CDZ True or False about Clinton's private emails and server: Which is Which?

[320 Years of History]

If Clinton was sending out these emails (ie ones including classified information) from her server then the fact they weren't MARKED as classified is still on her.

1. if they weren't MARKED to begin with, that still implicates her as being responsible/irresponsible for the ones that WERE found later to CONTAIN classified information and be treated as such after being discovered.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at above.

I was told to research how 22,000 emails are missing, an estimated 55,000 were provided, and only 1 email was supposedly sent using her govt email.

??? The woman signed an affidavit stating all the emails have been turned over, however many there be. If the person who says there are missing emails, they need to come up with something that unequivocally shows she lied under oath, because that's what an affidavit is, a sworn oath. (I provided the link for the affidavit stuff in an earlier post.)

no other Secretary of State used an email/server that "nobody knew about"

??? What? Mrs. Clinton didn't use a server nobody knew about. You may not have known about her server. Millions of Americans may not have known about it. I can assure you every person who sent or received an email from it knew about it.

Also, I provided the link to an DoS IG report indicating that all the "modern" SecsState used personal servers/email accounts.

Truly, someone is "putting you on the program" because they are clearly giving you inaccurate information. They are telling you what they believe, what they want you to believe, or something, but the whole truth isn't what they are sharing with you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi 320 Years of History
A. I found this reference in one of the links I was given:

Reports surfaced late this week that an inspector general review had found that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her server were classified “secret” at the time — a finding that calls into question her assertion in March that she took care to avoid sending classified materials.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton campaign. The Times altered its initial story after complaints from the Clinton camp, along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the inspector general had not requested a criminal investigation.

See below for larger context:

Clinton went on to say that she turned over 55,000 pages of emails to help the State Department, which had asked all living former secretaries to do the same in order to help with their record-keeping efforts. Clinton then said it was her own desire for transparency that had led to the arguments over levels of classification.


Also on POLITICO

Hillary Clinton agrees to appear before Benghazi panel
GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and RACHAEL BADE

“Then I said, ‘Well let’s make it public.’ If I just turned it over, we would not be having this conversation, but when I said, ‘Hey I want this to be public’, it has to go through the FOIA process.

“That’s what’s going on here. I’m going to continue to say I want it to be made public as soon as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to try to get that process to move along,” she said.

Reports surfaced late this week that an inspector general review had found that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her server were classified “secret” at the time — a finding that calls into question her assertion in March that she took care to avoid sending classified materials.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton campaign. The Times altered its initial story after complaints from the Clinton camp, along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the inspector general had not requested a criminal investigation.

Clinton said the question over classification is a common disagreement in the government.


Also on POLITICO

Hillary on email scandal: Everybody calm down
JOSH GERSTEIN and HANNA TRUDO

“[T]he argument is over ‘this should’ve been done’ or ‘this now should be done.’ That has nothing to do with me. That is a discussion among various agencies within the government,” Clinton said. “This material is all on the unclassified system of the State Department. If we were not asking for it to be made public, there would not be a debate. This is all about my desire to have transparency and make the information public.”

Asked whether she thought the Justice Department should investigate the emails, Clinton said it’s up to them.

“They can fight or argue over it, that’s up to them. I can just tell you what the facts are, and there’s nothing contradicted in those facts I’m telling you by anything anyone has said so far,” she said.

B. If she claims she does support transparency, this contradicts complaints that she first denied things and then admitted them later. And also why she was using this server that nobody knew about.

The article does cite "at least 4 emails classified as Top Secret at the time" but was later changed?

C. If other members of administrations have also been sending security-sensitive information by private email, then all such activity should be stopped. So in the future we can police, document and request FOI on these communications.

From the "conjectures" I heard about the motives, by using a private server/email
then the public cannot make Freedom of Information requests,
and other conflicting business could be conducted, such as making illicit arms deals or
conducting other business for profit in conflict with official duty.

If it is true that Clinton changed her story, clearly that doesn't indicate transparency
unless she acknowledges fault in this.

If she and Obama put party politics above Constitutional duty, that's not transparent
unless they are honest about it and asking people to vote for beliefs that Govt does not
have authority to enforce unless the public consents to integrating beliefs into public policy.

Christians on the right will admit they are trying to enforce and embed Christian values in govt,
and some will admit when it goes too far and conflicts with Constitutional laws limiting govt from intruding on private matters and beliefs.

I have yet to see Democrats admitting any such bias.

As for Clinton and duties as Secretary of State, I would want officials with the sense to know
that anything dealing with official govt business should be managed on govt emails and servers for accountability sake.

Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules?

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.

A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations.

It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation.

"Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Had Clinton used a @state.gov email address, every email sent and received would have been archived in the State Department system. Clinton, who served from 2009 to 2013, has argued that her emails were archived in the system because she was in the habit of sending them to other government employees with .gov email addresses.

However, experts said this defense is insufficient. Under this practice, the State Department records management system would have captured emails from Clinton to a State Department employee, but it would not necessarily capture emails from Clinton to government employees in other departments or non-government employees, said John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency.

Although they may contain the same individual emails, Clinton’s outbox and other employees’ inboxes are considered two separate records, which is important for locating the records in response to specific requests.

For example, even if Clinton had sent every email to individuals with state.gov or other federal agency addresses, that procedure would hamper State Department compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests for Clinton’s emails, said David Sobel, who directs a FOIA project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital freedom advocacy group. It would not be apparent to agency personnel conducting the search that they would need to search the accounts of myriad employees to locate all of Clinton's emails, he said.

"In fact, State likely would have argued that it would be unreasonable to conduct such a far-reaching search," Sobel said.

In 2013, Gawker filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails between Clinton and long-time adviser Sid Blumenthal after a hacker had revealed emails that Blumenthal sent Clinton. Although the emails were already known to the public, the State Department told Gawker that no such correspondence existed. Gawker believes this shows that Clinton was able to use her personal email to thwart the FOIA process.

"Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

In response to a State Department request last year, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails and documents from her private email server, leaving out emails and documents that she said were of a personal nature, like wedding and funeral plans. She later said she deleted these personal emails.

Cox said the fact that Clinton’s staff -- rather than a State Department federal records officer -- chose which emails to destroy is "honestly breathtaking." Her private employees don’t have the authority to decide what does or doesn’t count as a federal record. Further, when she was making these choices, she was acting as a private citizen, not a government employee.

In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."

================

Italics - my comments
I left everything else that was quoted from the links.

 

[emilynghiem]

If Clinton was sending out these emails (ie ones including classified information) from her server then the fact they weren't MARKED as classified is still on her.

1. if they weren't MARKED to begin with, that still implicates her as being responsible/irresponsible for the ones that WERE found later to CONTAIN classified information and be treated as such after being discovered.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at above.

I was told to research how 22,000 emails are missing, an estimated 55,000 were provided, and only 1 email was supposedly sent using her govt email.

??? The woman signed an affidavit stating all the emails have been turned over, however many there be. If the person who says there are missing emails, they need to come up with something that unequivocally shows she lied under oath, because that's what an affidavit is, a sworn oath. (I provided the link for the affidavit stuff in an earlier post.)

no other Secretary of State used an email/server that "nobody knew about"

??? What? Mrs. Clinton didn't use a server nobody knew about. You may not have known about her server. Millions of Americans may not have known about it. I can assure you every person who sent or received an email from it knew about it.

Also, I provided the link to an DoS IG report indicating that all the "modern" SecsState used personal servers/email accounts.

Truly, someone is "putting you on the program" because they are clearly giving you inaccurate information. They are telling you what they believe, what they want you to believe, or something, but the whole truth isn't what they are sharing with you.

Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State

Soon after Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano's supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues.

Pagliano's immediate supervisors did not know the private server even existed until it was revealed in news reports last year, the colleague said, requesting anonymity because of a department ban on unauthorized interviews.
========

bold = all cited from source as linked

 

[320 Years of History]

Hi 320 Years of History
A. I found this reference in one of the links I was given:

Reports surfaced late this week that an inspector general review had found that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her server were classified “secret” at the time — a finding that calls into question her assertion in March that she took care to avoid sending classified materials.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton campaign. The Times altered its initial story after complaints from the Clinton camp, along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the inspector general had not requested a criminal investigation.

See below for larger context:

Clinton went on to say that she turned over 55,000 pages of emails to help the State Department, which had asked all living former secretaries to do the same in order to help with their record-keeping efforts. Clinton then said it was her own desire for transparency that had led to the arguments over levels of classification.


Also on POLITICO

Hillary Clinton agrees to appear before Benghazi panel
GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI and RACHAEL BADE

“Then I said, ‘Well let’s make it public.’ If I just turned it over, we would not be having this conversation, but when I said, ‘Hey I want this to be public’, it has to go through the FOIA process.

“That’s what’s going on here. I’m going to continue to say I want it to be made public as soon as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to try to get that process to move along,” she said.

Reports surfaced late this week that an inspector general review had found that at least four emails Clinton had kept on her server were classified “secret” at the time — a finding that calls into question her assertion in March that she took care to avoid sending classified materials.

News of the inspector general’s review was first reported late Thursday night by the New York Times — prompting a furious pushback from the Clinton campaign. The Times altered its initial story after complaints from the Clinton camp, along with the Justice Department’s clarification that the inspector general had not requested a criminal investigation.

Clinton said the question over classification is a common disagreement in the government.


Also on POLITICO

Hillary on email scandal: Everybody calm down
JOSH GERSTEIN and HANNA TRUDO

“[T]he argument is over ‘this should’ve been done’ or ‘this now should be done.’ That has nothing to do with me. That is a discussion among various agencies within the government,” Clinton said. “This material is all on the unclassified system of the State Department. If we were not asking for it to be made public, there would not be a debate. This is all about my desire to have transparency and make the information public.”

Asked whether she thought the Justice Department should investigate the emails, Clinton said it’s up to them.

“They can fight or argue over it, that’s up to them. I can just tell you what the facts are, and there’s nothing contradicted in those facts I’m telling you by anything anyone has said so far,” she said.

B. If she claims she does support transparency, this contradicts complaints that she first denied things and then admitted them later. And also why she was using this server that nobody knew about.

The article does cite "at least 4 emails classified as Top Secret at the time" but was later changed?

C. If other members of administrations have also been sending security-sensitive information by private email, then all such activity should be stopped. So in the future we can police, document and request FOI on these communications.

From the "conjectures" I heard about the motives, by using a private server/email
then the public cannot make Freedom of Information requests,
and other conflicting business could be conducted, such as making illicit arms deals or
conducting other business for profit in conflict with official duty.

If it is true that Clinton changed her story, clearly that doesn't indicate transparency
unless she acknowledges fault in this.

If she and Obama put party politics above Constitutional duty, that's not transparent
unless they are honest about it and asking people to vote for beliefs that Govt does not
have authority to enforce unless the public consents to integrating beliefs into public policy.

Christians on the right will admit they are trying to enforce and embed Christian values in govt,
and some will admit when it goes too far and conflicts with Constitutional laws limiting govt from intruding
on private matters and beliefs.

I have yet to see Democrats admitting any such bias.

As for Clinton and duties as Secretary of State, I would want officials with the sense to know
that anything dealing with official govt business should be managed on govt emails and servers
for accountability sake.

Hillary Clinton's email: Did she follow all the rules?

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business. Rather, by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.

A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations.

It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed -- such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation.

"Anyone at NARA would have said you can’t use a personal email account for all of your official business," said Metcalfe, who held his position in part during former President Bill Clinton’s administration.

Had Clinton used a @state.gov email address, every email sent and received would have been archived in the State Department system. Clinton, who served from 2009 to 2013, has argued that her emails were archived in the system because she was in the habit of sending them to other government employees with .gov email addresses.

However, experts said this defense is insufficient. Under this practice, the State Department records management system would have captured emails from Clinton to a State Department employee, but it would not necessarily capture emails from Clinton to government employees in other departments or non-government employees, said John Wonderlich, policy director for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency.

Although they may contain the same individual emails, Clinton’s outbox and other employees’ inboxes are considered two separate records, which is important for locating the records in response to specific requests.

