4 ms·

> In the current investigation, they've discovered classified emails - some classified after the fact, some not "some not"? If you are implying that Clinton's

> In the current investigation, they've discovered classified emails - some classified after the fact, some not "some not"? If you are implying that Clinton's server held messages marked as classified when sent, could you provide some evidence to this effect? The Clinton campaign is quite adamant that this is not true.

PKop 11y ago
This is a red herring. It doesn't matter if it was marked or not. It is up to the sender to take the precaution. That there are now thousands of emails marked after the fact as classified, wouldn't that tell you the assumption should have been made to err on the side of caution, and assume most everything you are discussing has high probability to be classified information? And using your own insecure personal server for these emails essentially guarantees that it's been hacked by.. China, Russia, take your pick. In fact there is a term called "born-classified" which applies to information about foreign governments provided by foreign sources. Here's some evidence: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email...
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  There's a fundamental misunderstanding about classified material, which is that it becomes de-classified once it is public. Not true. For example, take the Wikileaks information dump, which came from a huge cache of State Dept. cables and has now been covered in hundreds of public newspaper articles. If one of her friends forwarded one of those articles to Clinton, boom, she now has classified information in her email. Why? Because those cables, despite being leaked, were never de-classified. Another example: a lot of the stuff revealed by Snowden was classified at a very high level. It still is today, even though it is widely available public information. Can you see how this could cause problems for someone who is a government official, but has friends/family/contacts who wish to discuss these news articles? The press is a well-known vector that leads to a lot of government staff having classified information in their unclassified email systems. Typically investigations are rare and prosecutions rarer, because it's basically impossible to prevent and does no practical damage (since the info is already out there). This is why the mere fact of having classified material on an email server does not necessarily imply incompetence or malice.
plcancel 11y ago
If what the campaign says is true, then it sounds to me like a technicality. It seems to me implausible that 22 emails containing intel of the most secret sort had that intel classified after the fact (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/hillary-clinton-classified-email-special-access-program http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/hillary-clint...). ---------------- FROM: Important Official TO: Hillary Clinton MESSAGE: Info you requested - JFK is still alive. He wants to meet you soon. Also, aliens. Lots of them. ---------------- In that ridiculous example, it seems like the Sec of State isn't thinking to herself, "I hope they don't classify this info later." It's the official's responsibility to know what is and what isn't classified whether it is "marked". As a lawyer (and a Clinton!), she would certainly be parsing her words carefully.
caseysoftware 11y ago
I did not imply anything, I said it quite clearly: some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. According to CNN: > Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are under subject to more stringent control rules than even other Top Secret information." Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-email...
- SeanLuke 11y ago
  > some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. As far as I can tell, the article to which you refer says nothing of the sort. It says that the email contains information which was classified after the fact. The article is based on the Inspector General's letter (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.icig.response.letter.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-....), which says the same thing. Do you have evidence that the information was classified at the time it was mailed to her server? Her campaign says it was not.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Well as long as the campaign is your source, you should definitely believe them. They're much better informed than the FBI, State Department, and Senate Select Intelligence Committee investigators.
  - jonnybgood 11y ago
    What is classified after the fact? It's pretty straight forward in that letter. The emails contained info derived from classified info. Info derived from classified info is itself classified. There is no classified after the fact. It was all classified from the get go.
    - snowwrestler 11y ago

PKop 11y ago

This is a red herring. It doesn't matter if it was marked or not. It is up to the sender to take the precaution. That there are now thousands of emails marked after the fact as classified, wouldn't that tell you the assumption should have been made to err on the side of caution, and assume most everything you are discussing has high probability to be classified information? And using your own insecure personal server for these emails essentially guarantees that it's been hacked by.. China, Russia, take your pick. In fact there is a term called "born-classified" which applies to information about foreign governments provided by foreign sources. Here's some evidence: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-email...

snowwrestler 11y ago
There's a fundamental misunderstanding about classified material, which is that it becomes de-classified once it is public. Not true. For example, take the Wikileaks information dump, which came from a huge cache of State Dept. cables and has now been covered in hundreds of public newspaper articles. If one of her friends forwarded one of those articles to Clinton, boom, she now has classified information in her email. Why? Because those cables, despite being leaked, were never de-classified. Another example: a lot of the stuff revealed by Snowden was classified at a very high level. It still is today, even though it is widely available public information. Can you see how this could cause problems for someone who is a government official, but has friends/family/contacts who wish to discuss these news articles? The press is a well-known vector that leads to a lot of government staff having classified information in their unclassified email systems. Typically investigations are rare and prosecutions rarer, because it's basically impossible to prevent and does no practical damage (since the info is already out there). This is why the mere fact of having classified material on an email server does not necessarily imply incompetence or malice.

plcancel 11y ago

If what the campaign says is true, then it sounds to me like a technicality. It seems to me implausible that 22 emails containing intel of the most secret sort had that intel classified after the fact (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/hillary-clinton-classified-email-special-access-program http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/hillary-clint...). ---------------- FROM: Important Official TO: Hillary Clinton MESSAGE: Info you requested - JFK is still alive. He wants to meet you soon. Also, aliens. Lots of them. ---------------- In that ridiculous example, it seems like the Sec of State isn't thinking to herself, "I hope they don't classify this info later." It's the official's responsibility to know what is and what isn't classified whether it is "marked". As a lawyer (and a Clinton!), she would certainly be parsing her words carefully.

caseysoftware 11y ago

I did not imply anything, I said it quite clearly: some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. According to CNN: > Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are under subject to more stringent control rules than even other Top Secret information." Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-email...

SeanLuke 11y ago
> some of the emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent/received them. As far as I can tell, the article to which you refer says nothing of the sort. It says that the email contains information which was classified after the fact. The article is based on the Inspector General's letter (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-.icig.response.letter.pdf http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/20/2016.01.14.-....), which says the same thing. Do you have evidence that the information was classified at the time it was mailed to her server? Her campaign says it was not.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  Well as long as the campaign is your source, you should definitely believe them. They're much better informed than the FBI, State Department, and Senate Select Intelligence Committee investigators.
- jonnybgood 11y ago
  What is classified after the fact? It's pretty straight forward in that letter. The emails contained info derived from classified info. Info derived from classified info is itself classified. There is no classified after the fact. It was all classified from the get go.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago