FBI: Hillary Clinton Didn't Know 'C' in Emails Meant Classified
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
The FBI identified three e-mail chain, encompassing eight individual e-mail exchanges to or from Clinton's personal e-mail accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked "(C)," a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. The emails contained no additional markings, such as a header or footer, indicating that they were classified. State confirmed through the FOIA review process that one of these three e-mail chains contains information which is currently classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. State determined that the other two e-mail chains are currently UNCLASSIFIED. State did not provide a determination as to whether any of these three e-mails were classified at the time they were sent.
When asked about the e-mail chain containing "C" portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated she did not know what the "(C)" means at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. Clinton identified tied a "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer (inserted in the document by the FBI prior to the interview) and asked if the "(C)" related to the "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer. Clinton did not believe the content of the e-mail was classified and questioned the classification determination. When asked of her knowledge regarding TOP SECRET, SECTET, and CONFIDENTIAL classification levels of USG information, Clinton responded that she did not pay attention to the "level" of classification and took all classified information seriously.
I am really shocked at the level of incompetence here. Even 20 years ago we had 300,000 to 450,000 probes and hack attempts on that one network alone, on a weekly basis. It seems almost certain that her emails were compromised.
Destroying them is inexcusable, at the very least those records could have been used to determine what data had been potentially compromised.
I can't imagine what went on at the State Department where this kind of thing could happen. And, it isn't just Hillary Clinton who is guilty here.
I remember the first day after my security clearance and background checks completed, they spent several hours explaining security policies to me; that felony charges would be brought against me if I walked out the gate with so much as a hard copy of an internal email. I only had the lowest level of clearance for "classified" of "confidential" and even then only as was relevant to performing my job. There were entire buildings in our complex that had "secret" data, and only certain members of our team could investigate those systems for potential intrusions.
Even at that level, when you work with potentially classified material, the default behavior is to act is if all information is classified. If you want to published, or release information, it needs to checked and approved, even if it's not sensitive, just to be sure.
The only excuse I can possibly imagine, is that the clintonemail.com server was actually an elaborate ruse to leak misinformation to foreign actors.
Being marked as classified was not something I would expect, instead you should operate as if all information is sensitive. Act as if information must be white-listed for public release. Much how the FBI is handling the data, each piece of information must be reviewed before release.
The excuse of "not marked as classified" is akin to a thief using "not marked as don't steal" to justify theft.
That doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure why it doesn't make sense.
Removing any information, classified or not, off site is a huge no no. The fact that it was confidential information, that was later marked as such does not change the nature of the information.
Worst of all is how sloppy everyone involved in this fiasco has been. I feel bad for Obama, what a cluster!
> Also remember the official state server at the time was also confirmed hacked.
Look, clearly Hillary engaged in unsafe IT practices. Could it be she was phished? Maybe she was the one who enabled the hack!
That reason and the one you've given sound like a dodge.
Fact is, if she even tangentially admitted to knowingly transmitting information _marked_ confidential off State networks (which she did), she'd be guilty of multiple crimes and none of her friends could save her. She would be frog-marched off to the hoosegow. Hence, the endless excuses, waving-off, and feigned ignorance.
The drip, drip, drip of damning evidence will continue and to save her skin all she can do is shrug absent-mindedly.
I don't know the practices at the state department, but for my section, the guideline was, "Just assume everything is sensitive, protect it, and you won't have any problems."
Compiling a list of networked computers by IP and OS, that data would be considered sensitive, and obviously not to be removed off site, but would not be marked in any way.
From a practical perspective, the "not marked as classified" doesn't really make sense to me, it may have some legal merit, but I couldn't speak to that.
"[Confidential] is defined as information that would 'damage' national security if publicly disclosed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_...
Good point. Though original quote still makes sense as "Confidential" is a classification level. So (C) does mean classified, as does (S) and (TS)
Only 3 of the 30,000+ emails had these markings. The C marking in the body on its own is not a proper or common method of classification. Comey said that missing this was entirely reasonable in his explanation. This is a non story.
It kinda makes me miss Bush.
You mean how they knowingly and willfully revealed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent as payback against her husband who had written an article critical about the basis for the Iraqi War?
In which respect?
Wasn't the Bush administration guilty of a similar offense -- albeit on a much larger scale?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
I roll my eyes at the excuses given for all her money/power related moves while at State, especially when she could have compromised our agents or moles with her carelessness. She was abysmal as top diplomat (russia reset, all for cratering Syria, Libya and Egypt governments, Benghazi CIA cluster f-). And the whole thing with the Clinton Foundation and her "private" (ClintonEmail.com) email server is icing on the cake - just stinks of pay-to-play, pure greed.
She's going to win the presidency, not go to jail or ever be impeached, and she's a terrible person. All that is acceptable to me because Hillary Clinton is just one of those problems that is out of my control.
But yes, of course, complaining online doesn't really do much to influence the ruling class.
Reading comprehension for a start.
Last I checked this was supposed to be a forum for people who thought they could change the world, and make it a better place. If you don't think you can handle that, or have no ideas, maybe you don't belong here. We don't need people who's only contribution is "We're all completely helpless, there's nothing we can do!". You' re an engineer, you solve problems. Act the fuck like it.
Cynicism at this point is nothing but laziness.
You want a clue though? Maybe you should look locally and understand the problems there. If you're in San Francisco, there's plenty of things to do to get your feet wet.
The one I've heard cited is this one:
This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind".
"Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
If some or all have proven to be lies then she should have been indicted.