The daily revelations over classified information finding its way onto Hillary Clinton's personal email server are raising perplexing questions for former government officials who wonder how classified information made its way onto the former secretary of state's non-classified server -- especially since the two systems are not connected.

"It is hard to move classified documents into the non-classified system. You couldn't move a document by mistake," said Willes Lee, a former operations officer for the U.S. Army in Europe and former operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach confirmed the two systems don't connect. "The classified and unclassified system are separate and you cannot email between the two," Gerlach told Fox News.

The Clinton campaign adamantly denies any emails traversing Clinton's homebrew server were marked classified at the time. The intelligence community inspector general says "potentially hundreds" of classified emails may be in the mix, but acknowledges at least some were not properly marked.

So if the Clinton denial is to be believed, individuals in her inner circle would have simply typed or scanned classified information into a non-classified system without regard for its contents. In this case, emails would have started in, and stayed in, the unclassified system -- albeit improperly, based on the findings of the intelligence inspector general.

But if it turns out emails literally jumped from the classified to the non-classified system -- something the State Department claims cannot happen -- it would seem to point to Clinton's staff going to great lengths to create a work-around to do so.

A government employee doing so would commit numerous felonies, according to Bradford Higgins, who served as assistant secretary of state for resource management and chief financial officer from 2006-2009. "A violation, in addition to criminal charges and potential prosecution, would likely mean that person who committed the breach would never again be given a security clearance," Higgins said.

The State Department has indicated it sees no evidence of this criminal scenario. Classified documents are supposed to be marked, and State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters at an Aug. 13 briefing "we have no indications" any classification markings were stripped. Clinton's defense has been that the emails in question were later deemed classified, after they traversed her server.

But Higgins is skeptical.

"Emails don't change from unclassified to classified. The originator of the email decides the classification before it is sent out based on basic protocols, not subsequent readers," Higgins said. "I believe it would be highly unusual for an unclassified email to later become classified."

Regardless of how it happened, Lee faulted Clinton and her staff.

"It is not as if Hillary Clinton and her staff do not know the rules and the law," he said.

"I think what it is going to come down to is very sloppy, unprofessional procedures," said Steven Bucci, assistant to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now at The Heritage Foundation.

While government watchdogs looking into the Clinton emails say classified material was improperly sent or received, so far they have not publicly alleged that emails jumped between systems.

My column on the home-page today is a refutation of the laughable defense of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information offered by the former Obama-appointed U.S. attorney who gave David Petraeus a sweetheart misdemeanor plea deal over his mishandling of classified information … and who is now a donor to Clinton’s presidential campaign. In it, I make a point that our friend Shannen Coffin nailed last night on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program: Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she was unaware that many of her emails contained classified information is untenable – in fact, it is remarkable that she and her pom-pom squad (to say nothing of Obama administration officials) dare to make it with a straight face. Clinton rationalizes that because the emails were not stamped classified, she could not have been expected to know they were classified. As I’ve been emphasizing since March, she is trying to exploit the public’s unfamiliarity with the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the former are obviously classified because they are marked as such; the latter, because of its nature, is well known to national security officials to be classified – regardless of whether it is marked as such or even written down at all. Now, we have an easily understandable demonstration of this distinction – and, hence, of Mrs. Clinton’s undeniable knowledge that she was pervasively exchanging classified information over her private email system. In the first year of his administration (December 29, 2009, to be exact), President Obama issued Executive Order 13526, entitled “Classified National Security Information.” It explains that information is deemed classified if its disclosure would cause “damage to the national security.” Beyond that, whether the classified information is categorized as “top secret,” “secret,” or “confidential” depends on how serious the damage would be. With that as background, the order makes clear that there is one category of information that is automatically deemed classified: information from foreign governments. Section 1.1(d) of the executive order decrees: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” The reason for this is plain: It is not just the often sensitive nature of diplomatic communications; it is the fact that, in order to protect our national security, the United States must rely on intelligence from foreign governments; if our government does not keep that information strictly confidential, the foreign governments will be unwilling to share it – endangering American lives. As Secretary of State, Clinton not only knew this elementary rule; it was her duty to ensure that the rule was followed throughout her department. As has been clear from the beginning, and is now patent after the latest disclosure of a subset of 6,000 of the emails Clinton deigned to preserve, at least 125 of which reportedly contain classified information, the emails Clinton sent, received and stored via her private server system were rife with information from foreign governments. This information was born classified. It makes no difference that these emails were not stamped “top secret”; all national security officials with security clearances know that foreign government information is deemed classified and must be handled as such. Period. Indeed, since it is the State Department that deals most directly with foreign governments, the Secretary of State has the highest obligation and interest when it comes to assuring them that the information they share with the U.S. government is being handled with appropriate care.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... c-mccarthy

There are other classified e-mails in this tranche that originated with Hillary and went to other State Department officials. This e-mail is more notable because of its transmission outside of State’s personnel. Sid Blumenthal did not work in the Obama administration — Rahm Emanuel expressly forbid him to be hired anywhere in the federal government, especially State — and thus was out of the need-to-know loop, especially on top-level diplomatic talks. Where was Blumenthal working when this message (and others) went out? At the Clinton Foundation.

Yet here Hillary is, sending him updates on negotiations with Germany’s Angela Merkel and Tony Blair, which are obviously too sensitive to send out over an unauthorized and unsecure mode of transmission. On top of that, she’s sharing it with someone not cleared for this information even when properly transmitted.

Davis continues:

The bulk of Hillary Clinton’s message to Blumenthal was redacted, under codes 1.4(D) and 1.4(B) because classification authorities determined it contained classified information “which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security[.]” As was the case with other e-mails where Clinton originated classified information, authorities determined that the information was classified at birth and did not allow declassification until November of 2024 — 15 years after the e-mail was written and sent by Hillary, rather than 15 years after the information was marked.

The 2009 executive order signed by Obama states that U.S. officials who negligently disclose classified information to unauthorized individuals are subject to any and all federal sanctions provided for by law.

The two codes mark this as dealing with “foreign government information” and “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” The declassification date is set for November 2024, fifteen years after Hillary created the document. That clearly shows that the data was classified “at birth,” and as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had to know that top-level diplomatic discussions would have been too sensitive to share in this manner and with this particular person.

David Freddoso also reminds us that not only was this an unsecured transmission method, we know it got hacked at least once:

(Tweet wherein Freddoso notes that Blumenthal had been hacked)


All of this fills in the requisites for 18 USC 793, with or without classification. Hillary appears to have originated obviously sensitive material and transmitted it through an unauthorized system to deliver it to someone who was not authorized to access it. That person eventually had his system hacked, which almost certainly exposed that information.

On July 25, 2010, Clinton sent an email to Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell. The subject line read “Here’s my personal email,” and only had a short message: “[Please] use this for reply– HRC.”

Mitchell emailed her back two hours later. “I talked with [Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini] again and went over the point again. He said he understands and agrees,” he began. The rest of the email is blanked out, indicating that the State Department team releasing Clinton’s emails recognized that the information it contained was classified.

She directed George Mitchell to send a report on a diplomatic effort involving the Middle East to her personal e-mail. This is “knowingly,” as Cooper points out in a following tweet.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That fact that whether or not something gets classified is not the issu[e/quote]
Since some of the material was classified after the emails were sent....yeah its an issue.
Since a lot of the information that is classified probably has no reason to be ...yeah.
(In the story i linked there was a reference to information being classified. that was in the news papers...

If indeed they find a tidbit here or there it won't be a big deal. Hell, you let people off for trading for hostages with Iran in the 80s.


I'm pretty sure if its worth knowing Snowden has already leaked it..

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That fact that whether or not something gets classified is not the issu[e/quote]
Since some of the material was classified after the emails were sent....yeah its an issue.

freeman3 wrote:It would be interesting to see an analysis from some conservative lawyers with regard to whether there is any criminal culpability for HIllary. Has Eugene Volokh given an opinion? Yesterday, I cited an article citing legal experts familiar with these types of cases that there is no case here against Hillary. Hearing opinions from non-lawyer conservatives who are not familiar with the intricacies involved here is not very convincing. I would be interested in seeing an opinion from a well-respected conservative lawyer, however.

Are you saying it is not a problem that laws were not followed if some of the material was classified, but "had no reason to be"?

That is lawlessness.

After all, they were pardoned after the convictions

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are you saying it is not a problem that laws were not followed if some of the material was classified, but "had no reason to be"?

That is lawlessness.

You have hundreds of laws on the books which are disregarded by law enforcement because of the circumstances. Some are petty. Some are out dated. Some have past their effectiveness.

To pointlessly insist that there deserves to be prosecution for a technical transgression because material which was classified after it had been widely circulated OR which had no reason to be classified in the first place is stupid. It would be like insisting that the police prosecute every single jay walker.

If there are transgression by Clinton, they appear to have been 1) unintentional 2) very few 3) inconsequential.

This is just another over hyped witch hunt akin to Ben Ghazi and the ad nauseum hearings and investigations... . Which merely cemented support for Hillary with about 40% of the populace who saw the nonsense for what it was... Abuse of the system by political hacks.

danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

Freeman has a point - while the Clinton haters are loving this and shouting up and down their echo chamber, does Joe Schmoe know or even care that much?

Unless there is an indictment, could they not just ignore it or put it down to partisan desperation in the face of such a poor set of opposing options? A witch hunt that is reminiscent of other witch hunts of the past.

I would rather another Democrat than Hillary was chosen to run on that ticket. Especially one called Sanders. But what we may want is not necessarily going to be provided forums by the American electorate.

At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.

The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources -- one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department's legal office, the designation was switched to "B5" -- also known as "deliberative process," which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.

The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content "down a deep black hole."

According to recent congressional testimony, at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who now handles the release of documents to the Benghazi select committee and once worked for the same firm as Clinton's private attorney David Kendall.

Fox News is told there were internal department complaints that Duval, and a second lawyer also linked to Kendall, gave at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest during the email review. A State Department spokesman did not dispute the basic facts of the incident, confirming to Fox News the disagreement over the four classified emails as well as the internal complaints. But the spokesman said the concerns were unfounded.

The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server. The incident was referenced in a Washington Times report mid-August, but this is the first time fuller details have been available. Because the emails are now marked B5, or deliberative, it is impossible to know the content and relevance to the congressional and FBI investigations.

The internal State Department disagreement was so significant that it rose to the level of Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who is deeply involved in the email controversy, as Clinton's server arrangement required his formal signoff or tacit approval. Asked who signed off on the private server on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, "I personally don't know."

Conservative group Judicial Watch, which has more than a dozen civil suits in federal courts, is now seeking a deposition of Kennedy in a case scrutinizing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s controversial status as a special government employee (SGE). “All these issues fall under his responsibility,” Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell said.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Are you saying it is not a problem that laws were not followed if some of the material was classified, but "had no reason to be"?

That is lawlessness.

You have hundreds of laws on the books which are disregarded by law enforcement because of the circumstances. Some are petty. Some are out dated. Some have past their effectiveness.

To pointlessly insist that there deserves to be prosecution for a technical transgression because material which was classified after it had been widely circulated OR which had no reason to be classified in the first place is stupid. It would be like insisting that the police prosecute every single jay walker.
If there are transgression by Clinton, they appear to have been 1) unintentional 2) very few 3) inconsequential.
This is just another over hyped witch hunt akin to Ben Ghazi and the ad nauseum hearings and investigations... . Which merely cemented support for Hillary with about 40% of the populace who saw the nonsense for what it was... Abuse of the system by political hacks.


bbauska

After all, they were pardoned after the convictions

.
So you believe everyone responsible was charged and tried? And you believe that the consequences for those who transgressed were measured and fair?

On the philosophical consideration....
The Chinese never developed a legal system the way that the US has in part because there was a conflict between Confusian thought and legal proponents. The Confusions believe that only a wise judge can weigh all of the elements of a situation and render a verdict that is true justice.
Strict adherence to laws often leads to injustice. Laws like three strikes and drug possession have put millions in prison and resulted in poisoned society. Poisoned by the break down of families, the misery of the imprisoned unjustly and the enormous wasteful cost to society.
Do you want laws bbauska or do you want justice? Enforcement of law isn't always justice.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

Prove that was the case.

Freeman has a point - while the Clinton haters are loving this and shouting up and down their echo chamber, does Joe Schmoe know or even care that much?

See the polls.

Oh, and the FBI is not investigating for their health.

I would rather another Democrat than Hillary was chosen to run on that ticket. Especially one called Sanders. But what we may want is not necessarily going to be provided forums by the American electorate.

How about an honest Democrat? Any of the others are far more trustworthy.

. If she is found guilty, does it matter to you that she does not handle classified material properly?