Clinton emails contained classified material

[kent]

NEW YORK, July 24 (Reuters) - At least four emails from the private email account that former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used while in office contained classified information, according to a government inspector's letter that deepened the email controversy dogging Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.

The inspector general of the intelligence community wrote in a letter to members of Congress on Thursday that a sampling of 40 of 30,000 Clinton emails found at least four that should have been classified as secret.

The information in the emails was derived from the U.S. intelligence community "and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure network," the inspector general, Charles McCullough, wrote. His letter was made available on Friday on a House of Representatives website.

Clinton's use of her private email account for her work as America's top diplomat came to light in March and drew fire from political opponents who accused her of sidestepping transparency and record-keeping laws.

The former first lady has said she sent no classified information on her private email account. The inspector general's comments left open the possibility that Clinton sent or received emails with classified material that she was not aware of.

The front-runner to represent the Democratic Party in the November 2016 election, Clinton has repeatedly said she broke no laws or rules by eschewing a standard government email account.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials."

Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails from the private account to the State Department after she quit in 2013, but many thousands of others that she says are not related to her work were deleted.

"We are all accountable to the American people to get the facts right, and I will do my part," Clinton said at a speech in New York, noting she had handed over tens of thousands of pages of emails.

McCullough said State Department officials had told his office "that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."

Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have seized on the email scandal to portray Clinton as continuing secretive practices they say they also characterized President Bill Clinton's eight years in office.

While Clinton faces little competition for the Democratic Party's nomination, several recent polls have found a majority of voters find her untrustworthy, a perception exacerbated by controversy over her emails.

The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it is weighing a request by two government inspectors to look into the possible mishandling of classified information from Clinton's private email account.

The department said earlier in the day it had been asked to treat the issue as a potential criminal matter, but later backtracked to drop a reference to any criminal investigation.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-emails-contained-classified-material-us-inspector/ar-AAdqX9J

[Phoenix84]

And many want a woman like this to be president?

[TheHaitian]

Jul 25, 2015 18:04:45 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

And many want a woman like this to be president?

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

[joemilitary]

Jul 25, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Jul 25, 2015 18:04:45 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

And many want a woman like this to be president?

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

It's basically leaking classified info

Petraeus lost his job over it as CIA guy

POTUS is higher than CIA guy....I think this disqualifies her....but I am sure the zombies will say otherwise

[Phoenix84]

Jul 25, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Jul 25, 2015 18:04:45 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

And many want a woman like this to be president?

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

[mmhmm]

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 25, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Who is in prison for doing what she did?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 25, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Quite a bit would depend to whom she sent the classified information using her private account. If they were cleared to receive the information, then she did not illegally pass along classified information.

[Jaguar]

I've heard her state she was not even aware that she received classified info.

www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/

news.yahoo.com/justice-department-asked-probe-hillary-clintons-email-nyt-044808244.html

[mmhmm]

Jul 25, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Quite a bit would depend to whom she sent the classified information using her private account. If they were cleared to receive the information, then she did not illegally pass along classified information.

Precisely, Tenn. At this time, considering the laws that were in effect at the time this whole bruhaha started, what Mrs. Clinton did has not been proven to have been illegal.

Here are the laws that apply:

The Laws

At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

The above are more clearly defined in the article from which they came, found HERE.
(It's even from a conservative-approved site!)   

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 25, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

You are seriously stating that this basically disqualify her as a future president?

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Donald Trump is leading in the Republican polls. Conservatives want him. Do you want someone as president who can't even keep the personal cell phone number of a fellow Republican contender private?

[NoNamePerson]

Geeze, the information was probably already known by our enemies.  This country probably has less security in place than I have on my own PC  

[Phoenix84]

So you're saying it's no big deal? That she's completely and utterly trustworthy?

I wish I could be so naive, must be nice.

[Phoenix84]

Jul 25, 2015 20:20:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Donald Trump is leading in the Republican polls. Conservatives want him. Do you want someone as president who can't even keep the personal cell phone number of a fellow Republican contender private?

I don't want Donald Trump as president, I think he's a jackass.

This thread is about Ms. Clinton.

[NoNamePerson]

Jul 25, 2015 21:10:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

So you're saying it's no big deal? That she's completely and utterly trustworthy?

I wish I could be so naive, must be nice.

Was this in reply to my post? If so, I'm not naive in the least. I think all politicians from the lowest to the highest are scum, liars, untrustworthy bottom feeders. But we just have to have them in office I guess. If thinking that our secrets are already out there makes me naive then I plead guilty. They are paid for by the highest bidder.

[joemilitary]

Jul 25, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2015 19:55:54 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I guess that all depends on whether or not you think it's ok for a president to cause harm to the country.

Classified information is classified because disclosure will cause harm to the United States.  We don't classify stuff just for the hell of it or because it looks cool.

People are in prison for doing what she did.  Regardless, even if it was an accident and she didn't know, is such a careless person the kind you want to entrust with the nation's highest secrets?

Quite a bit would depend to whom she sent the classified information using her private account. If they were cleared to receive the information, then she did not illegally pass along classified information.

Classified info is sent on a special classified internet network with high security against being hacked. 

Once you place classified info on a "regular" network, you have now made it more easy to be hacked.  Simply doing that is a violation of classified info and punishable.  So even if the party she emailed was cleared to have the info, they weren't cleared to have it on an Unclassified network.

Moving classified info from a classified network to an unclassified network is a violation (Chinese hacker may now have the info). 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2015 21:11:31 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 25, 2015 20:20:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Donald Trump is leading in the Republican polls. Conservatives want him. Do you want someone as president who can't even keep the personal cell phone number of a fellow Republican contender private?

I don't want Donald Trump as president, I think he's a jackass.

This thread is about Ms. Clinton.

Meh.

You spoke of Clinton and secrets and why she shouldn't be president. I simply brought up another presidential candidate who cannot even keep someone else's cell phone number secret.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 25, 2015 21:22:59 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Jul 25, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Quite a bit would depend to whom she sent the classified information using her private account. If they were cleared to receive the information, then she did not illegally pass along classified information.

Classified info is sent on a special classified internet network with high security against being hacked. 

Once you place classified info on a "regular" network, you have now made it more easy to be hacked.  Simply doing that is a violation of classified info and punishable.  So even if the party she emailed was cleared to have the info, they weren't cleared to have it on an Unclassified network.

Moving classified info from a classified network to an unclassified network is a violation (Chinese hacker may now have the info). 

Time will tell, won't it.

I just hope Republicans don't start 8-10 investigations after each previous investigation is found to be without merit like they are doing with Benghazi.

[joemilitary]

it could be "without merit".........or it could be cover ups and people getting away with stuff

remember for the first year or 2, Watergate was "without merit" too.......so you never know

but sending classified info over an unclassified unofficial network definitely is a security violation....whether anything actually comes of it is another story

[mmhmm]

Jul 25, 2015 21:22:59 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Jul 25, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Quite a bit would depend to whom she sent the classified information using her private account. If they were cleared to receive the information, then she did not illegally pass along classified information.

Classified info is sent on a special classified internet network with high security against being hacked. 

Once you place classified info on a "regular" network, you have now made it more easy to be hacked.  Simply doing that is a violation of classified info and punishable.  So even if the party she emailed was cleared to have the info, they weren't cleared to have it on an Unclassified network.

Moving classified info from a classified network to an unclassified network is a violation (Chinese hacker may now have the info). 

Please pardon my guffaw, but I feel pretty confident the data on my home computer is more secure than that on the computers of government agencies; especially, considering the rate at which said government agencies are being hacked, classified internet network, or not.

As far as illegality, you might want to check the link I provided in my earlier post. So far, there is no proof Mrs. Clinton violated any law.

[OldCoyote]

I am sure that we had a third party completely independent of any political motivation,  go through the 30,000 now deleted emails just to make sure that they were indeed personal, Right?

Sure,  Why would you trust someone that have a huge interest in covering up any "bad News" to go through their own emails to judge if it meets the some kind of standard?

If oldcoyote was under some indictment,  How many here would trust me to go through my emails,  make a determination if I wanted you to see them?

Oldcoyote is far more ethical than Hilliary.

[OldCoyote]

Big difference?  He was arrested, released on $100,000 bond.   All he did was take a picture.

www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-kristian-saucier-sub-secrets-0725-20150724-story.html 

Ahhh that's right,  He is not a Presidential candidate.

[joemilitary]

Jul 25, 2015 21:54:29 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 25, 2015 21:11:31 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I don't want Donald Trump as president, I think he's a jackass.

This thread is about Ms. Clinton.

Meh.

You spoke of Clinton and secrets and why she shouldn't be president. I simply brought up another presidential candidate who cannot even keep someone else's cell phone number secret.

