What happened with the Hillary email scandal?

[Xema]

@GIGObuster

I do not think that just because you are not mentioning what applies, like a “whereas”, that then automatically the intention mentioned everywhere and many times is dismissed.

Your position would be much stronger if you were to show the specific wording that you think brings intent into paragraphs (e) and (f) of that law.

I concur with CarnalK: “section (f) looks specifically crafted to take intent out.” The Daily Kos article linked above agrees:

Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different

[running_coach]

@Superdude

Just wait for the Michael Bay movie!

Odds on the claim of a cover-up due to all the explosions in the movie that were never mentioned?

[iiandyiiii]

@Xema

I know of no claim by anyone that this is an “official” category. But it’s clear that, until determined otherwise, foreign government info is to be considered classified - it needs no official stamp or designation.

So how do you know that the information in question is “foreign government info”, and if so, how do you know that it was not determined to be unclassified at the time it was sent?

[Sheesko]

Latest State Department dope is that Hillz’ e-mails did indeed contain classified (as in top secret) stuff. Listen to all of yesterday’s presser on this:

http://video.state.gov/en/video/4728578385001

[iiandyiiii]

@Sheesko

Latest State Department dope is that Hillz’ e-mails did indeed contain classified (as in top secret) stuff. Listen to all of yesterday’s presser on this:

http://video.state.gov/en/video/4728578385001

Can’t watch video right now, but I’m pretty sure we’ve been discussing this for hours. Yes, some of the info in the emails may be now considered top secret. That doesn’t mean it was considered classified at the time it was sent.

[GIGObuster]

@Xema

Your position would be much stronger if you were to show the specific wording that you think brings intent into paragraphs (e) and (f) of that law.

I concur with CarnalK: “section (f) looks specifically crafted to take intent out.” The Daily Kos article linked above agrees:

Point is that the rest of the comments is not too kind to that Daily Kos article, you are doing what it is called a “nutpick” in this case a poster that has no expertise other that disliking Hillary.

As for the position being stronger, once again I have to point that they did not need to figure in Obamacare what wording was needed, in the end the intension of the law was taken into account, and so it is with the item that you think helps your case, please note that even CarnalK does not think that they will get Hillary just with that article of the law alone.

[Xema]

@iiandyiiii

So how do you know that the information in question is “foreign government info”, and if so, how do you know that it was not determined to be unclassified at the time it was sent?

Here’s a Reuters article that mentions 30 email threads containing foreign government info. Included are emails with some very sensitive info:

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s most senior aide, that Miliband “very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note.”

Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton’s private email account.

No record of this being judged unworthy of security has surfaced. So it’s possible that what now needs to be fully redacted was briefly deemed to be innocuous by someone with the necessary authority, but who failed to make any record that fact. Yet it’s wildly improbable.

[GIGObuster]

@Xema

Here’s a Reuters article that mentions 30 email threads containing foreign government info. Included are emails with some very sensitive info:
No record of this being judged unworthy of security has surfaced. So it’s possible that what now needs to be fully redacted was briefly deemed to be innocuous by someone with the necessary authority, but who failed to make any record that fact. Yet it’s wildly improbable.

Old news. Most likely about this:

"Nuclear Bombshell": Right-Wing Media Hype Old, Disputed Claim That Clinton's...

Right-wing media are hyping a letter from the intelligence community’s inspector general claiming some of Hillary Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state contained information classified above “top secret.” However, the development that Clinton’s emails reportedly mention widely-known public information about the country’s drone operation was already covered by the media in 2015.

Politico: Government Official Suggests “Some Or All” Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strikes. A government official told Politico “some or all of the emails deemed to implicate ‘special access programs’ related to U.S. drone strikes” and explained the information was “‘not obtained through a classified product,’” although “the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground”:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate "special access programs" related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

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

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

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified." [Politico, 1/19/16]

NBCNews.com: Senior U.S. Officials Say Clinton Emails Discussed One Of “The Worst Kept Secrets In Washington.” According to NBCNews.com, senior government officials confirmed that the classified information in the Clinton emails included discussions about the well-known CIA drone strike program, “among the worst kept secrets in Washington” since at least 2009. Not only did the officials characterize the email discussions as “innocuous,” NBCNews.com pointed out “various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike”:

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

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

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

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

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News. [NBCNews.com, 1/20/16]

[iiandyiiii]

@Xema

Here’s a Reuters article that mentions 30 email threads containing foreign government info. Included are emails with some very sensitive info:

We don’t know how sensitive the info is, nor do we know the classification, nor do we know whether this strictly counts as “foreign government info” (which appears to be a legal term). We also don’t know whether any of this stuff was deemed unclassified at some point.

No record of this being judged unworthy of security has surfaced. So it’s possible that what now needs to be fully redacted was briefly deemed to be innocuous by someone with the necessary authority, but who failed to make any record that fact. Yet it’s wildly improbable.

There may be no such record, even if it was deemed unclassified. That doesn’t seem improbable at all to me, considering how often I see conversations that go like this:

“Hey boss, is this classified?”
“Let me check… no, that’s not classified. You can print that out and scan it to an UNCLAS computer.”

[Xema]

@GIGObuster

Point is that the rest of the comments is not too kind to that Daily Kos article, you are doing what it is called a “nutpick” in this case a poster that has no expertise other that disliking Hillary.

I’ll have to admit I’m having trouble parsing this (but I do congratulate you on “nutpick”).

[Xema]

@iiandyiiii

… nor do we know whether this strictly counts as “foreign government info” (which appears to be a legal term).

Quick Googling turned up this document which discloses that it comes from an Executive Order:

EO 12356 defines foreign government information (FGI) as:
(1) information provided by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof with the expectation, express or implied, that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence; or
(2) information produced by the United States pursuant to or as a result of a joint arrangement with a foreign government or governments or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, requiring that the information, the arrangement, or both, are to be held in confidence.

We also don’t know whether any of this stuff was deemed unclassified at some point.

But for a document intended only for the eyes of the SoS, we know which way to bet:

FGI is not usually declassified by the United States without the express permission of the foreign government that generated the information.

[iiandyiiii]

@Xema

Quick Googling turned up this document which discloses that it comes from an Executive Order:

But for a document intended only for the eyes of the SoS, we know which way to bet:

So we don’t know whether this info qualifies as FGI, and if it is, we don’t know whether permission from the other governments was acquired to declassify it.

[Martin_Hyde]

So this scandal never went anywhere, as a direct response to OP. It’s lingered at about the same level of front page awareness ever since it started.

I think Clinton behaved improperly. I think the evidence supports that, chiefly:

1. There’s only really one logical reason you go through the trouble and expense of maintaining a private email account or a physical private server in your home, for handling official duties–such emails are not covered by FOIA requests and thus you shield yourself from FOIA. The reason we know this is the only reason to do this is because no one will be able to come up with a compelling alternative and almost all major politicians have done just this. Do you know who the first Secretary of State was to use a state.gov email address? The current one–John Kerry. Now, HRC is unique in that she was using a private email server physically in her home, several of the previous SecStates (who would’ve been in the Bush administration) were using private email addresses but not a private server (think gmail.com addresses.)

Should we the people have a problem with government officials shielding their official correspondence from FOIA this way? We should. Is it fair to single out Hillary for this? It isn’t. I think if anything good comes from this scandal it will be that officials are going to move away from using private email addresses–there’s a reason Kerry is using his state.gov account. The law should be changed additionally mandated holders of high government office not use personal email accounts for official business (this would also bring their behavior in line with the rules that all normal civil servants in government have to follow.) I don’t believe anyone should vote for or against Hillary over her scheme to dodge FOIA requests.

2. We know that she was blase with classified information, but we also know that most politicians in government are, too. There’s a long history of improper handling of classified information by legislators and cabinet level officials. These are politicians, and frankly aren’t usually super concerned with the Byzantine rules on handling classified documents. That being said, as someone who once had a TS clearance for my military job, a lot of what gets classified contains no information that is materially important or that would hurt the country in any way if you posted it directly onto the front page of the New York Times. So not excusing her being blase with classified material, but putting it into perspective that it isn’t a big deal. A lot of regular employees make mistakes with classified material as well, they are usually just disciplined and there will be sessions discussing what went wrong, but you’re not likely to be fired for a simple mistake. Ignoring for the moment the argument about whether or not it was “classified at the time it was sent”, we know that classified information made its way onto her private server. That in and of itself shows the private server isn’t a great idea.

