http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/22/1st-batch-clinton-emails-to-be-released-around-1230-pm/?intcmp=latestnews
Here is what DOS put out during the same period:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-statement-q-and-a/24718561/
"Was classified material sent or received by Secretary Clinton on this email address?
No. A separate, closed system was used by the Department for the sole purpose of handling classified communications which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system, including to outside email accounts.
At specific issue is a communication Clinton received from one of her deputies after the Benghazi attack that discussed possible arrests of suspects by Libyan authorities. It was not classified at the time, but has been re-classified Friday at the request of the FBI."
Below is more detailed information on the communication in question.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/ar-BBk6FOI?ocid=iehp
"Because the information was not classified at the time the email was sent, no laws were violated. But Friday's redaction shows that Clinton received information considered sensitive on her unsecured personal server, which came to light just as she was beginning her presidential campaign."
At specific issue is a communication Clinton received from one of her deputies after the Benghazi attack that discussed possible arrests of suspects by Libyan authorities. It was not classified at the time, but has been re-classified Friday at the request of the FBI."
Below is more detailed information on the communication in question.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/ar-BBk6FOI?ocid=iehp
"Because the information was not classified at the time the email was sent, no laws were violated. But Friday's redaction shows that Clinton received information considered sensitive on her unsecured personal server, which came to light just as she was beginning her presidential campaign."
Funny, and maybe I just misremember it (someone please correct me), but I am under the impression that "Sensitive" IS, or at least at one time WAS, a classification in its own right, and that while a document so classified did not involve national security, it still required certain additional protective handling nonetheless, with I believe no public dissemination. Totally different from "unclassified". As I said, I may be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would note that among the faulty intelligence reporters, one was none other than Bush's CIA Director, George Tenet, a Democrat and Clinton holdover, who on multiple occasions advised Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq had WMD, nuke programs, etc.
A conspiracist (one of which I which I am not but who are out there in some masse) might be suspicious (or paranoid??)
True.When I was working overseas with DEA we used State's communication system to send cables to our other offices. (That was the days before emails and texting.) Naturally, our messages were not necessarily involving national security although sometimes they could be classified "secret". The usually classification we used was "DEA sensitive." They involved investigations and required a degree of care in transmission and handling. If she was getting messages from Blumenthal about the situation in Libya, that was by nature sensitive.
ReplyDeleteGary--thanks, I have in the past held both Top Secret and SCI clearances, and that is pretty much the way I recall it.
ReplyDeleteOl' Sid, as a non-government employee, obviously could not ""officially" classify anything he sent to Hill. Admissions have been made that her e-mail correspondence with him and others contained "sensitive" material.
It would appear that any responses she made to him referencing this matter, or any of his messages she passed on, as she has admitted doing, should have been under a "Sensitive" label at the very least (The FBI has very recently, I believe, classified some of her e-mail content as "Secret", which is even worse.
Looks to me like a case of either gross incompetence or willful arrogance/disregard for established policy/procedure, if not outright criminal behavior.
Aren't they still after the WikiLeaks dude??