The hits keep rolling in:
Hillary Clinton’s classified emails contain discussions of conversations with foreign diplomats, issues with embassy security and relations with countries from Russia to China.
The broad range of information that was deemed classified by the State Department — just within the emails published by the agency to date —underscores concerns that sensitive material was routinely mishandled on Clinton’s private email server.
For example, Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff, forwarded a summary of a high-level Sept. 2009 meeting to Clinton in which she detailed the “embassy security issues” that were discussed.
The issues had been raised by Eric Boswell, a diplomatic security official who was later forced to resign in the wake of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.
Abedin was frequently involved in the transmission of classified information to Clinton, emails show.
Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, and Jake Sullivan, former director of policy planning, also routinely sent or received classified emails from the secretary of state.
Despite her campaign’s claims that Clinton was simply a “passive recipient” of classified information, a review of her emails indicates she wrote messages that are now classified.
For example, in July 2009, she discussed relations with Russia and Afghanistan with then-Deputy Secretary William Burns in an email that has been partially classified. She also discussed her travel plans with Burns over the private network.
And now, three years after the investigation of the IRS began, they ‘suddenly’ found a THIRD fake email account used by Lois Lerner:
Lois Lerner had yet another personal email account used to conduct some IRS business, the tax agency confirmed in a new court filing late Monday that further complicates the administration’s efforts to be transparent about Ms. Lerner’s actions during the tea party targeting scandal.
The admission came in an open-records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that has sued to get a look at emails Ms. Lerner sent during the targeting.
IRS lawyer Geoffrey J. Klimas told the court that as the agency was putting together a set of documents to turn over to Judicial Watch, it realized Ms. Lerner had used yet another email account, in addition to her official one and another personal one already known to the agency.
“In addition to emails to or from an email account denominated ‘Lois G. Lerner‘ or ‘Lois Home,’ some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated ‘Toby Miles,’” Mr. Klimas told Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is hearing the case.
It took a federal judge to threaten to jail the IRS commissioner to find out this information:
During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally in contempt.”
This administration has to be one of the sneakiest bunch of dirtbags in a century.
The most transparent administration evah!
See author page
Yep.
I wonder if Abedin was the one who downloaded the satellite imagery data, stripped it and sent it on to Hillary.
That’s potentially espionage, by the standards used by this regime against whistleblowers.
All of this is what Obama meant when he said:
The sources of the information in the Washington Examiner article are unclassified emails which have been released to the general public. You can follow the links provided in the article to the documents themselves. The original status of the redacted information was sensitive but unclassified, as is plainly indicated in the original email header.
The State Department slapped a classification on it prior to clearing it for public release to allow the sensitive part of the letter to be redacted. They don’t want the general public to read it. Confidential is the lowest classification level of information handled by the federal government. Most State Department communications are considered to be confidential by default.
This is one more case of nothing being dressed up in an article and presented as if it were something. It’s another addition to the enormous volumes of horse manure in circulation being passed off as relevant information.
I wonder why high government officials are risking arrest and prosecution to protect such innocuous emails?
@Greg: Greg, sensitive is a level of document classification! Clinton didn’t make sure that this information was on an approved server. This is precisely the issue that you fail to understand!
Randy — you are wasting your time
Hmm…
https://web.archive.org/web/20091017033638/http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/10/14/obama-allows-russia-ispect-us-nuke-sites
@Randy, #5:
No, that is incorrect. The United States presently has only 3 levels of formal security classification: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.
Information or documents that are considered sensitive but do not fall into one of those 3 categories are not classified. They’re identified with marks or headers stating either For Official Use Only, or Sensitive but Not Classified.
Those are the facts, like them or not. Refer to Executive Order 13526, which is presently in effect. The previous Executive Order, EO 13292 issued by George W. Bush, had the same 3 classification levels, no more or less. So did EO 12958, issued in 1995.
Sensitive information can later become classified. That was evidently necessary with some of Clinton’s emails, to keep sensitive but unclassified information from being released to the general public and subsequently into unfriendly hands.
Yes, there are three classification markings, and many special identifiers which apply to classified and unclassified documents. The point is, the Marking doesn’t matter, the information does. The information is classified at birth and should be handle as such. The person making the document or email is responsible for it’s content and the person(s) receiving the correspondence is(are) responsible for checking it. I currently work on equipment up to classified confidential (have worked up to Top Secret) .
If I have to send an email out, I (not some one else) have to determine if the subject matter requires handling as classified information or special information, and take actions accordingly (use the proper account/system, mark the title, put in the proper footer, etc.). I have received classified information on an unclassified network, I reported in immediately. If the proper precautions are not taken by myself or some one else, there is a spill which IT has to clean up which can cost thousands, and if it happens enough administrative action can be taken.
Intentional removal of classified information from classified systems can lead to immediate administrative and criminal proceedings. Classified information in the wild leads to federal investigations. I’ve seen it, it’s not pretty.
@Greg: The sources of the information in the Washington Examiner article are unclassified emails which have been released to the general public. You can follow the links provided in the article to the documents themselves. The original status of the redacted information was sensitive but unclassified, as is plainly indicated in the original email header.
You really dont care what they do, do you? Your whole life is wrapped up in the fantasy that people who would bribe you with your own money would care about you more than people who would leave you alone to be free?
For some reason you think that under the rule of law (lex rex) there is a set of people above that law (rex lex)… no sir.. your wrong… not only that, but why do you think that they will make it all right when the socialists states are the most corrupt and most dirty, and most evil of all of them…
first of all, when did YOU get to see the original header and with headers being stripped before they were sent, how would you know that? you talk about wanting this proof, that proof, and you sit there cherry picking stuff and ignoring other stuff to construct a delusional view of reality in which you then want others to prove your delusion is not real so you can what? ignore them and live in your delusion?
what is the point Greg? why bother others and do that when you can live happily in your delusion without even causing issues with others? i know why!!! because unless others share your delusion you wont get cake and live in heaven like the people under maduro..
have you ever actually lived under a socialist state? you live under a fascist state now, and think that the evil is capitalism, cause you cant tell that the evil in this is fascism. do you actually know fascism? do you actually know what constitutes these different things? do you actually realize that when this was not socialist, politicians were removed from office and rode out of town when they lied, cheated, colluded, and did all that nasty stuff you think is not in socialism cause they said to you its not…
parroting the ad copy you like is not what makes you smart…
what do you think will happen if we go full socialist like you want?
by the way. where is the proof of your assertion? the link, the law, etc? yhou sit there on your fat ass and want that from others, but then dont give it yourself… why? blind assertion by a shill is not information…
@Greg: Those are the facts, like them or not. Refer to Executive Order 13526, which is presently in effect. The previous Executive Order, EO 13292 issued by George W. Bush, had the same 3 classification levels, no more or less. So did EO 12958, issued in 1995.
think you can throw my point from the last thread back at me as if i didnt read it and read the associated laws and points regarding it? only you leftists do that… dummy
@Greg: Those are the facts, like them or not. Refer to Executive Order 13526, which is presently in effect. The previous Executive Order, EO 13292 issued by George W. Bush, had the same 3 classification levels, no more or less. So did EO 12958, issued in 1995.
Sensitive information can later become classified. That was evidently necessary with some of Clinton’s emails, to keep sensitive but unclassified information from being released to the general public and subsequently into unfriendly hands.
you really are that stupid… amazing…
EO 13526
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is pre-
sumed to cause damage to the national security.
then it gives the three basic classifications, while informing you that three levels is not the only levels.
level (1) Top Secret / (2) Secret / (3) Classified
(3) (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be
used to identify United States classified information.
translation for the moron Greg: there are three classification levels unless a law says there are more than three classification levels..
the next clause b y Obama the constitutional scholar then has a unconstitutional point to it…
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant
to paragraph (c) of this section.
powers cant be delegated in a constituiational state as only those who are the source of power can delegate it… ie. the people… read federalist papers 45 and 39
It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers
this would be akin to a king giving power to others as a reward… this is what a sovereign democracy like russia and china does, not what a constitational republic does.
anyway, lets continue:
Show us where Hillary and Abedin are delegated the power to determine whether something is classified or not… you cant cause they are not the authority that has that power under the paper YOU linked to
(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing
and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this
order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position.
