Why Clinton's email problem won't go away

[magical thyme]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84276567/

By John R. Schindler
(John R. Schindler is a security consultant and a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer.)

It is true that deciding what is unclassified versus confidential, the lowest level of government classification, can be subjective. Similarly, the line between what's considered confidential versus secret, the next highest classification level, can get blurry. But top secret information, the highest classification level, is an entirely different matter.

After inspecting just 40 “unclassified” emails that Clinton provided to investigators, the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that two of them should have been designated top secret/special intelligence. They contained information based on intercepted foreign communications, and included what spies call “sources and methods.”

In case it isn't obvious from the label, that doesn't mean scheduling details — whom the secretary of State met for lunch, for instance. A “source” could mean a human spy; a “method” could mean data hacking. We don't want foreign countries to discover these particulars.

But it gets worse. Because top secret information travels on entirely separate systems throughout the federal government, it is virtually impossible that a Clinton staffer blithely or unknowingly pasted a top secret paragraph into an unclassified email.

On the contrary, it seems increasingly likely that Clinton's staff was engaged in a systematic effort to take details off classified IT systems and strip them of proper classification markings (every paragraph in an intelligence report is classified separately) before sending them out electronically. This was not only a violation of numerous federal regulations, but also a crime — a felony when it involves top secret information.

[randys1]

1. The endless hit pieces on the Democratic party, sigh

[Metric System]

3. This has already been posted. And the author is a Right-Winger.

[emulatorloo]

4. I do not understand why some DU'ers promote right wing opinion pieces here

or act as megaphones for the likes of Trey Gowdy and the other liars we know as the GOP.

HRC is too conservative for me, but I have 0 tolerance for right wing smears against Democrats.

[FarPoint]

7. They are in denial...

They know not what they do....tunnel vision disability maybe.. I forgive them.

[Maedhros]

12. Attack the content, not the source.

If what he says is true, his political leanings are irrelevant.

[FarPoint]

15. I wasn't actually addressing you in my reply.

It's all good.

[Metric System]

23. He has an agenda. Period.

[Maedhros]

27. So do we.

Regardless of his agenda, if what he says is true, it's true. If it's wrong, demonstrate why.

[name not needed]

28. He's not on the Clinton payroll, therefore he can't be trusted.

[Metric System]

32. He's a hardcore Right-Winger, therefore he can't be trusted.

[6chars]

29. He isn't presenting any facts that weren't already known

I am sure that the government agencies who are reviewing her emails are also aware of the rules about classified material. If there is an earthshaking story, it will surely come out. Until that happens, let's not worry about every anti-Hillary talking head.

[morningfog]

18. So, what about the facts in the piece.

Forget the opinion aspect.

Is this true or not:

"Top secret information travels on entirely separate systems throughout the federal government,...every paragraph in an intelligence report is classified separately."

Is that true?

[FarPoint]

5. It's Over.....

Dead article....Witch Hunt on Emails has been found to be a hoax.

[Maedhros]

13. No, it's really happening...[n/t]

[FarPoint]

16. Surrender...

This email hoax is dead.

[Maedhros]

20. Why do you say it's a "hoax?"

It would be a "hoax" if there were really no such investigation. The investigation is clearly happening.

[louis-t]

6. Why would anyone do this? What is the purpose?

How is someone able to "strip them of proper classification"? What does "should have been designated top secret" imply? Whose responsibility was it to designate them "top secret"?

The "let's get Hillary" attack machine marches on.

[yardwork]

25. Good questions.

[leftofcool]

8. Another right wing hit piece against Hillary

Aren't ya'll getting tired of this. It's over. Trey Gowdy lost.

[magical thyme]

9. not exactly the 1st time an article has been re-posted on DU.

As it happens, I was asleep at 3am when the earlier one was posted, so I totally missed it.

That said, it's all very well and good to claim an article is "BS" and attacking the messenger.

Much easier than actually reading and responding to the content.

[emulatorloo]

14. Sources matter.

There is a reason we don't naively believe in everything that's broadcast on Fox News or uttered by Dick Cheney. It is because they are liars and aren't credible.

[magical thyme]

17. this wasn't broadcast on Fox nor was it uttered by Dick Cheney.

The source is a somebody who used to work in intelligence, so knows how classified info works...or is supposed to work. And understands that info of a certain type that originated in certain departments would have been labeled as "top secret" paragraph by paragraph, and that somebody from another dept. taking that information to include in an email would have had to strip those labels off for them to "disappear." And that not doing so, and having that "top secret" information no encrypted and on an inadequately secured server could have put certain operations at risk.

And considering not only the type of information that the emails included, but the details of the specific information in one of those 2 emails...in light of subsequent events...allows for some pretty ugly speculation.

That speculation is getting louder, and depending on what the FBI does or doesn't learn could really fuel that fire.

[emulatorloo]

21. 'Ugly loud speculation' is what the right-wing lie machine does.

You want to promote that, have at it. Go ahead, hitch your wagon to Trey Gowdy and Chuck Grassley's stars. I for one have seen this movie one too many times before.

But these same assholes are coming for Bernie, as soon as he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

[magical thyme]

22. the article is fact; not speculation

What has factually been found in those emails has provided the fuel for speculation. Pretending the facts don't exist won't make them go away.

[blm]

26. Schindler IS a RWer and the battle over what gets classified and what doesn't is an old one

and what emails get classified has been an issue for State and other Departments for the better part of 2 decades.

GOP didn't raise an eyebrow over this longterm issue between the departments in the decade before, did they?

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Because so many "Democrats" are desperately holding on to it? n/t

[zappaman]

11. Lol!

Nice try!

[KMOD]

19. Grassley is the one who is claiming that that two emails were classified wrongly,

He is alone in left field on this.

It's over, MT. It was just another RW lunacy story.

[yardwork]

24. Why would Hillary's staff do that?

I wish the media had been this interested when Valerie Plame was outed. Or when a NYT editor was revealed to be planting stories to get us into war with Iraq.

I guess I just answered my own question. Corporate owned media.

[The Traveler]

30. Ungh -- the law is dicey here

This is potentially really bad. IF (and that's a big IF at this point) TS/SI content was copied and pasted into a non-classified document ... someone could do time.

Legally (and practically) there is a difference between "content that should have been classified" and "content that actually was classified", or that was subsequently classified after the fact. But replication of TS/SI classified content in insecure channels is definitely against the law and is indeed a felony. Having said that, I have never heard of anyone being charged for an incidental or accidental disclosure (this would be regarded as a disclosure). Clearances and accessed yanked, demotions, harsh language ... yes ... but charges are normally filed only if intent can be reasonably established.

Does Ms Clinton have a problem here, really? Beats me. The devil dwells in many details at this point. But I'd be very surprised if there were a legal consequence here. Unless this turns out to have been a standard operating procedure, a routine practice ...

But it sure makes for tasty right wing hate machine fodder.

I wonder if anyone ever got around to examining Condorlizard Rice's private server?

Moral of story: The Clintons in particular (and Democrats in general) are held to a standard the right wingers refuse to accept for themselves. We know this.

Trav

[magical thyme]

31. some content of the 2 emails was supposedly TS/SI. the question is the path it took.

that is what the FBI is investigating. how did it end up in Clinton's email, where did it come from, when did it lose it's classification headings.

It included data obtained from foreign sources. It also included information re: Ambassador Steven's evacuation plans, such as schedule and location.

But it sure makes for tasty right wing hate machine fodder.
Which is, best case, what makes it so problematic. The ongoing investigation, potentially more findings, etc. dragging out over months.

And it opened the door to investigating the security on her server. Part of what the FBI is investigating on her server is looking for signs if it was hacked.

"I wonder if anyone ever got around to examining Condorlizard Rice's private server?"
She reportedly rarely used email at all and then only used the government email for biz, so there would have been no need to delete her personal emails. I haven't seen anything saying she had her own server.

Colin Powell did use his personal email, but didn't have his own server either.

Colin Powell did use personal email.