For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[avoiding injuries]

I wish we all could share one common assumption - that every step along the way Hillary Clinton new exactly what she was doing.

Common sense says she did know.

Does anyone really think she didn't? Like the line "I turned over 55k pages of emails" makes everything ok, even though there were a lot missing.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I wish we all could share one common assumption - that every step along the way Hillary Clinton new exactly what she was doing.

Common sense says she did know.

Does anyone really think she didn't? Like the line "I turned over 55k pages of emails" makes everything ok, even though there were a lot missing.

Tim thinks she is clean and honest.

 

[timschochet]

If mistakes were made I don't think she was aware of them. There is no evidence of any deliberate wrongdoing.

We'll see where this goes,but I trust what she's said is true.

 

[timschochet]

I wish we all could share one common assumption - that every step along the way Hillary Clinton new exactly what she was doing.

Common sense says she did know.

Does anyone really think she didn't? Like the line "I turned over 55k pages of emails" makes everything ok, even though there were a lot missing.

Tim thinks she is clean and honest.

Pretty much yeah.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

If mistakes were made I don't think she was aware of them. There is no evidence of any deliberate wrongdoing.

We'll see where this goes,but I trust what she's said is true.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I wish we all could share one common assumption - that every step along the way Hillary Clinton new exactly what she was doing.

Common sense says she did know.

Does anyone really think she didn't? Like the line "I turned over 55k pages of emails" makes everything ok, even though there were a lot missing.

Tim thinks she is clean and honest.

Pretty much yeah.

 

[Mister CIA]

If mistakes were made I don't think she was aware of them. There is no evidence of any deliberate wrongdoing.

We'll see where this goes,but I trust what she's said is true.

So you're suggesting that it's possible that mistakes were not made.

 

[BowieMercs]

She's dirty, no doubt about it. But if I had to choose between Hillary and Martin O'Malley, I'd go with Hillary. O'Malley is Obama 2.0. He levied a rainwater tax on his own state. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

 

[RCon]

There's more smoke than the worst California wildfire, but no fire here...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data

WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community.

The findings by the two inspectors general raise new questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of her personal email at the State Department, a practice that since March has been criticized by her Republican adversaries as well as advocates of open government, and has made some Democrats uneasy. Voters, however, do not appear swayed by the issue, according to polls.

In their joint statement, the inspectors general said the classified information had originated with the nation’s intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency. It is against the law for someone to receive a classified document or briefing and then summarize that information in an unclassified email.

The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.

Regardless, the disclosure is an example of an unforeseen consequence of Mrs. Clinton’s unusual computer setup. Security experts have questioned whether her practice made government secrets more vulnerable to security risks and hacking.

Exactly how much classified information Mrs. Clinton had on the server is unclear. Investigators said they searched a small sample of 40 emails and found four that contained government secrets. But Mr. McCullough said in a separate statement that although the State Department had granted limited access to its own inspector general, the department rejected Mr. McCullough’s request for access to the 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said were government-related and gave to the State Department.

Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, is “purported” to also have copies of the 30,000 emails on a thumb drive, according to Mr. McCullough.

Campaigning in New York on Friday, Mrs. Clinton pledged to cooperate with inquiries into her emails, but also said she would stay focused on the issues at the heart of her presidential campaign.

...

The discovery of the four emails prompted Mr. McCullough to refer the matter to F.B.I. counterintelligence agents, who investigate crimes related to the mishandling of classified information. On Thursday night and again Friday morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a “criminal referral,” but later Friday dropped the word “criminal.” The inspectors general said late Friday that it was a “security referral” intended to alert authorities that “classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession.”

Irrespective of the terminology, the referral raises the possibility of a Justice Department investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails as she campaigns for president. Polls show she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination by a wide margin.

Mishandling classified information is a crime. Justice Department officials said no decision had been made about whether to open a criminal investigation.

The refusal by the State Department to give Mr. McCullough access to the emails has reignited calls by Republicans for Mrs. Clinton to hand over the server that she used to house the personal email account.

“If Secretary Clinton truly has nothing to hide, she can prove it by immediately turning over her server to the proper authorities and allowing them to examine the complete record,” Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said on Friday. “Her poor judgment has undermined our national security, and it is time for her to finally do the right thing.”

The Justice Department is typically reluctant to open politically charged investigations unless there is clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing. For example, authorities said last year that they would not open an investigation into dueling claims by the C.I.A. and the Senate Intelligence Committee in a dispute that also centered around access to classified information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Aides for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi Committee Dispute Testimony Plan

WASHINGTON — Amid renewed controversy surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of private email for government work, a dispute erupted on Saturday over when and how she would publicly testify before the House select committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides announced Saturday morning that she had accepted an invitation to testify on Oct. 22. But a committee spokesman said hours later that her acceptance of its invitation was conditional and that no agreement had been reached.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said she accepted the committee’s invitation on Friday, the same day that inspectors general for the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said they had discovered classified information on the private email account Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state. The inspectors general said the secret information should never have been stored outside secure government systems.

...But a spokesman for the Republican-led committee issued a statement a few hours later saying Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, had stipulated that acceptance of the October date would depend on the committee’s agreeing to question Mrs. Clinton only about the Benghazi attacks, not about her private email account, and on a commitment that the date of the hearing would not change.

“Secretary Clinton’s campaign may want to reach out to her lawyer,” the committee spokesman, Jamal Ware, said. “As of last night, Mr. Kendall was still negotiating conditions for her appearance.”

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server she had set up in her house so that she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said on Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the two inspectors general said on Friday that the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would be likely to harm national security. The internal investigators said the information was not marked as classified but should have been stored only on government computer networks with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence agencies.

Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is expected to be public, a crucial aspect because her aides were pleased with how she fared in January 2013 when she last testified before Congress in relation to the Benghazi attacks. The committee had sought to question Mrs. Clinton in private about the emails.

Mr. Kendall told the committee on May 4 that she was willing to testify before it the week of May 18. But the committee chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, never scheduled the hearing. He said he would not call her to testify until the State Department had turned over all the documents he had requested related to the committee’s investigation.

Since then, Mr. Gowdy has repeatedly criticized the State Department for withholding documents. This month, he postponed the testimony of several of Mrs. Clinton’s aides, saying he could not question them until he had all of the documents from the State Department related to their interactions with Mrs. Clinton and the attacks.

The inspectors general said the State Department had agreed to allow intelligence officials with expertise in Freedom of Information Act releases to play a role in the review process. But the inspectors general said the State Department had still not created a process for resolving disputes between the department and other parts of the government about differences over how to classify documents.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/us/clinton-to-testify-publicly-before-house-committee-investigating-benghazi-attacks.html?_r=0

 

[Abraham]

The gop is shooting it's wad too early here. She isn't losing the primary and now has time to address all this before the general. B

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The gop is shooting it's wad too early here. She isn't losing the primary and now has time to address all this before the general. B

Hillary helped create this by producing her documents in paper and then deleting the entirety of her server. She wouldn't even be going through this if she had been forthright with her own department in the first place. She's given the committee not only a second bite at the apple but little nibbles through 2016. It's very strange that she is now refusing to answer question about her emails, she could have been done with this in May 2015, now it looks like the October date can't even be agreed upon.

 

[Sand]

If mistakes were made I don't think she was aware of them. There is no evidence of any deliberate wrongdoing.

We'll see where this goes,but I trust what she's said is true.

By law and by training (of which I just took the refresher course) it was incumbent on her to know. There is no ignorance excuse here. So the whole "it was classified after it was sent" isn't an excuse. There are Security Class Guides that handle what is and what isn't classified. She should have known what was classified before she sent it. If it was something that was sent to her, she also knew that she was receiving classified emails on a non-secure system. After the first one she should have taken steps to secure her system. She didn't. She knowingly allowed them to continue.

In fact, the whole act of setting up a private server where there would inevitably be classified information flowing on it (after all, she was SOS - how in the world could there not be classified information flowing?) is enough to have broken laws.

She couldn't not have known. By design she built this.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The gop is shooting it's wad too early here. She isn't losing the primary and now has time to address all this before the general. B

Hillary helped create this by producing her documents in paper and then deleting the entirety of her server. She wouldn't even be going through this if she had been forthright with her own department in the first place. She's given the committee not only a second bite at the apple but little nibbles through 2016. It's very strange that she is now refusing to answer question about her emails, she could have been done with this in May 2015, now it looks like the October date can't even be agreed upon.

I thought she already answered all of the email questions during her cnn interview.

 

[cstu]

The Justice Department is typically reluctant to open politically charged investigations unless there is clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing. For example, authorities said last year that they would not open an investigation into dueling claims by the C.I.A. and the Senate Intelligence Committee in a dispute that also centered around access to classified information.

So nothing is going to happen.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right it's politically charged thus little should be expected. Of course if it was an army soldier or an embassy staff member or some random State department worker bee it would be dealt with forthwith.

 

[cubd8]

The gop is shooting it's wad too early here. She isn't losing the primary and now has time to address all this before the general. B

Hillary helped create this by producing her documents in paper and then deleting the entirety of her server. She wouldn't even be going through this if she had been forthright with her own department in the first place. She's given the committee not only a second bite at the apple but little nibbles through 2016. It's very strange that she is now refusing to answer question about her emails, she could have been done with this in May 2015, now it looks like the October date can't even be agreed upon.

I think the GOP are just going to go after her on these issues, no matter how important/trivial to portray her as a slimy, untrustworthy candidate by the time she has a challenger next spring.

They aren't going to sit on anything for now; they need to keep some of these stories going as long as possible.

