Clinton may not have understood when information was classified

[kentuck]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/comey-fodder-clinton-attacks

<snip>
"Director Comey, come on. I mean, I've only been here a few years, and I understand the importance of those markings," the congressman said. "So you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be? That's your sworn testimony today?"

"No, no," Comey responded. "Not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be. But it's an interesting question as to whether — this question about sophistication came up earlier — whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘C’ in parens means."

"So you're saying this former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking?" Meadows then asked

"That's not what I said," Comey shot back. "Not what I'm saying. You asked me did I assume that someone would know. Probably before this investigation, I would have. I'm not so sure of that answer any longer. I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a 'C' meant when she saw it in the body of an e-mail like that. It's possible."

...more

[lostnfound]

1. This is all just too depressing. Nt

[lapucelle]

3. It's malicious prosecution.

Everyone needs to be concerned about this.

[lapucelle]

2. Apparently "c" meant "confidential" according to

the State Department classification system.

And expert Comey admitted that he hadn't known what "non paper" meant.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. That's not just State

It's a commonly-used designation throughout the government.

Non-paper may be a State thing, though.

[yardwork]

5. It turns out that none of the emails were classified, so Comey is the confused one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. 100+ of the emails were classified

they just weren't marked as such.

[yardwork]

7. I thought they were classified later, not at the time they were sent

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. 100+ were classified at the time they were sent/received

another ~2000 were classified after the fact.

[yardwork]

9. I read that none were classified.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. The FBI says they were

It's in Comey's statement from Tuesday, and he repeated it again today in his testimony before Congress.

[yardwork]

13. Yes, but I'm reading news reports saying that he's wrong.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Link please? n/t

[yardwork]

17. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027985100

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. You should try reading below the headline

The entire article is about two emails that were incorrectly marked as classified, not the 100+ that were classified but not marked as such.

Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of the emails she sent or received on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was marked classified at the time. That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday when he claimed that a “very small number” of her emails were in fact classified at the time. The New York Times then determined that that number was just two. And now the State Department has confirmed that the two emails in question weren’t actually classified at the time, and had merely been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation.

[yardwork]

19. If they weren't marked classified, how could anybody know they were?

This seems like much ado over nothing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. Hillary wouldn't know because the markings were removed

But the people who moved the data from classified systems to an unclassified system and removed the markings certainly knew the data was classified. She was very poorly served by her staff, in that by removing the markings, they removed her ability to know the classification.

Having Top Secret and SAP data on an unclassified system isn't "much ado over nothing", but they're targeting the wrong person, IMO.

I'm guessing that the State Department won't be as forgiving as the FBI...if they can't show that they know how to protect classified information, other agencies will be hesitant to share it with them.

[DURHAM D]

29. They removed the content that was classified.

Therefore making it legal to send.

Try again.

[840high]

12. Thanks.

[uponit7771]

23. No, they were DEEMED classified by the dept which owned them but not MARKED classified and the

..msm meme that she had to say KNOWINGLY SENT is bunk... if they weren't marked how in the hell is she supposed to know!?!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. They weren't marked when she received them

But you can bet they were marked before her staff members moved them off of classified systems to an unclassified system.

And I agree, she wouldn't have known - her staff was the problem, not her.

[pnwmom]

10. And she consistently said she never sent or received one MARKED classified.

And just because Comey thinks 100 should have been classified doesn't mean he's right. These decisions are subjective.

And it's a turf war. Intelligence thinks practically everything needs to be classified. State thinks it couldn't function if it had to classify everything Intelligence thinks it should.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. It wasn't Comey's opinion

It was the judgement of the owners of the data. They know when they classify information, and they know when the emails were sent/received. It's not rocket science.

And regardless of what State thinks, they don't get to declassify data that belongs to and was classified by other agencies, just as other agencies can't do it to their data.

[pnwmom]

16. Sometimes "data" comes from different sources, and State and Intelligence

get their data from different sources. Who "owns" it then?

For example, Intelligence can think it "owns" all the info about drones. But then Sydney Blumenthal can send an article from a newspaper in Italy about the drone program to someone at State, and so State got it from a different source.