3. We do actually know that at least some classified information, that was classified when it was sent, was on her private email server. Here is a New York Times article that explains this point by point. Some key points from this article:

[ul]
[li]Clinton said for months she kept no classified information on her server, this was either a liar or shows her ignorance of what was going on[/li][li]Clinton lies and says she maintained a private server so she wouldn’t have to carry two phones, when the reality is she did this toa void FOIA, the only reason any politician maintains a private email account for official business[/li][li]As the article notes, "the inspectors general of the State Department and *ntelligence agencies said the information … was classified when it was sent and remains so…[and] never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.[/li][/ul]

Like I said–I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill while also exposing something that government officials and politicians in general should not be allowed to do, but that many do anyway. I think we should limit elected and high ranking cabinet officials from using private email accounts for official business, but I don’t think this is any terrible crime that should cause people to vote for/against Hillary over it.

[Xema]

@iiandyiiii

So we don’t know whether this info qualifies as FGI

In the case of the message from the principal private secretary of the British foreign secretary, we do - this clearly meets the definition of FGI.

[iiandyiiii]

@Xema

In the case of the message from the principal private secretary of the British foreign secretary, we do - this clearly meets the definition of FGI.

No we don’t – how do we know for certain that the information was expected to be “held in confidence”?

[elucidator]

OK, say we know that on the third of January, 2010, the Prime Minister of Bongo Bongo had eggs for breakfast. And at the time, nobody gave a rat’s, so it barely made “classified”. Now, we find out China told Bongo Bongo of an American spy in their midst. Which is true but we’d just as soon they didn’t know that. And they might figure out who our guy was there, if they cross check who knew about his breakfast that morning.

Dumb scenario, sure, but just pointing how circumstances might make an innocuous piece of info more valuable.

[septimus]

Let’s condemn those comparing Hillary’s crimes to the release of Valerie Plame’s top secret status by Dick Cheney and his office.

Cheney needed to punish Plame’s husband, the traitor Joe Wilson, to set an example for any other would-be traitors eager to help America’s enemies. Just as Adolf Eichmann is rightly condemned for following an unjust law, so Cheney needed to circumvent the libtard restrictions as part of God’s Crusade against the heathens of the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was deliberately leaking secrets (including the Bongo Bongo P.M.'s breakfast, I guess) to the anti-American jihadists in Romania. Clear treason! And wasn’t there an increase in her e-mail crimes after the Benghazi connection was discovered? The gas chamber would be too good for her.

[Martin_Hyde]

@septimus

Let’s condemn those comparing Hillary’s crimes to the release of Valerie Plame’s top secret status by Dick Cheney and his office.

Cheney needed to punish Plame’s husband, the traitor Joe Wilson, to set an example for any other would-be traitors eager to help America’s enemies. Just as Adolf Eichmann is rightly condemned for following an unjust law, so Cheney needed to circumvent the libtard restrictions as part of God’s Crusade against the heathens of the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was deliberately leaking secrets (including the Bongo Bongo P.M.'s breakfast, I guess) to the anti-American jihadists in Romania. Clear treason! And wasn’t there an increase in her e-mail crimes after the Benghazi connection was discovered? The gas chamber would be too good for her.

Well you’re introducing things not in the evidence against Cheney. Cheney was never proven to have those motivations or to have done the things you mention.

Clinton has been caught sending/receiving classified information improperly on a private server (I’ve already explained at length why this isn’t a big deal, but I explained it accurately and honestly) and she either did it because managing two phones is too difficult for someone who wants to run the country or because she wanted to protect her official emails from FOIA in violation of the spirit of that law (my opinion is it’s the latter.) Clinton has been caught doing something wrong, and the evidence is clear of that.

It doesn’t make it a big deal, or justify criminal prosecution, but the counter point to that shouldn’t be to point out things a Vice President some 7 years removed from office might have done and for which there is no evidence.

[TriPolar]

In addition to the incompetence she demonstrates by not following the rules regarding email the contents of non-secret emails is very telling also.

@then-Obama National Security Council aide Liz Sherwood-Randall

If you get a chance — please tell HRC that she was a ROCK STAR yesterday. Everything about her ‘performance’ was what makes her unique, beloved, and destined for even more greatness. She sets a standard that lesser mortals can only dream of emulating…

That was the kind of thing GW Bush considered as a qualification for a Supreme Court Justice. Emails like this are abundant and reflect the kind of obsequious personalities Hillary has to surround herself with. This ties directly to her paranoia behind the email controversy in the first place. Hillary sure seemed to think there was something that she wanted to keep secret in her work emails to start with.

[Xema]

@iiandyiiii

how do we know for certain that the information was expected to be “held in confidence”?

When information is accompanied by a note that the sender (of high rank) “very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this”, would you not say that’s an unmistakable indication that the info is expected to be held in confidence?