 

[Todd Andrews]

NYT getting hammered.

 

[timschochet]

NYT getting hammered.

They deserve it. They got everything wrong and Hillary's enemies jumped on the story. Thankfully the public really doesn't care about this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NYT getting hammered.

They deserve it. They got everything wrong and Hillary's enemies jumped on the story. Thankfully the public really doesn't care about this.

Ha, Tim, you don't even know what that story says. This cracks me up, you stamp your feet, say you won't even look at the issue because it's so outrageous, and hum lullabies over the conversation. This from a guy who isn't even aware of the biggest corruption investigation in his own county's history and squarely places Nixon between Madison and Jefferson as greatest US presidents?

 

[cubd8]

NYT getting hammered.

They deserve it. They got everything wrong and Hillary's enemies jumped on the story. Thankfully the public really doesn't care about this.

If the recent polling is to be believed, her lack of trust is an issue with voters. This story only gives people another reason to not trust her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NYT getting hammered.

But, Mr. Baquet said, he does not fault the reporters or editors directly involved.

“You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral,” Mr. Baquet said. “I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”

It might be worth noting that the NYT initially got the scoop about what Hillary had done with her email server from a similar source, and that did indeed prove to be true. And apparently the WSJ & WaPo confirmed the NYT report.

It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation.

To revisit this, they have again changed the headline back to indicate Hillary's personal involvement by bringing the possessive back into the headline:

Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is the actual joint statement by the two IGs:

The WSJ and WaPo confirmed the NYT report that a referral had been made. Now it's not that ridiculous for someone to think that the DOJ receiving a referral would or could mean that it is a criminal referral, that's what the DOJ does, prosecute crime.

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the 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.

In this thread it's been detailed that an Ambassador to Kenya was previously fired by Hillary herself partly as a result of an IG report ("During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required.") just like these; it's been detailed that soldiers can be courtmartialed for using a private email (“There are no limits for the consequences that can be imposed on those who disclose classified information ... Depending on the severity, punishments can range from large fines to heavy prison sentences. At the very least, you will lose your security clearance for life and never be able to work in the public sector again.”); and we know there have been instances where even General Petraeus was prosecuted for leaving classified documents open in plain air view for his girlfriend to see, there was Sandy Berger (prosecuted, convicted), and there have been others prosecuted for even holding and not sending such information when the information has been sensitive enough. The reason that Hillary is not subject to criminal prosecution for these 4 necessarily is that all the IG refers to is a sample of 40 emails and IGs do not investigate crimes. The IGs also cannot subpoena Hillary's server or the thumb drive or other information, but the DOJ could. Obviously that never will happen. However what is clear is that mishandling classified information, regardless of intent (see Petraeus), can be a crime.

The IG review also shows that 4 out of 40 is a large amount, that's possibly 10% or more of all Hillary's emails were classified. Hillary sent these four she did not just receive them. We also know that she altered some of her emails, we know that she deleted others, we know she did not produce the metadata which has information like everyone who was copied, we know that her attorney and all the attorneys and consultants that he hired do not have clearance and yet have access, we know that Hillary's server was registered to a bond broker at JP Morgan who obviously did not have clearance, there is the vendor who was handling the backups, there is is whoever is watching the actual physical location of the server (which we do not know), there is the issue of possible hacking or breaches, and apparently Kendall still has the thumb drive with the actual electronic data that Hillary has never produced. That's a lot of potential breaches of security right there.

My guess is this is just getting closer to further demands she hand over the server and the thumb drive and provide all security information requested.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Daily Beast reports there is a two month gap in Hillary's Libya related emails:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also had to laugh watching coverage of Tom Brady destroying his phone and deleting data - it was described as "borderline criminal" by some pundit on CBS.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

The Daily Beast reports there is a two month gap in Hillary's Libya related emails:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html

Yeah, read this the other day. If true, that is astonishing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

§ 1234.24 Standards for managing electronic mail records. Agencies shall manage records created or received on electronic mail systems in accordance with the provisions of this chapter pertaining to adequacy of documentation, recordkeeping requirements, agency records management responsibilities, and records disposition (36 CFR parts 1220, 1222, and 1228).

… (4) Agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system and that reasonable steps are taken to capture available transmission and receipt data needed by the agency for record-keeping purposes.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title36-vol3/pdf/CFR-2006-title36-vol3-sec1234-24.pdf

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html

 

[Mister CIA]

Calling it now, Tim will throw his full support behind Joe Biden within the next three months.

 

[Boston]

The Daily Beast reports there is a two month gap in Hillary's Libya related emails:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html

Yeah, read this the other day. If true, that is astonishing.

Actually I would be more astonished if she provided these emails...

 

[timschochet]

Calling it now, Tim will throw his full support behind Joe Biden within the next three months.

You're calling it wrong.

 

[squistion]

Calling it now, Tim will throw his full support behind Joe Biden within the next three months.

Bad call.

Probably more likely to see the completed sequel to "Mr. Ishida's Bookstore" than Timmy supporting Biden in three months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yet another Hillary aide shows up with paper, repeating Hillary's trick. Oh yeah the judge also flps out over State.

Hillary Clinton's former spokesman turns over 20 boxes of emailsLong-time Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines handed the State Department 20 boxes of work-related emails taken in part from a personal email account, State officials said Wednesday, calling into question the extent to which top aides to the former secretary of state also engaged in controversial email practices.

State Department top document official John Hackett, who heads Freedom of Information Act requests for the agency, told a federal judge in a court hearing Wednesday that Reines was among several officials asked to turn over any any work-related documents in his possession.


He handed over 20 boxes last night, according to a separate State lawyer present at the hearing. The hearing involved a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press that charges the agency with failing to respond to FOIA requests.


...Hackett also told the court that State couldn’t produce all of the documents requested by the AP at this time — including one related to Huma Abedin’s role as a “special government employee.” He said the agency is still awaiting work-related emails from former agency officials Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills. Hackett did not say whether the documents being sought were from a personal account or State.gov account.
...A source familiar with what was produced told POLITICO the bulk of what was turned over were news clips forwarded to staff from an outside vendor, which ran between 125- and 150-pages worth of stories each day. The source said those went to both Reines' official and personal email accounts, leading to boxes upon boxes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillarys-former-spokesman-turns-over-20-boxes-of-emails-120791.html#ixzz3hNH6yi00

These idiots keep turning over paper. Of course that's not necessary. It's quicker to either turn over the electronic in entirety and let State handle the searching (which is the appropriate thing to do) or turn over the wheel and let State search and pull stuff out. Regardless turning this stuff over in paper means no metadata, which is public record, and also causes long delays.

This is what Hillary did which according to State added 5 months to their work.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Judge explodes over Hillary email delaysA district court judge says he can't understand why the State Department dragged its feet responding to Freedom of Information Act requests.


An irritated federal judge Thursday put the Hillary Clinton email scandal into stark terms, grilling the State Department on a pattern of delayed document releases that has turned a possible bureaucratic logjam into a major problem for the leading Democratic presidential contender.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, known for his blunt manner, said he simply did not understand why the State Department has dragged its feet on responses for emails in requests to the Freedom of Information Act.

“Now, any person should be able to review that in one day — one day,” the judge said, examining a request for just over 60 emails. “Even the least ambitious bureaucrat could do this.”

Leon articulated what has been a major concern of State Department critics who contend that the agency is dragging out responses to FOIA requests to protect Clinton, who served as secretary of state during Obama’s first term. The judge’s complaints echoed those of Hill Republicans, who have accused the agency of slow-walking document requests in its Benghazi investigation to protect Clinton.

More Clinton emails are expected to be released Friday under a court-ordered process that has underscored Leon’s unhappiness.

And in a twist, State also revealed holes in its own federal record as officials said they were still awaiting some work-related emails from Clinton’s top department brass, including Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.


Clinton’s admission that she dealt with both personal and official emails through a private unsecured server, using a self-screening technique to determine which ones the public may see, has touched off FOIA lawsuits from the media, a heated congressional inquiry and campaign complaints about her secrecy.

The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate has been criticized for exclusively using personal email while serving as the nation’s lead diplomat. Clinton’s use of a home-brewed server was unearthed after Hill Republicans opened a special investigative panel to dig into the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack.

Since then, Clinton has faced questions about her treatment of classified information and her secrecy.

But the court hearing suggests such controversial practices may have extended beyond her.

Hackett told a federal judge in a court hearing Wednesday that Reines was among several officials asked to turn over any work-related documents in his possession. He said State couldn’t produce all documents requested by The Associated Press — including some related to Huma Abedin’s role as a “special government employee” — in part because the agency is still awaiting responses from top aides.

Hackett did not say whether the requested documents were from a personal account or State.gov account — though the government would presumably already have copies of the latter on a backup system.

The Reines revelation calls into question the extent to which Clinton’s aides relied on personal emails for official business, which potentially violates government record-keeping and transparency rules.

The former deputy assistant secretary of State for strategic communications handed over 20 boxes, according to a Justice Department lawyer.

The Benghazi panel has also uncovered instances in which top aides seemed to be writing from personal email addresses.

...Reines himself did not wish to comment for this story, but earlier this year he took Gawker to task for publishing a report suggesting he used personal email for work purposes....During Leon’s court hearing — part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by the AP that charges the agency with failing to respond to FOIA requests — the State Department often underscored that it does not have a complete record yet of Clinton’s top staff.

During the hearing, Leon grilled the department for failing to respond to the news wire’s requests, vowing to issue a court order to force them to hand over documents more quickly.

The AP had requested documents relating to Abedin’s quasi-government employment status that allowed her to advise Clinton but also work in the private sector. It also asked for Clinton’s schedules, appointments and call logs, among other items.


...The actual reviews of emails and memos by which they are approved for public release, are done by a mere 40 former Foreign Services officers — all of whom work part-time.The judge was flabbergasted: “Is Congress aware that people who do all [state] FOIA requests are part-timers?”

When Hackett suggested the system works fair enough, the judge said that’s a “matter of perception.”

“State has been criticized for how slow it is … surely you know this.”


...During the hearing, Hackett pointed out that State doesn’t have all the relevant emails for requested searches, suggesting use of personal email may also be tripping up the Department.
“We’re doing our utmost your honor … given our limited resources,” Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said, defending Hackett.

But AP lawyer Jay Brown did highlight a problem, suggesting document production problems go beyond any tussle with former employees. He produced a March 25 response to an AP FOIA request that included only seven pages of documents. It reads: “We’ve now completed the processing of your request.”

Hackett acknowledged: “That would be inaccurate,” saying they’re still completing the searches for documents that total in the thousands — a lot more than a handful.

Leon wanted to know who sent the letter.

The judge also demanded answers as to why a number of State bureaus failed to hand over documents when Hackett’s office requested them in 2013. He specifically asked who — the names of State employees and their positions — so he could request a deposition on how the FOIA requests lapsed.

“Was it not understood that they were to search records?” he asked. “It appears they didn’t get anything done for two years.”

The AP and State had tentatively agreed that State will provide documents on a rolling basis through the end of 2015. But the judge encouraged the AP not to settle, criticizing State’s production of documents and promising to issue a court order to speed it up.

“AP may want to re-evaluate its position … before it commits to any schedule,” he said. “In my judgment, this doesn’t sound pressing enough.”

Olson asked Leon for two weeks, rather than one, to answer follow-up questions — only because Hackett was due to be on “personal leave” next week, and she needed his signature.

Leon balked. Get it done before he leaves, he said — or find a way to work around it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/judge-explodes-over-hillary-email-delays-120804.html#ixzz3hNJqDy41

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Calling it now, Tim will throw his full support behind Joe Biden within the next three months.

You're calling it wrong.

Bad call.

Probably more likely to see the completed sequel to "Mr. Ishida's Bookstore" than Timmy supporting Biden in three months.

Well, we're talking about a guy who barely realized there was a mammoth DA's office scandal in his own county and thinks Nixon was an elite, top-12 president.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Daily Beast reports there is a two month gap in Hillary's Libya related emails:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html

Yeah, read this the other day. If true, that is astonishing.

I realize now there are two different things going on now.

The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can ExplainTwo very different groups are trying to track down months' worth of Clinton emails. One wants to know about her reaction to Libyan violence; the other, about her aide Huma Abedin.

There are missing emails relating to the two months in 2012 when there were key attacks in Libya in which there is zero correspondence:

Among the hundreds of emails released by the State Department from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. So far, there are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that’s true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya during those two crucial months. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate. (Of course, email isn’t the only or even the preferred way State Department officials communicate about sensitive issues—especially if one of those officials is using a private server ill equipped to handle classified information.)

The status of Clinton’s emails has become an explosive political issue ever since The New York Times revealed that the then-Secretary of State was using a private email server to handle her official correspondence. Cybersecurity experts believe the homebrew system opened Clinton and her colleagues to targeting from online spies. The State Department and Intelligence Community Inspector Generals have asked the Justice Department to look into the possible disclosure of classified information.

Regarding the security situation in Libya, there was plenty for Clinton and her team to discuss via email. On May 22, 2012, the International Red Cross’s Benghazi office was hit by rocket-propelled grenades.

“The attack on the International Red Cross was another attack that also involved us and threats to the compound there in Benghazi,” testified Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, a senior State Department security chief in Libya, (PDF) before the House Oversight Committee in October 2012.

Then, on June 6, an improvised explosive device detonated outside of the U.S. consulate, ripping a 12-foot-wide hole in the compound’s wall and prompting officials to release a public warning on “the fluid security situation in Libya.”

Yet the State Department has not produced any emails to or from Clinton about the improvised bomb.

Since then, the Benghazi committee has recovered one email, largely about business interests in Libya, from June 2012 after subpoenaing Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. The email from Blumenthal does not mention threats to the U.S. consulate, and there is no response from Clinton. The State Department subsequently gave the committee its copy.

U.S. interests weren’t the only ones being targeted in Benghazi. Five days after the improvised bomb damaged the consulate, an RPG hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi, wounding two bodyguards.

The United Kingdom and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi by the end of June 2012.

From there, the violence directed at the U.S. escalated. In a cable dated July 9, 2012, U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens asked that the State Department provide a minimum of 13 security personnel for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi, noting a heightened security threat. The State Department did not fulfill Stevens’s request, a Senate Intelligence Committee report (PDF) later revealed.

The two-month period wasn’t notable only for violence in Libya. It has been the subject of questions about Clinton’s email and State Department records for a different reason.

The other set of missing emails relates to Hillary's aide Huma Abedin being allowed to work outside the State Department, with the Foundation and the investment firm Teneo, which also of course was paying Bill Cklinton:

On June 3, Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide and personal friend of the Clinton family, was given the status of a “special government employee,” which allowed her to stay on the State Department payroll while simultaneously working for the Clinton Foundation, Teneo, a consulting firm founded by Clinton confidant Doug Band, and as a private adviser to Clinton regarding her post-State Department transition.

Conflict-of-interest laws ordinarily would prohibit that arrangement, but the special designation exempted Abedin from some ethics rules.

In 2013, the AP filed a Freedom of Information Act request for State Department records on how Abedin obtained the special employee status. The news organization asked for emails about the matter.

Last week, a federal judge gave the State Department one week to respond to the AP’s two-year-old request. At midnight Tuesday, just before the judge’s deadline, the department’s lawyers submitted a declaration identifying about 68 pages of “potentially responsive” documents.

That marked the first time that the department acknowledged, in its two-year dispute with the AP, the existence of any agency documents related to Abedin’s arrangement.

...State Department lawyers have argued that once all of Clinton’s emails are released on the agency’s website, following a vetting process that will take months, the AP’s request for information about Abedin will have been satisfied.

However, since some of the emails on Abedin that the AP wants likely fall within the June 2012 time frame, that might not be the case.

About seven percent of Clinton’s emails have been released. All the emails are scheduled to be released on a rolling, monthly basis until the last set is released in January 2016, to comply with an order by a different federal judge. The next release is tentatively scheduled for this Friday.

- What gets me on the Libya issue is that even if they have not destroyed those emails then that just shows how completely out of touch Hillary was as SOS. Sometimes that "what difference does it make" testimony seems like the response of an elderly lady who is flummoxed with questions about where she lost her keys.It's possible she had no clue about anything going on and did not want to admit it. However either way she was deflecting.

- It's not mentioned here but Abedin was also on Hillary's personal email server and had one of those clintonemail accounts, which of course is one of the several reasons Hillary is lying about her own use of the server. If Hillary was so concerned about convenience why also put her aides on the server.

 

[timschochet]

So hilarious.

 

[cstu]

- What gets me on the Libya issue is that even if they have not destroyed those emails then that just shows how completely out of touch Hillary was as SOS. Sometimes that "what difference does it make" testimony seems like the response of an elderly lady who is flummoxed with questions about where she lost her keys.It's possible she had no clue about anything going on and did not want to admit it. However either way she was deflecting.

The more you harp on this the more elderly folks are going feel bad for her.

"She's just like me, I don't understand email either!"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- What gets me on the Libya issue is that even if they have not destroyed those emails then that just shows how completely out of touch Hillary was as SOS. Sometimes that "what difference does it make" testimony seems like the response of an elderly lady who is flummoxed with questions about where she lost her keys.It's possible she had no clue about anything going on and did not want to admit it. However either way she was deflecting.

The more you harp on this the more elderly folks are going feel bad for her.

"She's just like me, I don't understand email either!"

Word now from State is Hillary had one of these on her server, so I think we should be ok if this happens again.

 

[TobiasFunke]

- What gets me on the Libya issue is that even if they have not destroyed those emails then that just shows how completely out of touch Hillary was as SOS. Sometimes that "what difference does it make" testimony seems like the response of an elderly lady who is flummoxed with questions about where she lost her keys.It's possible she had no clue about anything going on and did not want to admit it. However either way she was deflecting.

The more you harp on this the more elderly folks are going feel bad for her.

"She's just like me, I don't understand email either!"

Also might win over those who are still pining for the Reagan White House.

 

[DocHolliday]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

 

[timschochet]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

OK

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

- What gets me on the Libya issue is that even if they have not destroyed those emails then that just shows how completely out of touch Hillary was as SOS. Sometimes that "what difference does it make" testimony seems like the response of an elderly lady who is flummoxed with questions about where she lost her keys.It's possible she had no clue about anything going on and did not want to admit it. However either way she was deflecting.

The more you harp on this the more elderly folks are going feel bad for her.

"She's just like me, I don't understand email either!"

Also might win over those who are still pining for the Reagan White House.

If she trots out the jelly beans then we know she's going for it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So hilarious.

Trawling here I know but in a semiserious vein if the gaps continue a la Rose Mary Woods yes that will be an issue.

And, I know for 's only, but stuff like this ticks me off:

But AP lawyer Jay Brown did highlight a problem, suggesting document production problems go beyond any tussle with former employees. He produced a March 25 response to an AP FOIA request that included only seven pages of documents. It reads: “We’ve now completed the processing of your request.”

It ticks me off on a local level and it ticks me off on a federal level not to mention something of this magnitude. I can handle the 7 pages with a statement like 'we're working on it.' The production of 7 pages and an unsigned letter to the peasants telling them to go pound sand is the stuff of low level corrupt apparatchiks of the sort you find in small town traffic courts.

 

[timschochet]

Sigh. You must have brought up Rosemary Woods a dozen times in this thread. There's no comparison. In that case an independent prosecutor wanted to learn what Nicon knew about a crime that had been committed (the Watergate hotel break in and cover up.) Woods, who was Nixon's secretary, destroyed some of the tape.

But in Hillary's case there is no Watergate break in. The conservatives in Congress want her private emails because they're hoping to find something embarassing to discredit her with- that's the whole purpose of this dumb investigation into Benghazi for the umpteenth time.

 

[cstu]

So hilarious.

It would be hilarious if she was not likely to be our next POTUS. She has proven that she is a liar and corrupt. Her quest for power and money is not what this country needs. She will continue to make decisions with the goal of improving her wealth, not improving the US.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So hilarious.

Trawling here I know but in a semiserious vein if the gaps continue a la Rose Mary Woods yes that will be an issue.

And, I know for 's only, but stuff like this ticks me off:

But AP lawyer Jay Brown did highlight a problem, suggesting document production problems go beyond any tussle with former employees. He produced a March 25 response to an AP FOIA request that included only seven pages of documents. It reads: “We’ve now completed the processing of your request.”

It ticks me off on a local level and it ticks me off on a federal level not to mention something of this magnitude. I can handle the 7 pages with a statement like 'we're working on it.' The production of 7 pages and an unsigned letter to the peasants telling them to go pound sand is the stuff of low level corrupt apparatchiks of the sort you find in small town traffic courts.

Sigh. You must have brought up Rosemary Woods a dozen times in this thread. There's no comparison. In that case an independent prosecutor wanted to learn what Nicon knew about a crime that had been committed (the Watergate hotel break in and cover up.) Woods, who was Nixon's secretary, destroyed some of the tape.

But in Hillary's case there is no Watergate break in. The conservatives in Congress want her private emails because they're hoping to find something embarassing to discredit her with- that's the whole purpose of this dumb investigation into Benghazi for the umpteenth time.

No, I realize the search function might be gacked but I just checked and I don't see it in here. I think it's the first time it's been raised. Someone mentioned Nixon's gaps a page or two back so maybe that's what you're thinking of.

I think you're focusing on an independent prosecutor, which is procedural, I was just mentioning the facts. Gaps is gaps.

The gap in emails is also based on a lawsuit by the AP, I think it's important to mention that.

Since you raise Watergate, I guess the difference there is we knew about a break-in which led to the gap in evidence ultimately. Here we would have a gap in evidence but would not be aware of a crime. I suppose at a minimum it would be like what would have happened if Nixon had just destroyed the tape machine instead of just certain portions of what it recorded. Good point. Now why would someone do such a thing? Not sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Data in Clinton’s ‘secret’ emails came from 5 intelligence agencies

Revelations put Clinton in crosshairs of broadening inquiry into whether she mishandled classified information

Officials reviewed five classified emails and determined they included information from five intelligence agencies

State Department officials warned there could be hundreds of classified emails


WASHINGTON
The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.

Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.

Revelations about the emails have put Clinton in the crosshairs of a broadening inquiry into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information when she used a private server set up at her New York home to conduct official State Department business.

While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact “secret.”


The email issue, however, has distracted from Clinton’s campaign for days and already has hurt her in public opinion polls. Besieged with questions, she has found herself caught in a murky dispute between State Department and intelligence officials over whether emails on her server were classified.

“Even if Secretary Clinton or her aides didn’t run afoul of any criminal provisions, the fact that classified information was identified within the emails is exactly why use of private emails . . . is not supposed to be allowed,” said Bradley Moss, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security matters. “Both she and her team made a serious management mistake that no one should ever repeat.”

The facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time. Hillary Clinton at a campaign stop Saturday in Iowa

McClatchy also has determined some details of the five emails that the intelligence community’s inspector general has described as classified and improperly handled.

Intelligence officials who reviewed the five classified emails determined that they included information from five separate intelligence agencies, said a congressional official with knowledge of the matter.

The Benghazi email made public contained information from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a spy agency that maps and tracks satellite imagery, according to the official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The other four classified emails contained information from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA, the official said.


The Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General did not respond to questions about the matter. The five agencies either referred questions about it to the inspector general’s office or declined to comment.

The intelligence community inspector general only looked at a sample of 40 emails, even though a total of 30,000 emails were turned over to the State Department by Clinton.

Failure to observe any of the requirements for marking or safeguarding (classified information) would be in a category known as a security violation. John Fitzpatrick, director of the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives
In documents that were publicly released, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III said State Department officials had warned that there were “potentially hundreds of classified emails” on Clinton’s private server.