Intelligence can still claim to "own" it but common sense tells us that it doesn't.

None of the information that came to Hillary's email came from a classified system. All of the info that came to her on her private email came from other people's unclassified .gov or email accounts. So if she has any classified info in her emails, it's the same classified info that's floating around in the .gov UNCLASSIFIED system. It's affecting hundreds of other state employees, not just Hillary.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. Data classifiction is always owned

by the classifying agency, regardless of who has access to it or uses it. If State receives information from Sydney Blumenthal or the New York Times or anyone else that was classified by another agency, they are responsible for retaining that classification and providing safeguards commensurate with the classification level.

And you're correct that the emails she received in her personal email account were sent from unclassified .gov email addresses. But the classified data came from Secret, Top Secret and SAP classified systems, meaning that someone in her office intentionally moved it down to the lower classification system.

I don't think she knew the data was classified, but I think she was very poorly served by her staff. They were moving classified data down, removing the classification markings, and then sending it to her. Taking the markings off doesn't change the classification of the data.

[pnwmom]

24. No, the classified data she had came from NEWSPAPER accounts, not the classified

systems. It's nonsense -- nonsense that Intelligence diligently adheres to -- to think that Intelligence owns info that is widely known everywhere except in the US and has been reported in the newspaper.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/07/hillary_s_email_scandal_was_overhyped.html

Top secret information is another matter, but the stuff that showed up in Clinton’s private email wasn’t so special. Seven of the eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations. (Defense Department drone strikes are in places where we are officially at war.) But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America. Everyone in the world knows about these strikes; nongovernment organizations, such as New America, tabulate them; newspapers around the world—including the New York Times, where some of the same reporters are now writing so breathlessly about Clinton’s careless handling of classified information—cover these strikes routinely.

The other top secret email chain described a conversation with the president of Malawi. Conversations with foreign leaders are inherently classified.

In other words, even if Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or Syrian spies had hacked into Clinton’s email servers, and if they’d pored through 60,000 emails and come across these eight chains that held top secret material, they would not have learned anything the slightest bit new or worthy of their efforts. The FBI’s discoveries should be viewed in that context.

And there is no indication that her staff was "moving classified data down, removing the classification markings, and then sending it to her." Comey discussed this in the hearing today. He explained that all the classified info was REMOVED from a document before the rest of the document was sent. That's why it could be sent without classified markings.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. If the classified information was removed

then the emails were no longer classified.

And Comey stated very clearly today that classified information was sent to Hillary on her unclassified email.

And sorry, but an opinion writer at Slate doesn't get determine whether classified information is important or not.

[DURHAM D]

30. He stated that the classified data and markings were removed thus

making it okay to send. The markings were not in the Header - they were down in the document and the whole thing (mark and data) was not needed so it was cleaned up, not confidential and the remaining info was sent.

[pnwmom]

31. Yes -- the newspaper accounts of drone strikes were sent to her on her unclassified email.

Sorry, but an opinion writer at Slate does get to report the facts, even if they don't help the haters.

[pnwmom]

33. No, much of that classified info came from people looking up in the sky

in other countries and reporting to the media what they saw. And then the reports start floating around the world, no matter how much Intelligence would rather they not.

[uponit7771]

22. Ok, then does she have to EXPLICITLY say she didn't KNOWINGLY send classified emails!? REALLY!?

[brush]

28. And what miniscule percentage is that of the 30,000 emails over 4 years?

This thing was nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning.

And not marked as classified in the header and then some (c) markings in the body of the a very few emails.

What a crock of sh_t to be going after anyone over this.

[Caretha]

26. Here we go again

What does "if" mean

What does "C" mean

Boring, huh?

Those poor Clintons, ....

I'm going to buy them each their own copy of Daniel Webester's Dictionary when and if Mrs C wins the Presidential election....could I please get some donations : )
.

[still_one]

34. What exactly is your point?

[ismnotwasm]

35. Are you not supporting Hillary for president?

I don't understand your post--could you please clarify?

[Lil Missy]

32. I seriously doubt that. Another red herring. n/t