Hilary email

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

At a minimum, Spence...what do you think of her initial claims that her server only had wedding plans, yoga schedules, things like that?

I don't think she ever claimed that.

But anyway, you're getting your emails confused. The IG report is not about the same emails in your second link. FOX is spinning you around so fast the stories are getting all mixed together.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think she ever claimed that.

But anyway, you're getting your emails confused. The IG report is not about the same emails in your second link. FOX is spinning you around so fast the stories are getting all mixed together.

I see...

So, then, what about the 2 emails that were top secret (or higher) at the time they hit her server?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I see...

So, then, what about the 2 emails that were top secret (or higher) at the time they hit her server?

I believe the situation here was that State acquired information through a casual channel they didn't deem should be classified while another agency acquired the same information through a more sensitive channel that they did deem was classified.

But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time. The DNI got involved to review the discrepancy...

"DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.”

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Quote:
"DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.”

...

Clinton, Clapper and Feinstein...lot's a credibility there

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe the situation here was that State acquired information through a casual channel they didn't deem should be classified while another agency acquired the same information through a more sensitive channel that they did deem was classified.

But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time. The DNI got involved to review the discrepancy...

OK, you're saying that as one agency got that data and classified it as above top secret, State got the same infor and classified it as "nothing to see here, show it to the world".

I think that's merely your opinion, and in a stunning coincidence, it is an opinion which clears her of any wrongdoing.

The IG report states clearly, that after the email was discovered on her server, State tried to re-classify another agency's intelligence. That request was rejected.

We will see.

"But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

The IG report disputes your claim here. They say it was top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server.

"nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

If it was classified as top secret by the agency that developed it, the originator doesn't get to make that call.

[JohnR]

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.

I agree Rock - as some one a little right of center (and a former registered Democrat) there is nobody I can vote for there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.

I believe the vast majority of classified emails in question were not born classified, they are being classified as part of the release process. If you released all of Colin Powell's emails from his time at state you'd likely see the exact same pattern. Oh, and he didn't use state.gov either...

Certainly this entire affair has highlighted the risks of lose standards, but the impression that the State department was recklessly pumping known classified information through her server is simply not justified given what's public knowledge today.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, you're saying that as one agency got that data and classified it as above top secret, State got the same infor and classified it as "nothing to see here, show it to the world".

I think that's merely your opinion, and in a stunning coincidence, it is an opinion which clears her of any wrongdoing.

That's what was reported.

The IG report states clearly, that after the email was discovered on her server, State tried to re-classify another agency's intelligence. That request was rejected.

We will see.

"But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

The IG report disputes your claim here. They say it was top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server.

You're mixing up your email reports again, I was talking about the two allegedly top secret emails from your second link.

All the IG provided (first link) was a letter that asserts there is currently classified information contained in old emails. This is classic political smear...the IG got ticked off and is now colluding with Republicans to offer them vague or old news in a convenient leakable form. It's leak crack for FOX News.

If it was classified as top secret by the agency that developed it, the originator doesn't get to make that call.

Like I said, the determination in this case (pay attention, second link here) was made by two agencies who derived the same info from different sources. There is now negotiation between the agencies on how to handle releasing the information.