(5) Delegations of original classification authority shall be reported or
made available by name or position to the Director of the Information
Security Oversight Office
so where is the paper filed? and why were these not copied to the proper archivist for determination? why did they strip the header? cause when it suits them they follow the leter of the law, and when it suits them they ignore the letter and pretend other false things like discretion, or spirit
All original classification authorities must receive training in proper
classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassifica-
tion 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. Original classification authorities who do not receive such manda-
tory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification
authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official des-
ignated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken
place.
so there goes Hillaries out on this stuf… even more so when you read this:
Hillary Clinton gave her State Department emails containing Top Secret and other classified information to her lawyer, who lacked sufficient clearances to possess it and who kept it for as long as eight months
Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal,
termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified
information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency
regulation.
The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official
shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any
individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in
applying the classification standards of this orde
and
so she is in violation of the orders you listed and didnt bother to read…
Private servers for federal work is negligent…
Keeping these servers hidden from the state, is willful negligence
and before you go on about how its not, you let me know how much security the company hosting the server had in their bathroom… could someone attack the facility, raid the batheroom and get the secrets? that makes it negligent.
there is more, but that wont matter to you…
when she turned over thumb drives containing her official emails to her lawyer, “it appears Secretary Clinton sent (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) to an unauthorized person.”
[remember, there are three classifications unless there is a law that says there are more…. you have to actually read the things you put up]
“The transmission of classified material to an individual unauthorized to possess it is a serious national security risk (and) it raises legitimate questions as to whether the information was properly secured from foreign governments and other entities.” – Grassley
Charles McCullough III inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified 17 senior members of Congress and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, that two of the emails had been classified as Top Secret /Sensitive Compartmented Information.
read the reference you gave… hillary does not have the power to assign the classification level, and a person who does and is charged with oversight has asserted the status of certain documents as classified… these were turned over to her lawyer, who does not have any clearance, and so violated the law, the EO you posted, and many other points as well. which you refuse to accept cause you want a dictatorship… (or what do you think is the end result of this political game? the side your on asserts that dictatorship is the goal… duh)
Her lawyer asserts he has the clearance, but the man who gives out the clearance says: ,i>“neither Mr. Kendall nor Ms. Turner have a security clearance at a sufficient level to be a custodian of (Top Secret/SCI) material.”
[remember the EO requires yearly updates and courses to maintain said clearance… not just you have it and its there and you keep it forever until otherwise]
such material “generally requires advanced protocols,” such as requiring a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a specially designed vault for protecting state secrets.
the lawyers office and a bathroom based server in a home is not a special vault designed for protecting state secrets..
a new report by the State Department inspector general released Tuesday faulted U.S. diplomats in Japan, including U.S. Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, for using private email for conducting government business.
lets ask if Greg would not mind a server in a bathroom by a tiny hosting company would be sufficient to store his bank account and passwords, social security, and so on…
the larger issue for Greg is how he will explain how clintons email acounts were protected from Rakshasa or CIH
[i work in research computing at a top medical center]
August 1, 2012
what did she or the hosting company do to avoid the hard drives that the chinese made that give this kind of access? and you better explain it well Greg, i have 35 years professional experience in computers, security and so on… and had clearance (which of course expires eventually)
Rakshasa works on 230 Intel-based motherboards / he bootkit can be used to create a fake password prompt for Truecrypt and BitLocker, potentially rendering full-disk encryption useless. Finally, the Rakshasa bootkit even allows the remote flashing of the original BIOS — perfectly covering your tracks.
what did this small company do to avoid this? did they follow the NSA protocols and only use the equipment that passed muster, or did they get their stuff from STAPLES?
was this system set up with a UEFI (like my home system with bootable VHDs) or with MBR? do you know what UEFI and MBR are Greg?