For example, even if Clinton had sent every email to individuals with state.gov or other federal agency addresses, that procedure would hamper State Department compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests for Clinton’s emails, said David Sobel, who directs a FOIA project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital freedom advocacy group. It would not be apparent to agency personnel conducting the search that they would need to search the accounts of myriad employees to locate all of Clinton's emails, he said.

"In fact, State likely would have argued that it would be unreasonable to conduct such a far-reaching search," Sobel said.

In 2013, Gawker filed a FOIA request to the State Department for emails between Clinton and long-time adviser Sid Blumenthal after a hacker had revealed emails that Blumenthal sent Clinton. Although the emails were already known to the public, the State Department told Gawker that no such correspondence existed. Gawker believes this shows that Clinton was able to use her personal email to thwart the FOIA process.

"Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."

In response to a State Department request last year, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails and documents from her private email server, leaving out emails and documents that she said were of a personal nature, like wedding and funeral plans. She later said she deleted these personal emails.

Cox said the fact that Clinton’s staff -- rather than a State Department federal records officer -- chose which emails to destroy is "honestly breathtaking." Her private employees don’t have the authority to decide what does or doesn’t count as a federal record. Further, when she was making these choices, she was acting as a private citizen, not a government employee.

In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."

Off Topic:
Since you are copying and pasting large excerpts from articles, would you mind somehow indicating what remarks are specifically yours? I don't want to get into responding to what is published by a news outlet unless I have to. I do want to read your remarks before I read the published stuff.

 

[320 Years of History]

If Clinton was sending out these emails (ie ones including classified information) from her server then the fact they weren't MARKED as classified is still on her.

1. if they weren't MARKED to begin with, that still implicates her as being responsible/irresponsible for the ones that WERE found later to CONTAIN classified information and be treated as such after being discovered.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at above.

I was told to research how 22,000 emails are missing, an estimated 55,000 were provided, and only 1 email was supposedly sent using her govt email.

??? The woman signed an affidavit stating all the emails have been turned over, however many there be. If the person who says there are missing emails, they need to come up with something that unequivocally shows she lied under oath, because that's what an affidavit is, a sworn oath. (I provided the link for the affidavit stuff in an earlier post.)

no other Secretary of State used an email/server that "nobody knew about"

??? What? Mrs. Clinton didn't use a server nobody knew about. You may not have known about her server. Millions of Americans may not have known about it. I can assure you every person who sent or received an email from it knew about it.

Also, I provided the link to an DoS IG report indicating that all the "modern" SecsState used personal servers/email accounts.

Truly, someone is "putting you on the program" because they are clearly giving you inaccurate information. They are telling you what they believe, what they want you to believe, or something, but the whole truth isn't what they are sharing with you.

Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State

Soon after Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano's supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues.

Pagliano's immediate supervisors did not know the private server even existed until it was revealed in news reports last year, the colleague said, requesting anonymity because of a department ban on unauthorized interviews.

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

 

[emilynghiem]

If Clinton was sending out these emails (ie ones including classified information) from her server then the fact they weren't MARKED as classified is still on her.

1. if they weren't MARKED to begin with, that still implicates her as being responsible/irresponsible for the ones that WERE found later to CONTAIN classified information and be treated as such after being discovered.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at above.

I was told to research how 22,000 emails are missing, an estimated 55,000 were provided, and only 1 email was supposedly sent using her govt email.

??? The woman signed an affidavit stating all the emails have been turned over, however many there be. If the person who says there are missing emails, they need to come up with something that unequivocally shows she lied under oath, because that's what an affidavit is, a sworn oath. (I provided the link for the affidavit stuff in an earlier post.)

no other Secretary of State used an email/server that "nobody knew about"

??? What? Mrs. Clinton didn't use a server nobody knew about. You may not have known about her server. Millions of Americans may not have known about it. I can assure you every person who sent or received an email from it knew about it.

Also, I provided the link to an DoS IG report indicating that all the "modern" SecsState used personal servers/email accounts.

Truly, someone is "putting you on the program" because they are clearly giving you inaccurate information. They are telling you what they believe, what they want you to believe, or something, but the whole truth isn't what they are sharing with you.

Role of tech who set up Clinton's server unknown to bosses at State

Soon after Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department in 2009, officials in the information technology office were baffled when told that a young technician would join them as a political appointee, newly disclosed emails show.

