to request — and receive — such deals before allowing their clients to cooperate. Independent lawyers say that is true even in cases in which witnesses have nothing to hide.
“Any good lawyer is going to say ‘I want immunity before I talk,’” said Barbara Van Gelder, a Washington lawyer with the firm Cozen O’Connor, who has represented numerous witnesses in high-profile congressional and Justice Department investigations. “Just because someone gets immunity isn’t indicative of guilt. It’s just protection.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/po ... cking.html?

"Law Professor Explains Why Hillary Clinton "Won't Be Indicted And Shouldn't Be" Over Her Email Server
Richard Lampert: "Based On What Has Been Revealed So Far, There Is No Reason To Think That Clinton Committed Any Crimes With Respect To The Use Of Her Email Server"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21 ... ont/209438

a) Not criminal investigation: "An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. " https://oig.state.gov/system/files/stat ... 4_2015.pdf

"The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral." [Reuters, 7/24/15]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... 3#Referral

And: Joint Statement From The Two Inspectors General Of The Intelligence Community States That Only One Of Them Made A Referral And That It Was A Security, Not Criminal, Referral. In a joint statement released July 24, the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community (IG IC) and the Department of State explained that the IG IC -- not both IGs -- had made "a security referral," not a criminal one.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... -la/207839

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. [Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails, 7/24/15]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... -la/207839

b) FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself
"U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself." [Associated Press, 7/24/15]
"The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target." [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... -la/207839

" Security Logs of Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Are Said to Show No Evidence of Hacking"
" WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
The security logs bolster Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business while she was the secretary of state did not put American secrets into the hands of hackers or foreign governments."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/po ... cking.html?

State Department system not secure.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/

Powell and Condi did the same thing.
"State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned. […]
In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State’s archives contained national security information now classified “Secret” or “Confidential.” The letter was read to NBC News."
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... _fb_maddow

Same thing: "...former secretaries of state "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The State Department found that emails handled on private email accounts associated with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice contain "information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.'" Former Secretary Powell responded that those identified emails were not marked "'Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified,'" http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07 ... ate/209044

Same thing: "ABC News detailed a final State Department investigation which concluded that past secretaries of state, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's immediate staff, "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The findings come as the FBI investigates a private email server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07 ... ate/209044

Except, no laws were broken:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... lai/208297

"National security experts and lawyers who handle classified document cases say there's no evidence that Hillary Clinton broke any laws or State Department policies when she emailed an aide in 2011 asking for talking points to be sent to her over a "nonsecure" channel."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/11 ... n-l/207903

U.S. Intelligence Chief Reportedly Debunks Media Obsession That Clinton's Email Contained "Highly Classified Secrets"
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/06 ... dia/206683
" The office of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has reportedly concluded that two emails received by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not contain top secret information, a reversal from the Intelligence Community inspector general's prior claim that they did, according to a Politico report. Media had previously used the notion that the two emails were highly classified to suggest that Clinton or her aides had engaged in criminal behavior.

In July, the New York Times published an article -- which it subsequently had to correct twice -- about a security referral the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IG IC) made to the executive branch about whether there was any classified material on Clinton's email account during her time as secretary of state. The IG IC highlighted four allegedly classified emails and subsequently stated that two of those four emails contained "top secret" information. The State Department disagreed about whether the material in the emails was actually highly classified. As Politico is now reporting, "that disagreement has been resolved in State's favor" and the previous claim that the emails contained top secret information is wrong.

Despite the original disagreement between the two federal agencies, Fox News initially responded by running with speculation from an anonymous State Department official that aides to Hillary Clinton had "stripped" the classification markings from emails that she received in her private email server, and claiming that even if the emails hadn't been marked classified, Clinton should have known they contained highly classified information.

But Politico reported on November 6 that the office of the Director of National Intelligence has now overruled the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's prior conclusion that two emails received by Clinton contained highly classified information. As Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists explained to Politico, this "mistake" is nothing short than "astonishing" because "[i]t was a transformative event in the presidential campaign to this point. It had a potential to derail Clinton's presidential candidacy." --ibid

"Hillary Clinton Wanted To Go Public About Outdated State Email System In 2011
A top adviser said government technology "is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop."
WASHINGTON -- In June 2011, Hillary Clinton and her top advisers bemoaned the outdated technology at the State Department, saying many officials had to use their personal email accounts in order to get any work done.
The email exchange, which came shortly after Google revealed that it suspected Chinese hackers tried to steal passwords of hundreds of Gmail users, including U.S. government officials, gives further insight into Clinton's decision to forego a government email account while serving as secretary of state.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... 85030a8b40

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have had the authority to delete personal emails even if she had used a government email address, instead of her own private server, government lawyers argued this week.
Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing, first reported by Buzzfeed and The Washington Times, that there was "no question" Clinton had the authority to erase messages she thought were personal. The filing came as part of an ongoing legal battle over the government's failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests for Clinton's emails.
State Department employees, according to the Justice Department, "may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal." The government said that Judicial Watch, the organization that filed the FOIA lawsuit, had provided "no evidence" that Clinton withheld any legitimate federal records."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... ecbfa47b17

"Hillary Clinton Did Not Break Law In Deleting Emails, DOJ Says
"There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision - she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," Department of Justice lawyers told a judge."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... followed-/

"A legal brief recently filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly explains that former Secretary of State Hillary "Clinton was within her legal rights to use of her own email account, to take the messages with her when she left office and to be the one deciding which of those messages are government records that should be returned" -- contradicting conservative media speculation that she may have violated the law.
The media has repeatedly scandalized Clinton's email use, speculating that that she may have "violated federal requirements" or committed a felony and arguing that her email use "was not permitted."
But, according to the Department of Justice, "[t]here is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision -- she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/11 ... lin/205497

"“Classification is rarely a black and white question, and it is common for the State Department to engage internally and with our interagency partners to arrive at the appropriate decision,” he said in a statement. “Very often both the State Department and the intelligence community acquire information on the same matter through separate channels. Thus, there can be two or more separate reports and not all of them based on classified means. At this time, any conclusion about the classification of the documents in question would be premature.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

If you actually believe your own swill, come to predictit and put your money where you mouth is. You can buy stock real cheap for the notion that there will be:
a) a criminal investigation
b) charges
Because the market says your wrong.

"...the emails' retroactive classification status remains in dispute between government agencies -- a common occurrence."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/04 ... dia/205378

"There was so much work to be done,” Clinton continued. “We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think — what — what kind of e-mail system will there be?” --Hillary

"My only point is I couldn't find a case where this kind of activity had been prosecuted and that's just worth noting... and more thing, Joe, legally there is no difference between her using her private server and if she'd used State.gov, which is also not a classified system. The idea that, oh this would have been fine if she used State.gov, not legally, no difference."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/04 ... deb/205376

"Phony email scandal reaches the stage where it’s actually helping Hillary Clinton"
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/pho ... ton/22101/

Experts say Clinton likely to be cleared in email scandal
Democratic frontrunner's use of private email server does not seem to rise to level of criminal charges.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20 ... /150839992

7,000 pages of emails and we have learned that Hillary Clinton:
● Uses skim milk in her tea
● Watches Parks & Recreation, but not Titanic
● Is invested in global LGBT rights
● Loves to use her ipad (but needs help sometimes)
● Asks if it's a good time to talk before calling
● Works from home during snow days
● Is concerned about protecting sensitive information
● Is concerned about gefilte fish updates
● Reads and discusses news articles
Excellent work conservatives. You've really got her now.
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hp ... e=567299F5

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"
FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use
FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes
FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... d-r/204913
Fact: Colin Powell, in the same job, kept zero emails, and no one cares.
This fake scandal exists because:
a) republicans want to look for more Benghazi bupkis to dribble to their ignorant base.
b) the republican party is completely out of ideas.

The fact that conservatives are even blathering about this shows just how pathetically weak their criticisms of Hillary really are.

Another Batch of Bupkis
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department released roughly 7,000 pages of Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails Monday, including about 150 emails that have been censored because they contain information that is now deemed classified.
... the redacted information was classified in preparation for the public release of the emails and not identified as classified at the time Clinton sent or received the messages.
Toner insisted that nothing encountered in the agency's review of Clinton's documents "was marked classified."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sta ... a9633a1143

"How many emails has Colin Powell held onto during his time as Secretary of State? ZERO.
Powell: "I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it,... But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails.”
“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/08 ... ate-video/

Not criminal investigation:
"An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. " https://oig.state.gov/system/files/stat ... 4_2015.pdf

As Paul Begala noted the other day, republicans always over reach when they try to smear the Clinton's. Always. This makes them 0 for 400 or so on fake, worthless, dead end, went nowhere scandals. They once had 140 hours of sworn testimony before congress regarding their Christmas list. This email doesn't quite rise to that level of seriousness but maybe it will, before it goes down in flames like all the rest.

"After Thursday, the Benghazi affair looks less like a potential government cover-up and more like yet another easy-to-dismiss investigation into the Clintons’ lives, a script many Americans remember all too well from the 1990s. “My question is not will Benghazi rise to the level of Whitewater,” says the longtime Clinton family adviser Paul Begala. “It won’t because there’s no independent counsel, no Ken Starr with an unlimited budget and an unnatural curiosity about Bill Clinton’s sex life. Rather, will the Benghazi investigation rise to the level of the Clinton Christmas card investigation? You will recall that the GOP Congress logged 140 hours of testimony and called 34 witnesses while investigating President Clinton’s Christmas card list. Mr. Gowdy’s investigation looks even less fair.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3pOvaInhy

Fake scandals, all of them:
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hp ... e=568D9E6C

"On CNN’s New Day, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.
The great email scandal that Republicans hoped would destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is heading down the same path as “IRS scandal,” the “Benghazi scandal,” and President Obama’s birth certificate.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/24/ ... email.html

"State Department official spokesperson John Kirby... stated that “she was not violating policy.” Like many other high ranking officials who came before and during her tenure, Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same. The news comes as a disappointment to those in politics who viewed the controversy as their best shot at catching up to Clinton, who has a massive lead in national polls both within her own party and across party lines."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state- ... ies/21851/

Bogus and going nowhere:
http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-hillary ... ies-crazy/?
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8169
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Dar's Handy Data on the Email Flap

Postby Dardedar » Sat May 28, 2016 9:04 am

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
"...where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestief ... 0babc16f9e

State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
"...to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestief ... 0babc16f9e
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8169
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Dar's Handy Data on the Email Flap

Postby Dardedar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:25 am

"Davis: Five undisputed facts about Clinton’s emails"
"With all the hours of punditry and tens of thousands of words written about Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s emails by the political press corps, it is amazing that the whole episode can be boiled down to five undisputed facts.
First, the former secretary of State did nothing illegal by having a private email system. The department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed to “policies” that were violated but cited no laws that were violated and said these policies were inconsistently applied and need to be further clarified in the future.

Second, Clinton was not trying to hide her use of her own private email address. In fact, 90 percent of all the emails she sent went to State Department employees with a state.gov email address, which she thought, mistakenly, would be automatically preserved on the department’s email server. ...

Third, no email received or sent by Clinton was labeled at any level of classification. Multiple references in the media and in the right-wing blogosphere to Clinton emails containing “classified” information all refer to post-facto opinions — what could be accurately called classification by hindsight.

Fourth, according to the OIG, there is no evidence that Clinton’s private server was ever successfully hacked. In other words, all the dire and dark warnings from partisan Republicans about the secretary of State risking the nation’s security by using a private server are, in fact, all speculation — based on no facts whatsoever.

Fifth, as pointed out by the inspector general, there was ample precedent for the use of private emails for official and private business, from Colin Powell to senior aides for Condoleezza Rice."
The rest: http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/ ... ons-emails

"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8169
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville

Re: Dar's Handy Data on the Email Flap

Postby Dardedar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:05 am

"Hillary Clinton's emails are a non-scandal: Column
The pseudo-scandal over Hillary Clinton’s emails bubbled up again with the recent release of the State Department Inspector General’s report. Notwithstanding the usual hype, a close reading of the 42-page report (plus timely recommendations and appendices) reveals that the State Department system was susceptible to cyberattacks both before and after Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Some experts have suggested that Clinton’s server was as secure, and maybe even more secure, than the department’s system.
The subject of the investigation was Secretary Clinton’s personal email system, which she elected to utilize rather than the State Department’s existing unclassified system. The State Department system has a decades long history of failures, including successful intrusions by unauthorized personnel. Across our government, foreign hackers have gained access to millions of U.S. private records and pieces of sensitive information in recent years. It is no wonder that Secretary Clinton was not the first to choose to use a personal email account instead of the sub-optimal State Department option.
The report notes that former Secretary of State Colin Powell used a personal email, and staff of both Secretaries Powell and Condoleezza Rice periodically used personal accounts. Tellingly, the report makes no recommendation that Secretary Clinton or any other former Secretaries be investigated or punished."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /85718386/
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest