IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[Fern]

Possibly, though if you look all the way at the end of Fern's link -- published only yesterday -- you'll find this:

CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to note that the July New York Times report was about a "criminal referral" from the Intelligence Community and State Department inspectors general. It was later made clear it was a "security referral," and did not request a criminal investigation.

But that was long ago. We have no information about how this has morphed over the months. The FBI is holding its cards tightly to its chest.

I think we have some in the media who are confused (or are purposefully obfuscating) about such terminology. I'm referring to the term "security referral". Many reports imply that the FBI was doing a security referral without clearly stating so. However, it does leave the impression in peoples' minds that that is the case (FBI only doing a security referral).

However this guy (former Asst Director of the FBI says that the FBI doesn't do "security referrals".

Not true says Steve Pomerantz, who spent 28 years at the FBI, and rose from field investigative special agent to the rank of assistant director, the third highest position in the Bureau.

“They (the FBI) do not do security reviews,” Pomerantz said. “What they primarily do and what they are clearly doing in this instance is a criminal investigation.”

Pomerantz emphasized to Fox News, “There is no mechanism for her to be briefed and to have information about the conduct, the substance, the direction or the result of any FBI investigation.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...robe-during-debate-former-fbi-agents-say.html

If you're interested, more on the former FBI official: http://www.globalrihsc.org/steve-pomerantz.htm

Also, media reports discussing the seriousness of this appear to differ in two ways from those that downplay the seriousness:

(1) Those that reporting it's serious cite intelligence officials or those with ties to the FBI. The 'non-serious' ones I have seen just say "govt official". Well what is that, someone from the State Dept, thus possibly a Clinton lackey?

(2) The 'serious' ones have multiple sources: I.e., confirmation. The others have only one source.

Since the FBI is keeping this very 'close to the chest' we can all speculate, but that doesn't mean we can make up facts. I tend to think this is quite serious and that's there's much more behind the scenes than is apparent. IDK if/when we'll find out the details. IIRC, depending upon the outcome the records will be sealed for years or could be made available upon conclusion.

I'm still curious to know when the FBI thinks the investigation will be completed. If this extends another year, thus a new administration, it could get interesting.

I also think if this election (meaning Hillary's campaign) continues on this trajectory the impact on the Presidential election is greatly minimized.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Looks like some other folks wanted to use Hillary's email server for "convenience" as well!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...top-secret-intel-on-server.html?intcmp=hplnws

Two unnamed sources...take it for what it's worth.

That "article" is a perfect example of how the right-wing media uses speculation and innuendo to mislead their audience. Consider these phrases:

no public evidence
could be as high as
reveal a universal feeling
most opine
if they had apparently compromised
without access ... it was hard to ascertain ... disclosure of human spying intelligence ...
is undoubtedly conducting
​

And those are just from the first six paragraphs. All of them mark speculation or innuendo rather than actual facts. It's a slimy substitute for actual journalism. At least Fox used weasel words. When this story is repeated by its less reputable clones, many of these insinuations will be reported as facts. That is how one tells the rubes what they want to hear.

 

[Fern]

How about if it originated in the New York Times? Who has declassification authority then?

The NYT cannot originate classified info, they can only 'leak it'. In any case, I doubt anyone cares much about that sort of thing.

Fern

 

[buckshot24]

I quoted your exact words and you've provided NOTHING which explicitly substantiates your claim. Sorry, but that's the cold hard reality here. I'm done talking about it...except to say that you're better than this.

Nope! He's a complete hack.

If a tidbit of evidence seems to support his biases it is the truth, period.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by VRAMdemon
Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, paraphrasing here - that he couldn't be accused of releasing classified information, since if he released it, by definition he must be declassifying it? Actually - here's some more information on Cheney's views and a broader discussion of handling classified material at the highest levels (Congress and the White House).

So again - I struggle with a disconnect. Apparently it's quite bad for Mrs. Clinton to store classified information in a way that could lead to its release. But not so bad for the actual release of classified information - at least when done by others.

If there was genuine concern that criminal activity had taken place, Congress would have revived the office of the special prosecutor. The FBI generally doesn't handle investigations into top-level executive branch officials because of the inherent conflict of interest.

And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and is not taking any serious action because...?

I will be keenly interested to see how our resident Hilary haters respond to your trenchant, reality-based analysis.

I suppose they would just quote this part of the article that VRAMdemon somehow felt necessary to omit:

What Cheney told Fitzgerald is, frankly, what presidents, national security advisers and senior officials at the Pentagon, State Department and CIA do all the time when they brief journalists on background or in off-the-record sessions: They use classified information to get out their side of a foreign policy story. When congressional opponents use classified information supporting a different point of view, those same administration officials quickly describe that as illegal leaking, and damaging to national security.

But Cheney tried to get around that complaint by adding a novel legal defense of his use of classified information. The FBI report said he told Fitzgerald that he "did not violate any relevant laws or rules in making these statements because he did not reveal the confidential sources or methods involved in gathering the classified information."

That is a totally new reading of a variety of statutes that make it a crime to disclose classified or national security information. For Cheney, however, it may have been valid, because President George W. Bush had given him declassification authority. So technically, his public disclosure of classified information automatically removed the classification.

However, I don't see the (legal) relevance to Hillary's case.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

The NYT cannot originate classified info, they can only 'leak it'. In any case, I doubt anyone cares much about that sort of thing.

Fern

So when the nyt has sources, as in reporters or eye witnesses on the ground in places like Afghanistan and those sources tell nyt they saw drones and the nyt reports it, they didn't originate classified info?

 

[werepossum]

I really haven't followed this, but I'm struggling to reconcile the focus on e-mail servers and classification here with the Valery Plame affair. In the Plame affair, no criminal charges were filed for leaking classified information - the only criminal charges were for lying to investigators. In other words, recent history would suggest that even the deliberate release of classified information to journalists would not result in criminal prosecution (as long as you don't lie about it).

Does anything that Mrs. Clinton is accused of even rise to the level of deliberately disclosing classified information to the media? An act itself which apparently isn't worthy of criminal prosecution.

The bottom line, it seems is that most of the controls and penalties in place for the handling of classified information are administrative in nature and handled within each Department. Here's the relevant document for classifying / declassifying material from the DoS. However, any criminal element is much less clear cut as previous cites have shown.

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, paraphrasing here - that he couldn't be accused of releasing classified information, since if he released it, by definition he must be declassifying it? Actually - here's some more information on Cheney's views and a broader discussion of handling classified material at the highest levels (Congress and the White House).

So again - I struggle with a disconnect. Apparently it's quite bad for Mrs. Clinton to store classified information in a way that could lead to its release. But not so bad for the actual release of classified information - at least when done by others.

If there was genuine concern that criminal activity had taken place, Congress would have revived the office of the special prosecutor. The FBI generally doesn't handle investigations into top-level executive branch officials because of the inherent conflict of interest.

And the same GOP-controlled Congress that has held dozens of hearings on Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and is not taking any serious action because...?

Both are potentially mishandling classified information. If someone with the authority to declassify information releases it (and I'm not sure Cheney qualifies here, although confirming that a woman that everyone knows works for the CIA and is releasing disinformation is a pretty good analogy for discussing printed articles), then I suppose it may be considered declassified. I dunno. In any case, my point all along has not been that Mrs. Clinton violating laws that require prosecution - my point is that Mrs. Clinton is a sleazeball. Since you are comparing her to Cheney and I know how you feel about him, I'm supposing you agree with me?

As for why Congress doesn't reinstate special prosecutors or take any serious action, that's dirt simple: They want political issues, not legal action which, regardless of whether it's successful with the Hildabeast, might well bite them in they shiny metal asses the next time they do the same thing. Or nearly so; Hillary maintaining her own server is just an even more arrogant, more blatant version of the Bush White House maintaining its RNC servers.

 

[Bowfinger]

I think we have some in the media who are confused (or are purposefully obfuscating) about such terminology. I'm referring to the term "security referral". Many reports imply that the FBI was doing a security referral without clearly stating so. ...

That could well be. The media are often pretty sloppy in their use of terminology. "Security referral" is the best information we have, however, since we don't have access to actual source documents to determine exactly what the FBI was asked to do.

But as I said, I think that's irrelevant at this point. It doesn't matter how this investigation began. What matters is what it has become now. We just don't know.

However this guy (former Asst Director of the FBI says that the FBI doesn't do "security referrals". ...

Yes, I saw that. Note that Pomerantz retired from the FBI over 20 years ago, and is currently listed as working on the staff of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Given that Joe Lieberman is a current board member, and Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Douglas Feith are all former board members, it's easy to suspect the group is a bit right-leaning.

Regardless, the fact that Pomerantz left the FBI over 20 years ago means he has no first-hand knowledge of this investigation. His remarks are speculation.

 

[werepossum]

I'm not sure he even knows what point he's trying to make any more, beyond "Hillary evil." He just loves to argue with us.

"Hillary evil" is pretty much my point, although I might not go so far as to say evil. Hillary maintaining her own server is just an even more arrogant, more blatant version of the Bush White House maintaining its RNC servers.

 

[Bowfinger]

The NYT cannot originate classified info, they can only 'leak it'.

Not exactly. They can also independently discover information that some in government consider classified. For example, the NYT reported on our use of drone strikes on terror targets. Everybody and his dog knows about it, but the CIA still considers it top secret. By CIA standards, that NYT article is considered classified information.

In any case, I doubt anyone cares much about that sort of thing.

Fern

Seriously? Are you not following this story? That is a real example of one of the purportedly top secret emails in Clinton's mailbox. Another related to an Irish Times story on the forces in and around some Libyan town. The CIA position was this information revealed their satellite imaging capabilities, even though the Irish Times got the information from its sources on the ground.

I can't say that all of the "top secret materials" in Clinton's email are such ridiculous examples, but the ones we know about are. As to the rest, we'll have to wait for the FBI.

 

[Fern]

So when the nyt has sources, as in reporters or eye witnesses on the ground in places like Afghanistan and those sources tell nyt they saw drones and the nyt reports it, they didn't originate classified info?

Nope, don't think so.

I've read over the Exec Orders on classified info and I don't recall seeing anything about news organizations originating classified info. IIRC, it only mentions federal agencies.

Anyway, I would think the agency responsible for the drone program (either DoD or CIA AFAIK) would have the origination authority.

In any case, the idea that this is what is the 22 (or however many) super top secret emails seems to originate with Hillary who "guessed" that might be what it was. If she has to guess that means she doesn't know. And if the former FBI official I quoted above is correct, the FBI isn't telling her.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Seriously? Are you not following this story? That is a real example of one of the purportedly top secret emails in Clinton's mailbox.

See my post above.

That is Hillary's "guess". It has also been repeated by Fallon, her campaign spokesman (he was also her State Dept spokesman).

The FBI hasn't commented and given the classification of those emails no one in the media has seen them. I doubt Fallon has that sort of clearance (need to know basis). Neither do most Congresspersons.

In short, the idea that one or more of the super top secret emails concern a link to newspaper story seems to be nothing but more speculation. And speculation driven by Hillary's side.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

See my post above.

That is Hillary's "guess". It has also been repeated by Fallon, her campaign spokesman (he was also her State Dept spokesman).

The FBI hasn't commented and given the classification of those emails no one in the media has seen them. I doubt Fallon has that sort of clearance (need to know basis). Neither do most Congresspersons.

In short, the idea that one or more of the super top secret emails concern a link to newspaper story seems to be nothing but more speculation. And speculation driven by Hillary's side.

Fern

No, the two examples I gave are not guesses. They were actually included in one of the early batches of email releases. I know I linked a site that had a full dump of everything released up to that point. You'll have to check old threads or articles from last summer.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope, don't think so.

I've read over the Exec Orders on classified info and I don't recall seeing anything about news organizations originating classified info. IIRC, it only mentions federal agencies. ...

But Fern, that's the point. Clearly, news organization cannot originate truly classified information. Nonetheless, they can and often do originate information that one or more government agencies consider to be classified, like the drone program today, or Area 51 a decade or two ago. At least some of the "top secret" material in Clinton's email is just that, information originating from news organizations that the CIA considers classified.

Remember that none of Clinton's purportedly "classified" emails were marked as classified at that time (based on everything we know so far); they have been retroactively called classified. A news story is consistent with this.

 

[Fern]

No, the two examples I gave are not guesses. They were actually included in one of the early batches of email releases. I know I linked a site that had a full dump of everything released up to that point. You'll have to check old threads or articles from last summer.

Umm. The 22 super top secret emails have not been released. Not possible with that classification level.

BTW: I'm not saying it couldn't be that. I'm also not saying that that type situation hasn't occurred elsewhere for someone else. I am saying that to the best of my knowledge the idea that this is the case with Hillary's emails seems to be speculation originating for her side.

I.e., it seems to be taken as fact and I can't see where that is the case.

Fern

 

[Fern]

But Fern, that's the point. Clearly, news organization cannot originate truly classified information. Nonetheless, they can and often do originate information that one or more government agencies consider to be classified, like the drone program today, or Area 51 a decade or two ago. At least some of the "top secret" material in Clinton's email is just that, information originating from news organizations that the CIA considers classified.
-snip-

Yeah, I understand that. IIRC examples of this happening to others have been given.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Nope, don't think so.

I've read over the Exec Orders on classified info and I don't recall seeing anything about news organizations originating classified info. IIRC, it only mentions federal agencies.

Anyway, I would think the agency responsible for the drone program (either DoD or CIA AFAIK) would have the origination authority.

In any case, the idea that this is what is the 22 (or however many) super top secret emails seems to originate with Hillary who "guessed" that might be what it was. If she has to guess that means she doesn't know. And if the former FBI official I quoted above is correct, the FBI isn't telling her.

Fern

And you would be wrong.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/hey-have-you-heard-about-top-secret-us-drone-program

This is information that has been known for several months, this info has been posted by me and by others multiple times so I'm at a loss as to how or why this is even being discussed and questioned. I can only assume that your source of info for this particular subject is either completely incompetent in it's reporting, your news sources are limited, or you are subconsciously blocking out facts to protect your desired narrative.

 

[Fern]

And you would be wrong.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/hey-have-you-heard-about-top-secret-us-drone-program

This is information that has been known for several months, this info has been posted by me and by others multiple times so I'm at a loss as to how or why this is even being discussed and questioned. I can only assume that your source of info for this particular subject is either completely incompetent in it's reporting, your news sources are limited, or you are subconsciously blocking out facts to protect your desired narrative.

I'm still seeing anonymous "govt officials" etc.

I'm also seeing phrasing like this :

that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes

and

So what do you suppose the "closely guarded secrets" in the latest batch of 22 emails are? Drones? That's a pretty good guess.

"Could" and "good guess", really?

I think you need to read more closely. I've seen this article before. After reading it several times my conclusion was that it's poorly written and gives a false impression. After all, if they have concrete info that public news on drones strikes is what's in some of the super top secret emails there's no need for them to "guess" or say it "could" be etc.

BTW: I saw you earlier post. I tracked it and the claim seemed to originate with Hillary herself (at least given the links you posted etc.).

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I'm still seeing anonymous "govt officials" etc.

I'm also seeing phrasing like this :



and



"Could" and "good guess", really?

I think you need to read more closely. I've seen this article before. After reading it several times my conclusion was that it's poorly written and gives a false impression. After all, if they have concrete info that public news on drones strikes is what's in some of the super top secret emails there's no need for them to "guess" or say it "could" be etc.

BTW: I saw you earlier post. I tracked it and the claim seemed to originate with Hillary herself (at least given the links you posted etc.).

Fern

So you've now gone from, classified info that originated from non classified sources can't happen to, well it's just speculation and we don't know for sure.

That's probably as close as we are going to get to you admitting you were wrong so I'll take it.

 

[Jhhnn]

The sources certainly implied that the accounts were on the server, but I agree that it wasn't explicitly stated.

They snookered you in the first paragraph-

At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

Of course there were other accounts- belonging to the people who sent the information & those she discussed it with, like her aides. The accounts could have been hosted anywhere.

"Too damaging to release" is a great way to spin it. Too bad for Fox & friends that she didn't release it, huh?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That "article" is a perfect example of how the right-wing media uses speculation and innuendo to mislead their audience. Consider these phrases:

no public evidence
could be as high as
reveal a universal feeling
most opine
if they had apparently compromised
without access ... it was hard to ascertain ... disclosure of human spying intelligence ...
is undoubtedly conducting
​

And those are just from the first six paragraphs. All of them mark speculation or innuendo rather than actual facts. It's a slimy substitute for actual journalism. At least Fox used weasel words. When this story is repeated by its less reputable clones, many of these insinuations will be reported as facts. That is how one tells the rubes what they want to hear.

I agree...not very good journalism at all. It seems as though both the source and the reporter don't fully understand what their talking about regarding the accounts. I actually meant to say this earlier but got side-tracked and forgot about it. Now I'm the biggest hypocrite on the forum in another thread! lol This place rocks!

 

[buckshot24]

I see that dude has quit defending the idea that snopes said what he claimed he said. The closest thing he can come to a concession, I suppose.

 

[fskimospy]

I see that dude has quit defending the idea that snopes said what he claimed he said. The closest thing he can come to a concession, I suppose.

My position is the same as before, and my interpretation is not only reasonable, it's the obvious conclusion to make.

You're doing a really bad job of ignoring me, by the way. The only thing more pathetic than your 'list' is the fact that you can't even adhere to your own rules.

 

[Fern]

So you've now gone from, classified info that originated from non classified sources can't happen to, well it's just speculation and we don't know for sure.

That's probably as close as we are going to get to you admitting you were wrong so I'll take it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I've never said that a link about, say, a NYT article couldn't be classified.

I am saying that, contrary to your assertion if I understood you correctly, we don't know that any of the 22 super top secret emails were about such newspaper links.

Fern