RE: clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, they all say it was not *marked* classified. As others have pointed out there may have been reasons for this. It's also a meaningless difference when it comes to the actual status of the information.

The fact that she was, at the very least, receiving classified material without proper markings is also a problem as she had a duty under the law to properly mark classified information as such and report the violation.

You and the other Clinton haters want this to be true, you want it to be criminal. That doesn't make it a fact. And it amounts to your wishful opinions at that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The claim that it was a forwarded newspaper article is a naked assertion by the Clinton Campaign. ...

As opposed to naked assertions on Fox News or in the blogosphere?

 

[The Big Dog]

Or the security issue where supposedly the private server was so vulnerable but it turns out the secure stuff was sent by fax whether she used the State Department server or her own? Again, the private server is not the issue. And classifying material after the fact is not an unusual event.

But they found the Top Secret material... on... her.... emails.

I know she has me on ignore but can someone point out how utterly ludicrous this "fax" thing is?

 

[Fudbucker]

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

But, Kirby said, a separate review by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research is being held into whether the information in the emails was classified at the time they were sent and received. He would not say when the review began or how long it would go, and acknowledged it's possible there could be classified emails that weren't marked as such.

"It's certainly possible that for any number of reasons, traffic can be sent that's not marked appropriately for its classification. That is certainly possible," Kirby said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/index.html

That's what this will hinge on. In order for Clinton to not be in trouble, every classified email found so far on her server would have to fall into the category "not classified at the time". That's over 1,000 emails at this point. That seems pretty farfetched. And with the Top Secret stuff, it seems even more far-fetched. Why would an email be top secret now, but not just a couple years ago?

 

[The Big Dog]

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

But, Kirby said, a separate review by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research is being held into whether the information in the emails was classified at the time they were sent and received. He would not say when the review began or how long it would go, and acknowledged it's possible there could be classified emails that weren't marked as such.

"It's certainly possible that for any number of reasons, traffic can be sent that's not marked appropriately for its classification. That is certainly possible," Kirby said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/state-department-to-release-clinton-emails/index.html

That's what this will hinge on. In order for Clinton to not be in trouble, every classified email found so far on her server would have to fall into the category "not classified at the time". That's over 1,000 emails at this point. That seems pretty farfetched. And with the Top Secret stuff, it seems even more far-fetched. Why would an email be top secret now, but not just a couple years ago?

The IC IG has already confirmed that the information was top secret classified when it was sent by the CIA and others to State.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-she-did-not-send-or-receive-emails-material

 

[Fudbucker]

The IC IG has already confirmed that the information was top secret classified when it was sent by the CIA and others to State.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-she-did-not-send-or-receive-emails-material

In this memorandum McCullough indicated that two of the emails included information classified as Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented information. Two others, according to the IG, included information that “contained classified State Department information when generated.”


Even people who pay attention to this can get lost. Good link. I feel sorry for the poor FBI grunts who have to sort through all this.

Was there criminal intent, on Clinton's part, to bypass using the government server, or was she just clueless about how to handle classified info? I've never thought Hillary was stupid, and it seems likely she deliberately avoided using the government server.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.. That seems pretty farfetched. And with the Top Secret stuff, it seems even more far-fetched. Why would an email be top secret now, but not just a couple years ago?

Because you wish it to be so.

It was discussed earlier in the thread that sometimes people in different departments especially will have different opinions on what should be classified. When there are FOIA requests, multiple entities, not just the primary communicators, get a chance to add their veto of disclosing said information.

IOW, maybe department A doesn't think something should be classified as sensitive. Later when there is a FOIA request, if anything in the material affects department B, B is asked if they wish to classify the information differently. If they do, the material is redacted before being released.

People here seem to think these are clear-cut opinions with set guidelines. The government classifies all sorts of stuff sometimes for the most frivolous reasons.

Classified information in the United States

To be properly classified, a classification authority (an individual charged by the U.S. government with the right and responsibility to properly determine the level of classification and the reason for classification) must determine the appropriate classification level, as well as the reason information is to be classified....

A review of classification policies by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence aimed at developing a uniform classification policy and a single classification guide that could be used by the entire U.S. intelligence community found significant interagency differences that impaired cooperation and performance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Was there criminal intent, on Clinton's part, to bypass using the government server, or was she just clueless about how to handle classified info? I've never thought Hillary was stupid, and it seems likely she deliberately avoided using the government server.

Or, is this a false dichotomy?

