danivon wrote:So the evidence you have that information Clinton sent was classified at the time is...?

bbauska wrote:Nice sidestep of the hypothetical question from Mrs. Clinton.

She should have answered if she would have pulled out of the race if indicted.

Doctor Fate wrote:She was the freaking Secretary of State! She was responsible for knowing what was classified. That's part of her job.

She then added her now standard explanation that nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, the distinction appears misleading. The January 2009 classified information non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton says she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, as well as verbal communications.

Classification is based on content, not markings.

The intelligence source said the FBI is "extremely focused" on the 22 “top secret” emails deemed too damaging to national security to publicly release under any circumstances, with agents reviewing those sent by Clinton as well her subordinates including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.

"Mrs. Clinton sending them in this instance would show her intent much more than would receiving [them],” the source said. "Hillary Clinton was at a minimum grossly negligent in her handling of NDI [National Defense Information] materials merely by her insisting that she utilize a private server versus a [U.S. government] server. Remember, NDI does not have to be classified." According to the Congressional Research Service, NDI is broadly defined to include “information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security.”

It was emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate “creation” and “control” of the private server used for her official government business is the subject of intense scrutiny. Pagliano knows key details as to how the private server was installed and maintained in her home.

The 22 “top secret” emails are not public, but in a Jan. 14 unclassified letter, first reported by Fox News, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III notified Congress of the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies identifying "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to other emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.

. . .

The intelligence source described the morale of agents as "very good and nobody is moping around which is the first sign a big case is going south."

danivon wrote:Without knowing what that information was, how can you be sure it should have been obvious that it was classified at the time?

Ironically, because it is now classified, we aren't allowed to know. But it could be - as Powell asserted for the items he had passed on - fairly innocuous.

The rest is conjecture.

freeman3 wrote:Not convinced. For one thing, the statute talks he cited talked about knowingly removes . For emails she received she did not knowingly remove them from an authorized location.

It's also talking about documents and materials, not classified information itself. An email she wrote would not be removing documents and materials to an unauthorized location because it never was in an authorized location. Applying these statutes-- obviously meant to refer to taking physical documents out of a secure location--to emails is dubious

And the writer does not break any new ground as to the content of the emails that purportedly should have made Clinton aware they were classified even though not marked. Of course, he can't do that because we don't know the content...

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Not convinced. For one thing, the statute talks he cited talked about knowingly removes . For emails she received she did not knowingly remove them from an authorized location.

Think for a moment. Email #1 containing classified info comes to her. It's not marked, but she reads the contents. She is Secretary of State. Has she no responsibility to act?

Email #2 comes to her with classified email. This is becoming a problem, she thinks to herself, and does nothing.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Not convinced. For one thing, the statute talks he cited talked about knowingly removes . For emails she received she did not knowingly remove them from an authorized location.

Think for a moment. Email #1 containing classified info comes to her. It's not marked, but she reads the contents. She is Secretary of State. Has she no responsibility to act?

Email #2 comes to her with classified email. This is becoming a problem, she thinks to herself, and does nothing.

Again, without knowing the content of the emails, what makes you certain it should have been obvious at the time?

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

rickyp wrote:U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)

So THIS is the department that should have disallowed the use of private servers because it couldn't guarantee secure use?