The difference is Clinton is the democratic candidate. Trump is a side show.

The other difference is the severity. Allegedly Using email improperly with classified info vs giving away a politicians cell number

[joemilitary]

Jul 25, 2015 23:26:04 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 25, 2015 21:22:59 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Classified info is sent on a special classified internet network with high security against being hacked. 

Once you place classified info on a "regular" network, you have now made it more easy to be hacked.  Simply doing that is a violation of classified info and punishable.  So even if the party she emailed was cleared to have the info, they weren't cleared to have it on an Unclassified network.

Moving classified info from a classified network to an unclassified network is a violation (Chinese hacker may now have the info). 

Please pardon my guffaw, but I feel pretty confident the data on my home computer is more secure than that on the computers of government agencies; especially, considering the rate at which said government agencies are being hacked, classified internet network, or not.

As far as illegality, you might want to check the link I provided in my earlier post. So far, there is no proof Mrs. Clinton violated any law.

Whether or not your home computer is more secure doesn't matter. You can't have classified info on an unofficial network.

As far as any possible illegality. From your own post, she MIGHT be found to have violated this

"......]Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison........"

[mmhmm]

Jul 26, 2015 10:42:20 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Jul 25, 2015 23:26:04 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Please pardon my guffaw, but I feel pretty confident the data on my home computer is more secure than that on the computers of government agencies; especially, considering the rate at which said government agencies are being hacked, classified internet network, or not.

As far as illegality, you might want to check the link I provided in my earlier post. So far, there is no proof Mrs. Clinton violated any law.

Whether or not your home computer is more secure doesn't matter. You can't have classified info on an unofficial network.

As far as any possible illegality. From your own post, she MIGHT be found to have violated this

"......]Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison........"

What she might have been found to do doesn't convict her of anything, though. It appears, because of the laws at the time, there's no evidence she's guilty of anything. Certain factions have been doing their dead level darnedest to convict her of something but they just can't seem to get the job done.

[joemilitary]

Jul 26, 2015 11:59:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 26, 2015 10:42:20 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Whether or not your home computer is more secure doesn't matter. You can't have classified info on an unofficial network.

As far as any possible illegality. From your own post, she MIGHT be found to have violated this

"......]Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison........"

What she might have been found to do doesn't convict her of anything, though. It appears, because of the laws at the time, there's no evidence she's guilty of anything. Certain factions have been doing their dead level darnedest to convict her of something but they just can't seem to get the job done.

I agree she is not / has not been convicted of anything.  There is a PROCESS.  I believe they are following the PROCESS.  I believe the evidence that there may be CLASSIFIED emails on her private account is NEW.  If it is, they have to investigate / use the PROCESS on this new information.  If I am understanding wrong please let me know.

If it is true that she has classified info on her personal email I believe it is a violation.  Whether or not anything happens, we'll see.  I have access to classified info and I am sure if I had classified info on my personal email I would be in trouble, but maybe I am wrong

[mmhmm]

Jul 26, 2015 12:08:15 GMT -5 joemilitary said:

Jul 26, 2015 11:59:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

What she might have been found to do doesn't convict her of anything, though. It appears, because of the laws at the time, there's no evidence she's guilty of anything. Certain factions have been doing their dead level darnedest to convict her of something but they just can't seem to get the job done.

I agree she is not / has not been convicted of anything.  There is a PROCESS.  I believe they are following the PROCESS.  I believe the evidence that there may be CLASSIFIED emails on her private account is NEW.  If it is, they have to investigate / use the PROCESS on this new information.  If I am understanding wrong please let me know.

If it is true that she has classified info on her personal email I believe it is a violation.  Whether or not anything happens, we'll see.  I have access to classified info and I am sure if I had classified info on my personal email I would be in trouble, but maybe I am wrong

Yes, they're working on it. I don't blame them. I'd be looking at it, too. Some wording in the relevant laws has been changed since this whole thing happened. If it's found she had classified material in her personal email it may be found to be a violation. First, though, it has to be found and proven. I'm not one to convict by public opinion; nor, am I one to convict by what I think might be true when I haven't really seen any of the evidence and am not cognizant enough about the laws then vs now to offer forth such an opinion. That's me, though. I was just pointing out that no proof has yet been offered up and we don't know that any will be found.

[djAdvocate]

i have been watching Hillary maneuver around things for over 20 years, now.  i seriously doubt they will get her on this.