United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
Source:
CNBC
URL Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/crim ... ary-clintons-use-of-email.html
Published: Jul 24, 2015
Author: Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo
Post Date: 2015-07-24 13:54:29 by redleghunter
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 11043
Comments: 111
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday. The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton's private account contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails." The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account. The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign. Poster Comment: 
Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 104.
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
Right. The sender sent information which was not yet officially classified. Hillary Clinton received information which had not yet been officially classified. As head of the State Department, did she have a duty to recognize the intelligence reports as highly classified and classify them, and give them the required protection? As the information was clearly compromised, should it have been so reported? It would not seem to help if Sidney Blumenthal were to be considered to have acted in some official State Department capacity and to have sufficient clearance and access authorization. It would only make him responsible to have protected it in the first place. Hillary's server clearly contained intelligence reports with Top Secret information. The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
True,and BY DEFINITION anything she did not classify was not classified information. Remember when that shithead Jim-mah Carter exposed Top Secret Code Word intelligence about the Stealth fighters and bombers ready to come online in order to try to pump up is re-election chances and absolutely nothing happened to him for doing so despite the FACT that anyone below him doing that would have received life in prison? It wasn't classified if the president says it wasn't classified. Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified. Can't we just MOVE ON?
True,and BY DEFINITION anything she did not classify was not classified information. Remember when that shithead Jim-mah Carter exposed Top Secret Code Word intelligence about the Stealth fighters and bombers ready to come online in order to try to pump up is re-election chances and absolutely nothing happened to him for doing so despite the FACT that anyone below him doing that would have received life in prison? It wasn't classified if the president says it wasn't classified. Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified. Can't we just MOVE ON? Anything not yet officially classified is not officially classified. That does not change the responsibility to classify national security information, or the culpability for failing one's responsibility to properly classify it. For any qualifying national security information which came across her non-secure email system: HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to properly classify the document, and every paragraph of the document, upon her initial review of the document. A document is not unclassified because Hillary Clinton did not classify it. See the IG statement below. If information within falls under derived classification, it is classified whether it is marked or not. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to NOT keep the national security information on her non-secure server. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to file a compromise report for each such document. Information does not automatically become unclassified or delcassified because it has been compromised, even if published in newspapers or hacked off a non-secure server. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to take immediate measures to prevent further transmission of national security information to her non-secure email system. Instead, HILLARY CLINTON maintained an unlawful non-secure back channel intelligence system, compromising all national security information she permitted and enabled to be handled on her non-secure system. The President did not declare any of the national security information held on the non-secure system of HILLARY CLINTON to be unclassified or declassified. Jimmy Carter or other presidents may declassify and release whatever they choose. What the president may do today (but has not done) is not relevant to a determination of what HILLARY CLINTON wrongfully did, or failed to do. National Security Information, wrongfully present on HILLARY CLINTON's email server, was not properly classified, AS REQUIRED. She could not ignore information that qualified for SECRET or TOP SECRET classification and treat it as unclassified until one of her subordinates told her different. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf Title 3—The President, Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 Classified National Security Information Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2, Tuesday, January 5, 2010, pp. 707-708 Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. [snip] Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached). 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. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. /s/ I. Charles McCullough, III Inspector General, Department of State Hillary stored INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY (IC) DERIVED INFORMATION on her non-secure server and she transmitted the same. This material held derived classification, as opposed to requiring original classification. Orignal classification of the information already existed. As the IG said, the information was classified when generated and remains classified today. The IG filed the potential compromise report as required by law. As the IG noted, "This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."
For any qualifying national security information which came across her non-secure email system: HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE Technically you are correct,and that would make a solid case in a court of law. The problem is this is Bubbette! we are speaking of,and she is never going to be charged with anything in a court of law. She is a protected species,and only has to worry about the "court of public opinion" and there is nobody better than the Clinton's when it comes to shading the facts and confusing issues. Does the sentence "That all depends on what the meaning of the word "is",is." bring back any memories.
She is a protected species,and only has to worry about the "court of public opinion" and there is nobody better than the Clinton's when it comes to shading the facts and confusing issues. Does the sentence "That all depends on what the meaning of the word "is",is." bring back any memories. Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight. Escaping criminal prosecution is not the same as getting elected president. Hillary trying to sound like Bill gives me an impression of Tricky Dick saying "I am not a crook."
Not really. It only seems that way to those of us on the right because we have spent so long waiting for her to be called to accounts. The truth is the typical Dim voters,and especially the Why-men feminist voters never hear about any of this,and if they do hear about it they never bother to pay attention or do any research because she's "their man!" IF the mainstream media mentions it all all on local teebee where most dolts get their news,it's just a speaking point mentioning how radical right-wingers and anti-women forces are trying to damage her reputation. And for the vast amount of voters that get interested in politics for 30 days ever 4 years,they never heard of it and will never hear of it.
#105. To: sneakypete (#104)
Not really. It only seems that way to those of us on the right because we have spent so long waiting for her to be called to accounts. Hillary is in a spotlight and her inability to to get stories such as her security blunders out of the news cycle are having a toll on her polling numbers. I still doubt Hillary can stumble all the way to the convention. Only time will tell. By Michael Gerson WAPO Source: no text provided.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIt is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
#20. To: nolu chan (#3)
The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
#101. To: sneakypete (#20)
The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.
July 24, 2015
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Steve Linick
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
Anything not yet officially classified is not officially classified. That does not change the responsibility to classify national security information, or the culpability for failing one's responsibility to properly classify it.
#103. To: sneakypete (#102)
The problem is this is Bubbette! we are speaking of,and she is never going to be charged with anything in a court of law.
#104. To: nolu chan (#103)
Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight.
Replies to Comment # 104. Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight.
Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ wounded queen?
Washington Post
Opinion writer
July 27, 2015
End Trace Mode for Comment # 104.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]