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Clinton has maintained she used a personal email account as a “matter of convenience” and has denied she emailed any classified material.

“The facts are pretty clear,” Clinton said at a campaign stop Saturday in Iowa. “I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.”

Clinton said she had “no idea” which emails the inspector general had singled out.

The State Department so far has refused to grant the intelligence community inspector general access to the entire batch of emails on jurisdictional grounds. The inspector general has authority to audit and investigate matters related to 17 intelligence community agencies, including a State Department intelligence unit.

On June 25, McCullough notified members of Congress that he understood that Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, possessed the more than 30,000 Clinton emails on a computer thumb drive.

In a July 24 letter to FBI Director James Comey, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa expressed concern about “a compromise of national security information” because of Kendall’s possession of the thumb drive. He called on Comey to explain what steps the FBI had taken to secure the information.

Even if Secretary Clinton or her aides didn’t run afoul of any criminal provisions, the fact that classified information was identified within the emails is exactly why use of private emails . . . is not supposed to be allowed. Bradley Moss, a Washington attorney who specializes in national security matters
“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” wrote Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Kendall did not respond to phone and email messages. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to say whether security officials had recovered the device or had arranged for its secure storage.


John Fitzpatrick, the official responsible for overseeing the government’s security classification system, told McClatchy that during the review of four years of Clinton’s State Department emails it became clear that intelligence agencies were concerned State Department officials were not appropriately protecting classified information in screening documents for public release.

State Department officials routinely gather and report diplomatic information that “in an intelligence context could be read very differently,” said Fitzpatrick, the director of the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives.

Government employees with access to classified information are trained to identify classified information, Fitzpatrick said.

“The requirement to mark is so that you know it when you see it,” he said. “Failure to observe any of the requirements for marking or safeguarding would be in a category known as a security violation.”

Failing to properly mark information as classified would not necessarily result in criminal charges, he said.

“But there can be consequences for holders of security clearances,” Fitzpatrick said. “If they fail to safeguard the information, once or as part of a pattern, they can be administratively reprimanded” or retrained.


According to a congressional official, the classified emails contained information from the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA.
Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department Inspector General Steve Linick will meet this week to talk about the issue, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Wednesday.

“Secretary Kerry wants to get to the bottom of this, hear what the concerns are and then figure out if they need to take any action,” Schultz said. “So, I think that’s the right step and we support him doing so.”

The White House has not said that Clinton did not follow rules, but it has repeatedly said that “very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees in the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business.”

The House Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed the emails while asking Clinton to voluntarily turn over her personal email server to a “neutral, detached and independent” third party for “immediate inspection and review,” perhaps the State Department’s inspector general.

Clinton’s attorney told the committee that Clinton permanently deleted all the emails from the server – apparently after she was asked by the State Department to turn them over. Clinton has refused to hand over the server.

The State Department has begun to release her emails in response to a public records lawsuit, though four of the emails containing classified information were among those that have not yet been released. The next batch is due to be released Friday. Clinton has agreed to testify about her email arrangements on Oct. 22 before the committee investigating Benghazi.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article29519419.html

- So there are five intelligence agencies at play here. For two of them, the NSA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, basically anything coming from them would have to be presumed to likely be classified inherently. For the other three, CIA, DIA, and the Office of National Intelligence, any reader would almost have to presume that the information was possibly to likely classified.
The point touches on what Sand alluded to earlier, maybe in the other thread and here, in a really succinct way.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Kerry to Meet With Inspector General Over Clinton EmailsSecretary of State John Kerry plans to meet with the department’s internal watchdog about the finding that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had classified material on her personal server, the White House said Wednesday.

“Secretary Kerry has said he’ll be discussing this with his inspector general this week. And I also know that Secretary Kerry wants to get to the bottom of this, hear what the concerns are, and then figure out if they need to take any action,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Wednesday.

Two inspectors general — one from the State Department and one from the intelligence community — signed a statement last week that an investigation had found Mrs. Clinton possessed classified material on her server.

“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,’ the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department wrote in a joint statement.

...The White House said that it respects inspector-general findings and that the alleged mishandling of classified information was a serious matter.

“This administration takes the role of inspector generals very seriously. They serve an extremely important purpose, so when they raise a possible issue, it’s important to look into. Equally important is our commitment to properly handling classified and sensitive information,” Mr. Schultz said.

“We have to make sure those materials are handled in accordance with all the right protocols. And I can assure you those that all of us who work in government who work with those materials take that responsibility very seriously,” Mr. Schultz said.

Update: The State Department said Thursday that the meeting between Mr. Kerry and the department inspector general took place earlier this week, on Tuesday.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/29/kerry-to-meet-with-inspector-general-over-clinton-emails/

 

[dhockster]

So here's a question. Does Kerry have a separate private email and server? If not, what are his reasons for not following Hillary's example? He's not going to throw Hillary under the bus, but it would be interesting to hear his answer to those questions.