• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Clinton emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The truth finds Hillary correct again. :thumbs:

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.


Read more: Hillary Clinton's emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds. - POLITICO

H/T MMfA
 
i will wait for the FBI's report

but thanks

Perhaps the RWers should have waited for it before they had this evidenceless scandal.
 
Is it conceivable that there could have been no top secret documents beamed to or by the SoS? How did she do her job? Or do you think her the snail mail type?
 
The truth finds Hillary correct again. :thumbs:

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.


Read more: Hillary Clinton's emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds. - POLITICO

H/T MMfA

What will you do with yourself if she is actually indicted? I heard today on the radio, that the document that got Petraeus jammed up, and Hillary said she didn't sign, was found by a FOIA request and it turns out that she actually did sign it and it is now in evidence.
 
Perhaps the RWers should have waited for it before they had this evidenceless scandal.

A controversy arose in March 2015, when it was revealed publicly as a result of the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi findings that Hillary Rodham Clinton had exclusively used personal email accounts on a non-government, privately maintained server—in lieu of email accounts maintained on Federal government servers—when conducting official business during her tenure as United States Secretary of State. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress, contended that her use of private messaging system software and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. An FBI probe was initiated regarding how classified information was handled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

the FBI launched the probe after it was discovered she had used personal email accounts for for everything

you consider that RW'ers starting the scandal?

and if you thought there would be zero investigations on Benghazi, you need to get your head out of the sand
 
The truth finds Hillary correct again. :thumbs:

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.


Read more: Hillary Clinton's emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds. - POLITICO

H/T MMfA

I will confess I'm not familiar with the process involved in classifying documents, but I'm left a bit confused here.

From the OP:

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report​

Then:

a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.​

So are they saying the information in Clinton's email was not classified as Top Secret until a few days later, or are they saying her email didn't contain anything from the report?

If the information in her email was indeed Top Secret, but not identified yet as such, is the Secretary of State designated as the person who gets to decide how documents are classified?

Should a government official be able to spread information in emails that hasn't been vetted yet?
 
A controversy arose in March 2015, when it was revealed publicly as a result of the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi findings that Hillary Rodham Clinton had exclusively used personal email accounts on a non-government, privately maintained server—in lieu of email accounts maintained on Federal government servers—when conducting official business during her tenure as United States Secretary of State. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress, contended that her use of private messaging system software and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. An FBI probe was initiated regarding how classified information was handled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

the FBI launched the probe after it was discovered she had used personal email accounts for for everything

you consider that RW'ers starting the scandal?

and if you thought there would be zero investigations on Benghazi, you need to get your head out of the sand

Did she knowlingly have classified information on her private server? I like Hillary even less than Trump and pretty much hope the RW has her this time. But I suspect this is just another mindless right wing fantasy scandal. Just like the rest of them.
 
I will confess I'm not familiar with the process involved in classifying documents, but I'm left a bit confused here.

From the OP:

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report​

Then:

a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.​

So are they saying the information in Clinton's email was not classified as Top Secret until a few days later, or are they saying her email didn't contain anything from the report?

If the information in her email was indeed Top Secret, but not identified yet as such, is the Secretary of State designated as the person who gets to decide how documents are classified?

Should a government official be able to spread information in emails that hasn't been vetted yet?

I'm sorry, I can't help you.
 
I will confess I'm not familiar with the process involved in classifying documents, but I'm left a bit confused here.

From the OP:

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report​

Then:

a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.​

So are they saying the information in Clinton's email was not classified as Top Secret until a few days later, or are they saying her email didn't contain anything from the report?

If the information in her email was indeed Top Secret, but not identified yet as such, is the Secretary of State designated as the person who gets to decide how documents are classified?

Should a government official be able to spread information in emails that hasn't been vetted yet?

Yes, a government official must be able to spread and decipher information before a classification as to the requisite level of secrecy should be made in many instances. The later designation is mostly a determination necessary for releasing the information to the public or to other individuals within the government, but not directly tied to a requirement that the know the contents of the communication. So, for example, a piece of information can be disseminated to the Secretary of State because she needs to know the information, but it could then later be classified as confidential or top secret because the information does not or should not be released to the general public or to individuals outside of the Secretary of State's cabinet.

As for who makes the determination, I imagine that the Secretary of State can make something classified or top secret, but that is probably not her main objective.

And I read the article as saying that the email contained information that would also be in the report that was produced several days later. In other words, the communication she received was not top secret/classified at the time it was made to her because the report that established the information as top secret/confidential was not released until several days later.
 
and if you thought there would be zero investigations on Benghazi, you need to get your head out of the sand

There is a small difference between "zero" investigations and the "eleventh" investigation.
 
That story goes back to March and my take is she didn't have/take any physical documents. There is absolutely nothing to indict her for, so I'm not a bit worried.

There were two different stories, one in each of the two links I gave you. Did you look at them both? The first shows where Hillary supposedly did not sign the document, and the other shows where she actually did, and that one is dated Today. That's why I said I heard about it on the radio Today, and I went and found a link to give you to prove it.
 
Did she knowlingly have classified information on her private server? I like Hillary even less than Trump and pretty much hope the RW has her this time. But I suspect this is just another mindless right wing fantasy scandal. Just like the rest of them.

this article is about highly classified materiel... not classified material, in general.

the answer to whether or not she had highly classified material is " no.. not they have found as of yet""

the answer to whether or not she had classified material in her emails is " yes... "

"knowingly" is a different matter, but rather irrelevant, as nondisclosure statements ( which she signed) warn that classified materials may or may not be marked or designated.
all correspondence( written or oral) pertaining to foreign governments, given in confidence by a foreign counterpart, is automatically considered classified material, regardless of marking or designation.
they've found many many classified emails that have since been marked as such by the State Dept.
so yeah, " knowingly" is irrelevant, as are marking or designations... the presence of classified materials in emails is more than enough to warrant a charge of negligent handling of classified materials.

I recall a young PCF that i was unlucky enough to watch be courtmartialed on a such a charge.... he threw away, in the trash, a part that belonged to a piece of equipment that was considered classified.
he had no way of knowing the classification of that part, or what it even went to....he was just cleaning in up and threw it away.
he got 2 years in Leavenworth to think about what he did wrong, nonetheless.

that said, Clinton will most likely walk.... laws are for the common rabble, not for the political elite.
 
Your first link is misleading because it doesn't establish that Hillary said anything to the sort, only that the State Department did not have it on file.

Misleading? Hillary said she didn't remember signing such a document and that if it existed the State Department would have it on file, which (guess what) the State Department couldn't find it for the Select Committee to supply it for the subpoena, and said that Mrs. Clinton didn't sign one. And then, as if miraculously, the document surfaces AFTER Hillary has testified, and well, it turns out she actually did sign it and it does in fact exist.

Imagine that?

You see, the problem is not what Mrs. Clinton said, it is that she signed a document acknowledging criminal penalties for doing what she ultimately did do with classified documents, breaking the law. This is also the exact same document that got General Petraeus in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a government official must be able to spread and decipher information before a classification as to the requisite level of secrecy should be made in many instances. The later designation is mostly a determination necessary for releasing the information to the public or to other individuals within the government, but not directly tied to a requirement that the know the contents of the communication. So, for example, a piece of information can be disseminated to the Secretary of State because she needs to know the information, but it could then later be classified as confidential or top secret because the information does not or should not be released to the general public or to individuals outside of the Secretary of State's cabinet.

As for who makes the determination, I imagine that the Secretary of State can make something classified or top secret, but that is probably not her main objective.

And I read the article as saying that the email contained information that would also be in the report that was produced several days later. In other words, the communication she received was not top secret/classified at the time it was made to her because the report that established the information as top secret/confidential was not released until several days later.

As I wrote, I'm not familiar with the process, but I've got some problems with your explanation.

You write that information that is determined to be top secret at some point should be able to be distributed around before being classified as such, because some people need to see it. What would be the point of classifying it after the fact? At that point, who knows who has sent it on to others. Sorry, but I can't agree that your explanation is true.

As to your final point, I'm not sure how your explanation would work. Think of an analogy.

Complete hypothetical: If Hilary sent an email containing information about the level of bad guys in an area, and a report later came out stating that any information about the level of bad guys in a area is top secret because the source was a spy, how does that change the nature of Hilary's email, and the information in it?
 
There is a small difference between "zero" investigations and the "eleventh" investigation.

On which investigation was it revealed about her email issues?

That was my point.....

I am not disputing the pubs took it too far....without a reason.....

I am waiting on the FBI....I guess we will all see after that
 
There were two different stories, one in each of the two links I gave you. Did you look at them both? The first shows where Hillary supposedly did not sign the document, and the other shows where she actually did, and that one is dated Today. That's why I said I heard about it on the radio Today, and I went and found a link to give you to prove it.
Did you hear about it on a news program or a radio talk show?
the last of your links is a partisan one.
 
Did you hear about it on a news program or a radio talk show?
the last of your links is a partisan one.

CNN on XM satellite radio. I couldn't find a better source, and yeah, that site's a pretty crappy one, but the facts are true in that story. I'll see if I can find another one for you that isn't such a partisan site - on a side note, I hope you see the irony in you asking me about a partisan web site used in a link.

Maybe this one? Hillary Clinton signed contract saying it was HER job to recognize classified info | Daily Mail Online

Edit - Just saw an entire thread on this, Pete - Here Is Why Hillary Faces Legal Jeopardy
 
Last edited:
The fact remains that any state department employee would have been fired for doing what she did. Hold her accountable for SOMETHING for gods sake
 
The truth finds Hillary correct again. :thumbs:
The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clinton’s private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III made the claim that two of the emails contained top secret information, the State Department publicly stated its disagreement and asked Clapper’s office to referee the dispute. Now, that disagreement has been resolved in State’s favor, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Intelligence officials claimed one email in Clinton’s account was classified because it contained information from a top secret intelligence community “product” or report, but a further review determined that the report was not issued until several days after the email in question was written, the source said.


Read more: Hillary Clinton's emails did not contain highly classified secrets, inquiry finds. - POLITICO

H/T MMfA

These the same guys that botched this one?

Politico ‘Stealth Edits’ The Hit Piece On Ben Carson, But It’s Still Wrong | Weasel Zippers

Aside from being an out right biased hit piece from Politico, you're willing to believe them on this one? MmmmKayy
 
These the same guys that botched this one?

Politico ‘Stealth Edits’ The Hit Piece On Ben Carson, But It’s Still Wrong | Weasel Zippers

Aside from being an out right biased hit piece from Politico, you're willing to believe them on this one? MmmmKayy

Politico has admitted in the past a liberal bias that infects their coverage. The stealth editing of their hit piece is just further evidence of the terminal illness that has spread throughout a large swath of the Fourth Estate.

Why McCain is getting hosed in the press - POLITICO

And who can forget Halperin's comments in 2008?

Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias - POLITICO
 
The fact is that she repeatedly said that she had turned over all state department emails and that all other emails on her server were only personal in nature. That has turned out to be a bold faced lie and there was much "classified" state department information on her supposed personal emails. In a way it really doesn't matter how highly classified it was in because of these things. Of course we may never have known any of this because she had refused to turn over her server for quite a while and then had wiped it clean before handing it over. Then one of the top people responsible for the server pleads the fifth. Only a crook does all of this.
 
These the same guys that botched this one?

Politico ‘Stealth Edits’ The Hit Piece On Ben Carson, But It’s Still Wrong | Weasel Zippers

Aside from being an out right biased hit piece from Politico, you're willing to believe them on this one? MmmmKayy

In fact this story too has been pulled back after the initial publication. Key edit:


"A spokesman for Clapper said the review of the emails has not been completed. "ODNI has made no such determination and the review is ongoing," Clapper spokesman Brian Hale said."


So... Politico lied again.
 
Back
Top Bottom