Yes.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because you wish it to be so.

It was discussed earlier in the thread that sometimes people in different departments especially will have different opinions on what should be classified. When there are FOIA requests, multiple entities, not just the primary communicators, get a chance to add their veto of disclosing said information.

IOW, maybe department A doesn't think something should be classified as sensitive. Later when there is a FOIA request, if anything in the material affects department B, B is asked if they wish to classify the information differently. If they do, the material is redacted before being released.

People here seem to think these are clear-cut opinions with set guidelines. The government classifies all sorts of stuff sometimes for the most frivolous reasons.

Classified information in the United States

Incomplete and irrelevant. The generating agency (i.e. The CIA) gets final say on what is classified. Here, there is no dispute because State has confirmed that the data is top secret.

 

[logger]

Incomplete and irrelevant. The generating agency (i.e. The CIA) gets final say on what is classified. Here, there is no dispute because State has confirmed that the data is top secret.

The reason being, if someone was hurt from her carelessness, not knowing it was classified would be a poor defense?

If she's indicted, this is a felony correct?

Is Bernie going to be able to handle the rigors of a full blown campaign?

 

[Tero]

Why isn't Bush in jail?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

 

[Fudbucker]

Because you wish it to be so.

It was discussed earlier in the thread that sometimes people in different departments especially will have different opinions on what should be classified. When there are FOIA requests, multiple entities, not just the primary communicators, get a chance to add their veto of disclosing said information.

Irrelevant. State has now disclosed that top secret information has been found on her private server. It doesn't matter who designated it top secret. It only matters whether it was "born" classified (e.g., discussions about undercover agents, military secrets, government programs, negotiating postures, etc.), or was classified at a later time. If the latter, Hillary probably won't be indicted. If the former, she probably will be. You cannot discuss classified information on a non-secure (i.e., private) server. End of story.

We already know from the IG that they found a couple emails of a "born classified" nature on Clinton's private server. That already puts in her in some hot water. If these new top secret emails were also "born classified", what defense can she possibly have? Some lackey did it? She's an idiot who doesn't know how to handle classified info?

Some of the newest emails found on her server are discussion between Hillary and Obama. I doubt they were talking about the weather. If Hillary was discussing sensitive information with Obama (say, about the Drone program), she's screwed.

IOW, maybe department A doesn't think something should be classified as sensitive. Later when there is a FOIA request, if anything in the material affects department B, B is asked if they wish to classify the information differently. If they do, the material is redacted before being released.

People here seem to think these are clear-cut opinions with set guidelines. The government classifies all sorts of stuff sometimes for the most frivolous reasons.

Classified information in the United States

Again, irrelevant. The only question is, do the emails on her private server contain information that was obviously of a classified nature when she sent or received it. We know that a few of these "born classified" emails have already turned up. Why should we now expect that more won't turn up?

 

[Reheat]

And with the Top Secret stuff, it seems even more far-fetched. Why would an email be top secret now, but not just a couple years ago?

It wouldn't. This term "born classified" is a new term that has been invented to circumvent the assertion by Clinton and her campaign's insistence that she had no classified information on her server.

Recall that at first she said she had no classified information on her server. This was later changed to no marked classified information on it. It's a ruse designed to fool voters.

I can not recall any classified document or information that wasn't classified at the time it was generated. In fact, I can not construct a reason why this would occur at all. The only reason this would occur is that someone screwed up by not classifying it.

Based on my experience the only classification level that widely varies is Confidential. Some agencies are over cautious and will classify at the Confidential level to be safe. The guidelines for Secret and Top Secret are pretty specific and I can't imagine any confusion. At the SAP level this would doubly apply. There can be no confusion by people with this level of access. It simply doesn't happen.

Quite frankly, since we already know she directed one of her minions to remove the heading on a classified document and send it unclassified, it is reasonable to assume this was done more than once. Was that a routine practice? If she had as much classified information on that server as has been reported, it's my guess that this was a routine procedure for convenience. That's the only plausible explanation that is reasonable. It is FACT that competent people who handle classified information simply could not screw up over 1000 times in failing to classify stuff that should be classified. It is very, very rare indeed. Well, it obviously was not so rare in Hillery's State Department.

This is undoubtedly an indictable offense. She hasn't been indicted for purely political reasons, not legal reasons.

 

[DavidJames]

It wouldn't. This term "born classified" is a new term that has been invented to circumvent the assertion by Clinton and her campaign's insistence that she had no classified information on her server.

Recall that at first she said she had no classified information on her server. This was later changed to no marked classified information on it. It's a ruse designed to fool voters.

I can not recall any classified document or information that wasn't classified at the time it was generated. In fact, I can not construct a reason why this would occur at all. The only reason this would occur is that someone screwed up by not classifying it.

Based on my experience the only classification level that widely varies is Confidential. Some agencies are over cautious and will classify at the Confidential level to be safe. The guidelines for Secret and Top Secret are pretty specific and I can't imagine any confusion. At the SAP level this would doubly apply. There can be no confusion by people with this level of access. It simply doesn't happen.

Quite frankly, since we already know she directed one of her minions to remove the heading on a classified document and send it unclassified, it is reasonable to assume this was done more than once. Was that a routine practice? If she had as much classified information on that server as has been reported, it's my guess that this was a routine procedure for convenience. That's the only plausible explanation that is reasonable. It is FACT that competent people who handle classified information simply could not screw up over 1000 times in failing to classify stuff that should be classified. It is very, very rare indeed. Well, it obviously was not so rare in Hillery's State Department.

This is undoubtedly an indictable offense. She hasn't been indicted for purely political reasons, not legal reasons.

Lots of claims and "FACT"s, but shockingly not a single reference to support them.

Shocking.

It seems some of the best 911 debunkers learned a lot from their prey.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lots of claims and "FACT"s, but shockingly not a single reference to support them.

Shocking.

It seems some of the best 911 debunkers learned a lot from their prey.

Lots of nasty snark, no facts to rebut reheat's documented expertise.

Shocking.

 

[Reheat]

Lots of claims and "FACT"s, but shockingly not a single reference to support them.

Shocking.

It seems some of the best 911 debunkers learned a lot from their prey.

The facts are posted all over this thread...REPEATEDLY. The FACT that you ignore them is totally and utterly inexcusable for an honest person.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The facts are posted all over this thread...REPEATEDLY. The FACT that you ignore them is totally and utterly inexcusable for an honest person.

Actually there are mostly opinions and very few actual facts.

 

[Leftus]

I understand that you don't like the facts as reported, but that doesn't change them. Further, receiving an email is not "sharing" information. But don't let that get in your way.

Odd to use a quote mark when I didn't use that work in the quoted material.

You've conflated two events.The assertion that it was a news article was made before these 22 became public knowledge. It was used as a defense against the vast conspiracy between the IG and members of Congress. And while Clinton has recycled the vast right wing conspiracy, she has not recycled the news clipping defense for these 22.

The only thing said was that it was a case or over classification, a defense hard to sustain when they were not briefed on the content. While the State had argued that the ones Clinton stated were news clippings were not top secret, they are not making the same case now.

Clinton has stated she doesn't know the contents of those emails despite your certainty.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-top-secret-emails-218458

When asked about the contents of the messages, Clinton said she didn’t know details: “I don’t know which ones they have plucked out to fail to disclose, and we have called for all of them to be released.”

Also, the law does not care if she shared it. Possessing it in an unapproved location, and her email server was certainly not cleared for top secret material, and retaining it there is a crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

A crime for which she has met every element. Handing copies on a thumb drive and backup copies on remote servers, for what it is worth, is sharing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

These laws aren't complicated. They are easy to read and understand, despite the ramblings stating otherwise. Now I know it's unlikely to argue actual facts about this issue rather than "reported facts" from campaign spokesmen, but it might be wise to be at least somewhat familiar to what the actual laws states before claiming she has done no wrong.

She and her top aides are in serious trouble. Go to jail level of trouble. 150 reported, which makes it fact, agents working on the case.

However, since it's been reported in many news sources that the FBI is ready to indict it means they have found enough evidence support criminal activities. Facts as reported, right?

 

[Leftus]

Was there criminal intent, on Clinton's part, to bypass using the government server, or was she just clueless about how to handle classified info? I've never thought Hillary was stupid, and it seems likely she deliberately avoided using the government server.

I linked the law in a post above. The intent only has to exist in the sense in that she intended to use her server and keep the information there. It does not require criminal intent. She intended to use a server not authorized for classified material. Setting up the domain, hosting, for reports outsourcing it for better service. The use of the clintonemail domain and address were clearly intentional.

 

[The Big Dog]

The fact is that Hillary did "send" the documents when she gave copies to her lawyers, to Platte River and to Datto.