Hillary Clinton

Is It Really Plausible That Clinton Didn't Send a Single Classified Email During Her Time at State?



Is it really plausible that, as Hillary Clinton insisted in a press conference yesterday, that not one of the emails she sent through the email she used whil Secretary of State contained any classified information whatsoever? 

Maybe not. According to The New York Times, several people who have some insight into the question are skeptical, if only because the government tends to err on the side of classifying more information as secret:

Relations with other countries are particularly subject to secrecy claims. "Foreign government information" — information received from another government with the expectation that it will be held in confidence — is an official category of classified information in secrecy regulations.

A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that while it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton's staff identified as involving government business.

"I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified," said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. "Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it's hard to imagine."

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said he suspected that if there had been no fuss and a researcher or journalist had sought all of Mrs. Clinton's emails under the Freedom of Information Act, the answer might have been different.

Clinton is in something of a bind here because she decided to run all of her email during her time at State through a single, personally controlled email account. But, according to the Times, "storing classified information in a personal, nongovernment email account on a private computer server, like the one at Mrs. Clinton's home, would be a violation of secrecy laws." So she more or less has to insist that there was zero classified information passed through the account. Add this to the list of reasons why her email-behavior excuses are weak. 

NEXT: China Not Getting Dragged Into Venezuela's Problems

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My only question is – are ruling-class females going to make it habit of wearing housecoats in public?

    1. She is going for that “George Washington wearing a housecoat” look

      Its that warm but authoritative look.

      1. She does have George Washington’s head, but on the body of an old sow.

        1. The reason Bill had to go to Monica for a hummer was because Hillary had some G Washington replica wood choppers installed…

          1. thanks for that image.

    2. I suspect she has gained weight.

      She’s starting to dress in that dumpy old lady style.

      1. If the dress fits…

    3. oh shit! My grandma used to clean her house in one just like that.

  2. Everyone might as well give it up. This is not going to put a dent in Hillary.

    1. No, but every time she tentatively steps back into the spotlight, she does something colossally stupid like this. “We were flat broke when we left the White House”. “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs”.

      And she hasn’t even been asked to do or say anything yet where she doesn’t completely control the narrative. Liberals are already less than pleased with being told to roll over and vote for her. While this death of a thousand cuts won’t convince them to vote Republican, it will most certainly inspire many to stay home in November 2016, and that will reverberate well beyond just the Presidential race.

      1. All depends on how much hate they have for the Republican candidate.

        1. This.

          To a large extent who the Democrats nominate is irrelevant, their chances in the general election are 100% dependent on how well they are able to paint the Republican nominee as a racist warmongering socon.

          If someone like Santorum or Huckabee somehow wins the nomination then the democrats could nominate an actual donkey and win the white house. The same is probably true of Jeb Bush too but for different reasons (when your daddy and brother are 2 of the least popular presidents in the last 50 years you really should not be considering running for President).

    2. You could have 1000 witnesses that saw her destroy classified emails and she’d get away with it. Really, would you finger her?

      1. Phrasing!

        1. Sorry, let me rephrase. Would you roll on her?

          1. Would I roll on her? Only if rolling off Janet “Diaper Breath” Reno.

      2. Really, would you finger her?

        *throws up in mouth* Seriously, are we really not doing phrasing anymore?


        2. Only with an industrial grade, arm length rubber glove.

      3. Take a lap or call Kenny Loggins… It’s gonna take something fierce to get rid of that image.

        1. Take a lap or call Kenny Loggins

          Are you saying we’re in the… DANGER ZONE!

        2. take a lap

          Isn’t that a phrasing trigger too?

  3. Maybe not? I’d say certainly not, even if she tried to do classified business through other means.

    One e-mail produced by one recipient that counters her claim will be yet another nail in her political future. Which was being lowered into the ground before this scandal, as she’s been a walking political disaster, only kept on life support by the stupid, stupid media.

    1. *laughs*

      You think you can kill a Clinton? No way. She’s a political Mike Meyers. She will not rest until she has her revenge.

      1. She may get it, but I don’t think she’s getting near the White House again.

    2. The first question out of the gate at her “press conference” was whether she thought this would be an issue if she were a man.

      Wolf Blitzer had the post-game analysis: Brilliant question!

      Nah. Not stupid. They are playing for the team. If you are confronted with this mess and the first thing you can come out with is “war on women” softballs, you are not being a reporter. You are auditioning for press secretary.

      1. You are auditioning for press secretary.

        No shit, that’s pretty much every political reporter’s real dream job. Unless the president’s a Rethuglikkkan, then they suddenly remember that they’re supposed to be skeptical of power. Principals, not principles

    3. Credit is due to Guccifer who hacked into Blumenthal’s personal email account, and discovered Hillary’s private email account. E.G., see http://rt.com/usa/guccifer-cli…..econd-678/ where he exposed Clinton’s emails discussing “in detail the Algerian hostage crisis and the relationship between the United States and Egyptian governments.” And “The first collection of correspondence, published by RT earlier this week, is believed to contain classified emails regarding last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi.”

      I would like to know if these emails were turned over to the House oversight committee, or not. But based on Trey Gowdy’s statements, they don’t have them. Thus, it’s very likely, Clinton illegally deleted emails that weren’t personal (except personal as in embarrassing to her actions as Sec. of State.). I hope she gets convicted and goes to jail. She very likely deserves it.

  4. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. She is truly inept as a politician. It’s quite amazing, especially considering that she’s married to a natural, albeit dishonest and principleless, politician, who you’d think would be advising her through all of this. Does anyone anywhere think she’d have been elected to national office but for her connection to Bill Clinton?

      1. a natural, albeit dishonest and principleless, politician

        Redundant description is redundant.

        1. True enough, but he’s bad even for a politician. Every single Democrat seems to have forgotten how much he acted like a Republican president after 1994. That’s six years of basically trying to co-opt what he viewed as a national lurch to the right after all of the Contract with America business. “The Era of Big Government is over!”

          In this age of the Internet and everything being archived forever, it is stunning how much people forget these kinds of things.

          1. My girlfriend calls him “my man Bill Clinton” and is firmly of the opinion that he’s the greatest president of her lifetime.

            1. is firmly of the opinion that he’s the greatest president of her lifetime.

              Depending on her age, that could technically be a true statement, with the caveat that “the greatest” in this context doesn’t mean much.

              1. “the greatest” in this context doesn’t mean much.

                “Tallest midget”
                “Smartest retard”
                “Skinniest Biggest Loser contestant”

                1. Oh, no… she genuinely holds him in high regard.

                  She finds my anarchist political views very exotic – like I’m some Han Soloesque rogue.

                  She also thought describing Slick Willie as the “Mt Monadnock of sexual conquests” was very funny – though she protested through her laughter “but he admits he has an addiction“.

                  1. That’s odd. Clinton was well on the way to being a one-termer when he decided to lurch to the right. Most of the “accomplishments” of his administration stem from a truly and active opposition Congress, which is a rarity in these days of spend more than everything.

            2. Depending on your girlfriends age he may very well be.

              He is easily the greatest president since Reagan and anyone born in 1988 would be 27 now

          2. He was very adept at jumping in front of parades and waving a baton.

            But you could say that about Obama in the first term as well. It certainly didn’t appear to me that healthcare was his parade. That seemed to be run by Pelosi and the congress with some input from the white house. That was half of his first term right there.

            He was very proud of his accomplishment of “bringing the troops home”….. by following the timeline set up by his predecessor. Reluctantly.

            I’m sure there are others, but you get the gist.

            Now Bush! There was a guy who would forge his own path! Sure, when he tried to lead the parade somewhere they didn’t want to go he got nowhere – like immigration reform, healthcare reform, social security reform…. But when he lead where they wanted him to go, wow! A couple of wars, the USA Patriot Act… I wonder if there is a lesson in there?

          3. Every single Democrat seems to have forgotten how much he acted like a Republican president after 1994.

            You see the same thing with Obama. They seem to be able to completely ignore the fact that he’s continued all of the Bush admin’s WoT policies (warrantless wiretapping, middle east wars of choice, Gitmo etc.). It’s like they’re completely incapable of holding one of their own to their word, yet let a Rethug go back on one of his campaign promises and you’ll never hear the end of it.

            Although Republican partisans are just as bad.