The technician, Bryan Pagliano, was running the off-grid email server that Clinton had him set up in her New York home for her work as secretary of state. But even as years passed, Pagliano's supervisors never learned of his most sensitive task, according to the department and one of his former colleagues.

Pagliano's immediate supervisors did not know the private server even existed until it was revealed in news reports last year, the colleague said, requesting anonymity because of a department ban on unauthorized interviews.

I read the article. The central question in my mind is this...Did any of those supervisors send or receive emails to/from the "clintonemail.com" address? If they did, they knew damn well the server was there and that it wasn't a "state.gov" sever. Who set up the "clintonemail.com" server is irrelevant; whether any of Pagliano's supervisors knew of Pagliano's role in setting up the server is irrelevant to whether anyone knew the server existed; all of those details are nothing but red herrings.

I think the issue is that she set up her OWN private server nobody knew about or was asked to grant permission so it would be set up as safe by govt standards to begin with.

A different email address doesn't indicate she "set up her own private server."

And if none of the people in charge of security flagged this, maybe they all should be reprimanded or let go of there is deliberate intent to hide this oversight.

It seems Obama enacted a policy later that only private emails could be used if copies are sent to the govt email so they can be tracked.

I'm just an average person when it comes to IT knowledge.
Yet I know any system can be hacked, and I would know to do govt business through govt systems
so the accountability for anything hacked is with the govt. And doesn't create even the APPEARANCE
of something amiss. I know that, and wouldn't want anyone in that level of govt who didn't know more than I do about security issues. And certainly not less!

 

[320 Years of History]

the issue is that she set up her OWN private server nobody knew about or was asked to grant permission

She was SecState. She didn't need permission. There is nobody she needed to answer to at State. She needed to say "jump" and the people working for her needed at most to ask, "How high?" when it came to matters like a doggone email server.

A different email address doesn't indicate she "set up her own private server."

At some point, one cannot just grasp at straws and posit things that really stretch credulity. Who -- Mrs. Clinton herself or someone working at her behest -- set it up doesn't matter. There is no way in hell that folks are going to perceive any ".com" email address as anything owned by the government, which necessarily means it must be a private server. That is the very difference between ".com" addresses and ".gov" ones.

We're talking about 21st century people here, not my 90+ year old parents. People know what a dot com top level domain indicates, at least to the extent that it means "not a government domain."

What one would need to show to credibly make the point you've "devil's advocated" above about what an email address indicates isn't impossible, but it's highly improbable. She'd have had to be doing things like "auto-forwarding" her emails from her ".gov" account to her ".com" account and have messages originating from the "com" account flow back through the ".gov" account and on to the intended recipient. Is it impossible to set up an interface that can do that? No, but has anyone "gone there?" No, not even Mrs. Clinton's most ardent opponents.

 

[Care4all]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

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​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yet I know any system can be hacked

Well, right there is a flaw in understanding, although it's a subtle one. It is theoretically possible, given enough time and resources, to hack any system, but that is not the same thing as actually being able to hack any system. The principles of how to effect a hack are no great secret and that they aren't secret gives rise to the "anything can be hacked" concept.

Not that it's specifically relevant to Mrs. Clinton's issue, but we aren't that far away from literally unhackable systems. (See also: Laws of Physics Say Quantum Cryptography Is Unhackable. It’s Not )

 

[Care4all]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

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​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was well aware and there are emails among State dept officials discussing how it should be set up, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone actually believe Emily is a Dem?

 

[Ravi]

That said. This reminds me of the hundred million pieces of legislation the Republicans introduced to turn over the health care reform that was actually their own idea

 

[320 Years of History]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

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​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

 

[depotoo]

Hacker 'Guccifer' extradited from Romania, appears in U.S. court
Her hacker has been extradited to the US
Romanian National “Guccifer” Extradited to Face Hacking Charges | OPA | Department of Justice

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

 

[Care4all]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

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​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

She didn't have a State.gov email address, it was never set up for her! She used all email from her private server. clintonemail.com

 

[Care4all]

Hacker 'Guccifer' extradited from Romania, appears in U.S. court
Her hacker has been extradited to the US
Romanian National “Guccifer” Extradited to Face Hacking Charges | OPA | Department of Justice

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

he's being extradited for hacking the gvt ststem, NOT for hacking her... he now claims he hacked her, but unlike all other hackings of his, he's never shown proof of this, thus probably a lie of his.

 

[emilynghiem]

Does anyone actually believe Emily is a Dem? I say she's a concern troll.

Hi Ravi
If you question this, you may contact Precinct Chair Darrell Patterson
who will confirm I've served as secretary and delegate.

I go where I am needed most, and our district is the worst case of
Democratic corruption and destruction I've seen. The only way to
fix this is to work with the Democrats who can take responsibility for it.

Thanks for the compliment. I do aim to be so unbiased, putting Constitutional
duty first before personal or party beliefs, that it should NOT matter what party
someone is from. If policies are written and passed by consensus of the public,
they represent the PUBLIC not private interests. This problem of political conflicts
of interest biasing public policy has destroyed my community and neighbors;
so no, I will not tolerate any more such abuse and corruption.

If you have trouble hearing this from a Democrat, it's because the ones
suffering in silence aren't the ones with money and power to get into the media.

We've been sold out. So you are talking to one of the people at the very bottom
fed up with the corrupt Democratic politics that has exploited our votes and money.

I'm having to reach out to other Constitutionalists to demand change.
Most of them are conservative independent types, including many who
long gave up that Democrats or liberals would listen to any Constitutional anything.

I'm the only one I know making these kind of arguments.
So I know why other people give up, why people leave the party,
and why my friends tell me "you're not a Democrat".
I tell them hey, I voted for Sheila Jackson Lee. Do you know anyone
else who would do that except a Democrat?

Now, whenever my bf catches me denying something or making a dumb mistake,
he jokes and says it's because I'm a liberal. So of course I'm going to say one thing and do something else...

 

[Care4all]

The State department used State.gov as their daily working email system....even though it was an UNCLASSIFIED system, they used it for classified information up to the Secret and above level, and when there was an FOIA REQUEST, their procedure was to go through the emails being released on an FOIA and classify them at the time of release.

THIS WAS THEIR procedure for ALL state departments under all the different SOS's PRIOR to Clinton as well.

 

[depotoo]

It remains to be seen. And he was not extradited for just hacking the govt. ystem.

Hacker 'Guccifer' extradited from Romania, appears in U.S. court
Her hacker has been extradited to the US
Romanian National “Guccifer” Extradited to Face Hacking Charges | OPA | Department of Justice

Okay, once and for all, which description of events is true and which is false:

A. Clinton used private email for classified govt communications.
This account was hacked, and that's how the wrong people got information on Christopher Stevens which cost him his life.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

B. Clinton only used private email for personal use and did not mix in any classified or security-sensitive exchanges or matters that concern public duty and accountability as govt business.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

C. Bonus 1: Clinton used private emails and server in order to conduct illicit business that was in conflict
with govt duty, principles or laws.

TRUE or FALSE -- please cite verifiable reliable sources that are legally responsible for being correct or not.

D. Bonus 2 - Clinton deliberately lied and/or changed stories after being confronted.

Where when what was said -- please cite exact sources NOT hearsay or one person repeating what another media source reported where conjectures go in circular arguments with no foundation in established agreed accounts.

Please do not repeat anything unverified or repeated from other sources "on the internet"

What was really said, changed, proven, documented, and established.

TRUE or FALSE for A and B (and 1 and 2 if this can even be done at all) Thanks

he's being extradited for hacking the gvt ststem, NOT for hacking her... he now claims he hacked her, but unlike all other hackings of his, he's never shown proof of this, thus probably a lie of his.

 

[emilynghiem]

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails:

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

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​

Given the above, the entirety of the legal question about criminal wrongdoing must focus on intent:

• whether the information should have been recognized by Mrs. Clinton as classified
• whether Mrs. Clinton did know the information was classified

Thus far, what is known is that the FBI has found nothing indicating criminal activity, thus criminal intent, actually occurred. It's easy to make a mistake without committing a crime.

Seeing as the actual content of the four emails isn't known publicly, I'm in no position to say whether Mrs. Clinton reasonably should have understood it to be classified given its appearance in emails not indicated as being classified or having dissemination controls on them. Heck, I don't even know whether she was the sender or receiver of the noted four emails.

What I can say is that there is almost certainly no "smoking gun," for were there, charges would have been brought by now, some nine months after the investigation began. What I can't say is whether there's a sequence of circumstantial evidence that may allow for a decently strong enough -- i.e., debatable -- case and charges to be brought. There might be; there might not be. We have to wait to see what the FBI and the DA/special prosecutor determine.


When it comes to assessing Mrs. Clinton, she's at a distinct disadvantage in comparison to her competitors because so much more of her adult live has been in the public eye than has that of the lives of the other Presidential candidates. Take Trump, for example. The man has been a private citizen, sharing only what he wanted to, for all but the past 10 months to a year of his nearly 70 years of living. It's not easy to get "scoop" on folks of that ilk.

I don't say that as a means of exculpating Mrs. Clinton from having created an appearance of impropriety. I say it only to note that she's something of "low hanging fruit" when it comes to finding things that can be cast as her having done something wrong.

I do understand that they weren't marked classified at the time, and the classified classification is uneccasarily thrown on the most ridiculous bits of info by the government (which is a whole different topic). But the four emails they mention I believe are considered top secret, a much higher level than classified. Granted top secret after the fact, but still top secret. Essentially the highest classification level, very sensitive info. While it's possibly she could not have forseen this, someone in her position should have definitely known. And from testimony I have been hearing from other government employees is that had this been them, they'd certainly be fired and probably be facing trial. Which is my biggest issue with the email situation. Along with the higher your posistion in office, the less privacy you should have in your work life, IMO. Being you are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and not only responsible with immense amounts of tax dollars, but also lives. So the whole personal server thing irks me a lot as well

Dear sakinago and 320 Years of History
I am thanking your posts as "informative" since you are going through the trouble of trying to cite exact sources and clarify what has been verified or not.

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.
I was told to "research the internet" to find this, so I will try, but may need your help.

Are you sure there are no sources online confirming some emails/information WERE marked as "TOP SECRET or higher' and "this is why the information is being withheld".

I see from your posts that some INFORMATION in the emails is classified and is still being treated as such.
So that already tells me this was not safe to use emails for that.

At the very least, this is reckless and poor judgment to use private hackable email for any state business dealing with national security/defense.

I can understand personal emails for events like state dinners, where people might share personal information about people they know personally when planning social events.

But for anything involving issues of defense, security, and purely govt business, I don't care who did what before, that should clearly be on govt emails and servers so it is
ACCOUNTABLE to the govt and public and Freedom of Information requests can be applied to it.

People at "regular businesses" make mistakes all the time of mixing business with personal emails.
That DOES cause problems with companies when something goes wrong, and it is both personal
and affecting professional relations and responsibility.

For Govt business and especially when Defense/Security issues are involved,
Clinton and others should apply a higher standard, and they should know this.
Even if "other people" mixed personal emails before, I can understand that for
govt related "social events" and non-proprietary issues.

But CANNOT understand this for things that are even RELATED to classified/security sensitive matters.
Even if the actual information "may not have been classified" if the MATTER has some classified and
some not, then it is dangerous to start any emails on that if it COULD lead to some classified info later on.

Such matters should CLEARLY NOT be personal or nonproprietary, and should have been
restricted to the respective emails/servers if there is even a RISK of something that COULD be
misused or RISK of some information leaking that COULD jeopardize a classified matter.

So I agree with the gist of what
sakinago is saying about accountability.

I stlll want to dig deeper to find whatever sources are supposedly reporting that
some emails/information WERE marked as TOP SECRET or higher.

If I can't find that, even with your help, I'll try to get the original person who reported this to track down those sources and post what is being cited for that.

Thanks so much, I know this is a lot of trouble to avoid repeating the "he said/she said type of hearsay" circulating on the internet, instead of digging up and finding the original source links that can verify what was established and what hasn't been.

I will try to THANK all the msgs that make some sincere attempt to dig into the real sources and avoid hearsay.

If I miss one, please PM me and let me know so I'll go back and credit the poster.

Everyone else: I appreciate your help and contributions here, each of you. Thank you, too!

I am still told that there WERE emails marked as TOP SECRET and higher.

there were NO emails marked top secret or higher on her server...you can google this and the State dept and Intelligence community agree, none were marked top secret or higher.

If Clinton had used the State.gov email system as all of her employees and as the right wingers claim she should have used,

that state.gov email system is an UNCLASSIFIED system just as her own server was an UNCLASSIFIED system. They were both secure systems, but still neither were Classified systems, but were UNCLASSIFIED systems.

NOTHING classified Top secret is suppose to be on the State.gov email system, nor her server....again, if she had a gvt email account, it would be no more safe than her own server for top secret stuff....in fact, the State.gov system is hacked frequently by both Russia and China, while the FBI said after reviewing her security logs for her system, there was no indication her system was ever hacked.

Top Secret classified information is on an entirely different system, that NEVER has access to an email system or the internet...top secret stuff is on a CLOSED in house system....which she does have an account with, along with her top aides...but nothing on the in house T/S system can be retrieved and emailed.

one of the lengthy email chains that is now being marked Top Secret and is now being put on the top secret system was an email chain among her aids where they communicated with each other giving ideas and thoughts on an unclassified gvt document....their comments contained classified information is what the IC IG stated. This email chain was on the State.gov email system which is the unclassified gvt system was passed back and forth on this system for 2 years, before 1 of her aids forwarded this email chain to Clinton.

Another 1 of the now classified T/S emails was an email from Syd Blumenthal, (a journalist and friend)...the information he sent her, which came from his own public sources and was information available from public sources for anyone to get their hands on is another of the email chains claimed to be top secret.

NONE, were on the govt's TOP SECRET system at the time she received them....

NONE of her aides took top secret documents off of the top secret govt system and forwarded them to her.

EVERYONE KNEW she was using her own server...any one who worked with her, anyone who ever emailed her, everyone she had ever emailed KNEW she was using a private server. IT WAS NEVER A SECRET, the State dept discussed it openly before it was even set up....there was never anything secretive about it....there are emails released on an FOIA that shows the State Dept was also well aware, besides the fact that her email address shows that she was using a private server.

In fairness to emilynghiem, she stated she's not an IT "guru." I get that, and it's appropriate that she's share that. It indicates that her remarks are driven by what she does understand and not the full picture of things. That said, I also think when one knows one isn't fully aware of the whole "scoop" re: "whatever," one has an obligation to refrain from "adding fuel to a fire" by speculating about what might be.

Red:
In the interest of being precise and clear, the woman had multiple email address, even multiple ".gov" ones, so the only folks who would or could without question know are the folks who sent/received emails to/from that ".com" email address. There are scads of folks, at State and not at State, who may never have had any interaction with her personal email address.

Truly, I think some folks perceive "private server" to have entirely the same context as does "private memories in one's head," or that of things being private as in "what one does in one's bedroom is private." That's not the context in this situation. It just means, this case, her server rather than DoS' server, and it means the whole world doesn't inherently have access to it. It's not a server snuck in on the DL and nobody knows she's using it or any thing even close to that.

These days, the only thing that's truly secret, truly private, are things that have zero connection/interaction with the world outside itself. And IT stuff of that sort doesn't send or receive email to anything.

Dear 320 Years of History
Do you agree with the assessment that:
1. Clinton knew that by using private email this can't be recorded or reported for Freedom of Information requested as emails that go through the govt system.
2. And that this WILL create the APPEARANCE of "skirting" that?
That by conducting ALL state business this way is going to give the wrong impression.

Again, to be perfectly honest, I have ethical issues with a govt leader
who either doesn't know 1 and 2 or doesn't care what impression and consequences this has.

I guess I am used to working with honest legal professionals who, the minute they sense
that something can even RISK APPEARING as a conflict and raise questions, they refuse
and refer it to someone else. Are my standards too high to expect govt officials to avoid risks like this?

Either the risk of a security breach "that will be blamed on them if they don't use the govt system
so the govt can take the blame not them"
or risk of appearing to skirt accountability and possibly be hiding private dealings by private server?