Please let us know your expertise in this matter, included references that WILL BE CHECKED… thanks…
@artfldgr:
touche
@Budvarakbar:
twas nothing… just a Arrêt à bon temps… using Attaque au Fer, next he will give a In Quartata, I will lunge for a Raddoppio, he then will respond with a Neuvieme, to which i will Prise de Fer… with Riposte, and that will be it..
after that he will pull a monty python and say
“but im not dead yet”
😉
@artfldgr, #12:
The phrase “it appears” means that the statement that follows is uncertain. The phrase would fall under the general heading of weasel words, which are words or phrases tacked onto speculative or vague statements to create the impression that someone actually knows something specific, while leaving them an exit if they’re challenged or proven to be wrong. In this case the quote is from a letter sent by republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who is anything but an unbiased source of opinion and information on the topic. He’s one of the people who have been making accusations that have yet to be backed up with facts.
Our relative levels of expertise on matters of computer security are irrelevant. Whatever your qualifications might be, you don’t have any more idea what was on Hillary Clinton’s server than I do.
My own assumption is that no digital device that electronically connects to the outside world is invulnerable to hacking. That includes everything from my automobile to my desktop PC. Networks maintained by the government are not necessarily more secure than others maintained by attentive private sector companies. No chain is stronger than its weakest link and no wall is stronger than its weakest point. I protect my own privacy by assuming that nothing I put on my PC or online can be fully protected. I make no claims about myself that require checking.
@Artfldgr:
Well, that depends entirely upon if it is a conservative administration or a liberal one. See, if a conservative has a private email account for their campaign or private correspondence, then it is a horrible violation of the Constitution, Ten Commandments, Laws of Physics and Hoyle. However, if a liberal has an account upon which they traffic, unsecured, intelligence data and material, well, THEY did it, too!!!
In other words, a liberal has no solid principles upon which they base their beliefs; all they have are opportunistic talking points which they use as political weapons.
@Greg:
Oh. Well, does “it appear” that she did NOT hand over a thumb drive to Blumenthal that contains classified information? Because, actually, she DID.
Particularly when the other side of the argument is the technical and statutory requirements of handling classified information and your position is, “NUH_UH!!!”
@DrJohn:
Perhaps the entire reason for all the deletions and secret serves is that Hillary and Huma were passing Wiener’s wiener pictures back and forth. Maybe?
There was a second sentence in that paragraph, wasn’t there?
I don’t believe I’ve ever before seen people so eager to assist in their own hoodwinking. This is why all Trump has to do is tell people what they want to hear.
@Greg: No Greg, there are more levels of information classification. You just are not smart enough to see and understand it. There is for eyes only, there is compartmentalized classification. I know, I was cleared to levels higher than Top Secret while I worked I intel in Iraq.
@Budvarakbar: I know, but I have always had hope that even people with the lowest levels of intelligence could find something they could grasp if the idea was explained often and loudly enough. I guess you are right in this instance.
@Greg: I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered someone who is simultaneously so utterly immune to logic and insistent upon defending the indefensible.
It has not escaped notice, Greg, that you apply a substantially lower standard of reasonable doubt when assailing any person who is to the philosophical right of yourself. Ah well, behind every double standard is a single standard, no? Your inconsistency is showing.
Everybody ought to take a look at Hillary’s latest water carried by the NYTimes.
First she calls the email scandal (in effect) a partisan witch hunt.
Then she obsesses over ”markings,” as if they are legally relevant to her committing a crime.
Recall what former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey wrote in the Wall Street Journal on August 14th about that: