I thought that some of the classified information was sourced from other agencies?
One newspaper article I read stated that they (the Inspector General and FBI) found info in the emails that came from CIA sources, and satellite intel.
I never implied that. However, people forget that such data is extremely valuable to hedge fund managers, private equity managers, and large investors. Suppose a secret document described saudia arabia’s plans to cut oil production? Such data would be worth millions to oil traders. There are all sorts of things possible here.
We are still in GQ (and even if this floats over to Elections or GD, it’s still a fact-based forum), so you are obligated to provide evidence to support your assertion. Yes, there are all things possible here (even that Mrs. Clinton is a foreign spy). But there is no evidence. It is, as I said previously, rank speculation.
Nor is it plausible. Bill Clinton made millions just by giving speeches and writing books. Hillary has no need to engage in something so outlandish as leaking classified information to private industry. Especially if she is as determined to get to be President as she is presumed to be. Hillary Clinton is, according to conventional wisdom, driven by the power and prestige of being President. She is not trying to become a billionaire. She is comfortably in the millionaire range, so why would she possibly risk her political ambition to earn kickbacks while SOS? It defies logic.
It is far more logical that she used a private server because 1) it was already set up, and was being used (without incident) since she had run for office in 2008, 2) the house has secret service protection, so it is reasonably secure from physical invasion, and 3) it was not at all unprecedented for her to use a private email server while SOS.
I’m confused. Has it been established that the claim that she only used her own server while Secretary of State been proven false? Because if it hasn’t, and she really did only use that server for all her Secretary of State related e-mail, how on earth could she never have sent any classified e-mail and still fulfilled her duties?
Many high officials do not use email for obvious reasons.
And I strongly suspect that Mrs. Clinton did use government email systems on occasion. Like when she was sending or receiving classified information. In that case she would have had no choice.
Having worked with cleaning up some leaks in the past, this sort of stuff depends on the actual data that is leaked. A part of the process is to review the information that was leaked and to determine if it can be declassified. So, using your example, they might decide that the Zimbabwe grain harvest intercept might have been sensitive at one point and, while it may not have been due to be declassified until a certain date, the qualification of “grave harm” isn’t there now and it can be declassified. Similarly, there’s a lot of stuff that is classified simply because it’s correspondence that happened over the classified network, but there’s not actually any sensitive information in that correspondence itself.
Sometimes, though, data that is leaked isn’t able to be declassified for a myriad of reasons. A typical example might be military data about troop positioning, or more likely in state department correspondences, information relevant to certain active diplomatic negotiations. The unfortunate part about this sort of situation is that, if it were found that certain information that Clinton may have stored unsafely and might be leaked, the public cannot even be told the nature of the information. Part of the reason for this is that it makes it somewhat more difficult to identify what information that was released may or may not be harmful. For example, if they say that important documents about negotiations were leaked, now people know what to look for.
So, I think an interesting question, though perhaps out of the scope of General Questions, might be, what happens if this IS the case? If we find that there may have been a leak of certain classified information, and the public cannot be told details about the information, how will that play out in public opinion? Presumably, the Republicans would go off about horrible it is, and the Democrats would be in damage control downplaying it. But how would that influence potential swing voters? Would they assume there’s political motivation in leaving it classified, that perhaps it’s not ACTUALLY secret and they’re hiding it to make her look good? Would they assume that maybe it’s not as bad as it might sound just because they’re ignorant as to what it actually is? Or maybe think it’s WAY worse than it might actually be?
There are VERY strict rules about how classified documents must be handled. For the most part, your examples would be violations of these rules. As an example, even a password protected computer with an encrypted hard drive is NOT sufficient for SECRET material. They have to meet some pretty stringent security requirements and must be stored in certain ways, only be operated and viewed in certain ways and certain places. And, while there’s certainly some stuff that’s classified that some people might not see as realistically having the potential of causing grave harm, particularly as it comes to computers, having access to it.
The whole issue is, this isn’t data that just a hacker might be after, like credit card information or whatever, this is the sort of data that foreign nations may be interested in and it can do things like open up our classified networks to attack, harm our position in major negotiations, cost the government potentially millions, or even put people’s lives at serious risk. That’s why failure to follow these protocols is a BIG deal, and you don’t get a clearance unless you understand and agree to follow these rules. The whole point is, unlike the general risk of being burglarized or attacked for identity theft which is, in general, randomly targeted, and can be beaten by basic security measures like making sure I don’t use the name of my dog as a password and remembering to lock doors and windows, national secrets are specifically targeted, so they’re going to take the time to crack a password or break encryption if they have reason to believe there’s secrets worth those resource on there.
Moreso, the more classified information you deal with, the more likely you’ll be targeted, so the more important it is to follow protocols. That’s why this whole issue with Clinton is potentially a big deal. I don’t really know much about the security details of the server, so I don’t know how much effort was gone to to secure it, but certainly someone like Clinton, as a high profile government official likely to see a lot of important classified information, would be someone that would be highly targeted, meaning that the security would be that much more important.
In short, yes. Leaving classified documents in a car would definitely be violation of storage protocol for documents. Same for leaving them on a desk in a rent house or in a filing cabinet. Paper documents, when not in use, must be stored only in a safe or cabinet specifically rated for storing classified documents. One would be subject to federal prosecution for failing to follow proper storage procedures, even if there was no risk of a leak.
That said, how it actually happens depends. In my experience, I’ve seen some people get off with a slap on the wrist, I’ve seen other people have their clearances revoked, and some even were put in federal prison. I don’t know any specifics of those cases, but I imagine the differences could rely on the amount of negligence involved in the leak and the potential damage associated with the leaked information.
The thing is, Clinton is a special case because this isn’t exactly something that can be easily contained and corrected. I would suspect that she would get some leniency because of who she is, just as in cases I’d seen, a higher ranking government or military person would often get more leniency than a lower ranking one or contractor. However, because of who she is, knowing she likely saw a lot of important classified information, and the fact that this potential leak is public knowledge, the actual damage may be difficult or impossible to measure and correct.
My assessment would be that it’s at least possible they could nail her, but it all depends on the results of the investigation. If the documents they review are found to be not that big of a deal, I imagine they’ll let it go. I really have no idea what might happen if one or several of the documents are determined to be unable to be declassified. Regardless, I think it could affect her popularity, especially if the talking points about her judgment calls regarding the handling of classified information are made effectively and stick.
My understanding is that this whole nonsense is because some of the information on the email server has been RETROACTIVELY classified. Not clear how she’s supposed to be reponsible for that. In the post-9/11 era, we find PRESS RELEASES being retroactively classified.
This is a case of an obsessive security state intersecting with the political needs of the out party, as well as those of an ignorant press willing to report as scandal what they don’t understand.