            1. Indeed. It’s team fandom writ large. And yes, the GOP does it, too. Bush was, in many respects, a president pushing Democratic ideas. A weird overreaction to the success of Clinton, I always thought, given that the GOP had been gaining ground in every other election.

      2. Like the Bourbon dynasty in France, she forgets nothing, forgives nothing, and yet learns nothing.

        This scandal and her response to it plays right in to every bad memory of her behavior in the 1990s. Completely untrustowrthy, quick to troll out Lanny Davis and James Carville to insult the intelligence of everyone involved (except for their Queen, of course), makes her own rules, can’t distinguish between her personal ambition and the rule of law, etc. etc.

        It’s like a sequel that just repeats everything from the first movie but adds more explosions.

        1. It’s like a sequel that just repeats everything from the first movie but adds more explosions.

          It’s like Michael Bay is her campaign manager.

      3. I laugh at the ridiculousness of Hillary Clinton and Melinda Gates placing themselves on pedestals as role models for women. I mean sure, marrying a successful man and using his money and prestige to advance your own career is one way to smash glass ceilings.

        But that’s not exactly the empowering message of feminism, is it?

        1. Hilary Clinton is the Tom Arnold of politics.

          1. Consider that stolen.

        2. Agree.

          It’s sad in a way, considering that there are plenty of women who have broken through the glass ceiling without the help of a prestigious husband today. if Hillary had gone it alone from the start she might have been a sucessful executive and then moved into politics. But instead she decided that her strategy would be to find a husband she thought would make a good president and marry him and be the woman behind the man.

          1. if Hillary had gone it alone from the start she might have been a sucessful executive

            And what, praytell, in her previous experience in any role gives you even the slightest belief she might have been a successful executive? Because in every executive role she’s had she’s been a trainwreck of the highest order (“inevitable” 2008 campaign, SoS).

          2. Years ago I visited the Texas State Capitol in Austin and was surprised to see so many portraits of female governors from a century ago. They all succeeded their husbands in the governor’s office. This is Hillary’s level.

      4. She’s not inept – she’s just dishonest, and takes actions to cover her tracks.

    2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      None what-so-ever because to the progressives, getting a vagina in the oval office is priority #1. They won’t admit to it despite how much the mask slips sometimes. Somehow, that will defeat the patriarchy *and* ISIS at the same time.

      1. “getting a vagina in the oval office is priority #1”

        That was also Bill’s priority at every White House party.

      2. ” getting a vagina in the oval office is priority #1. ”

        Oh, no.

        Getting a card carrying member of the Progressive Theocracy in the oval office is job #1. All considerations are secondary to team power.

        They much preferred a Creepy Old White Patriarch Buffoon over Palin as VP.

  5. On a talk show the other day a caller suggested that the timing of this information was intentional, so that during the campaign it can be dismissed as “old news.”

    He might have been onto something.

    1. That is a major part of the Democrat playbook.

      1. Stall, obstruct, stall, obstruct, stall, obstruct…..
        “It’s old news!!”

        1. The Clintons realized that the secret was to keep as many scandals going as possible, so that no particular one got any traction.

  6. Imagine Nixon, with half the intelligence and charm, giving his “Checkers Speech” in 2015 and you’d get Hillary’s trainwreck of a presser. Just not going to hold up in an age of rapid fact checking and where every public statement is recorded and searchable.

    If Democrats aren’t panicking about not having a viable alternative they are insane.

    1. “You won’t have Hillary Clinton to kick around any more!”

    2. They have viable alternatives, they’ve just been trying to wish her into being this universally acclaimed candidate, which has never been anything other than smoke and mirrors. Other candidates are planning to run, and I’ve long believed that this dishonest, unpleasant, incompetent, and politically deficient person wasn’t even going to win the nomination. Even if she were a decent candidate, there is a great deal of fatigue already setting in about her. And it’s not only Republicans who hate her.

    3. The assumption is that it won’t matter. “Well, I’m not happy with Hillary, but I’m not going to vote for a Republican! And everyone I know thinks exactly the same way I do, so that means Hillary is certain to win, and that is all that matters. She may be an unprincipled warmonger and apologist for corporate influence-peddling, but, dammit, she’s OUR unprincipled warmonger and apologist!”

    4. If Democrats aren’t panicking about not having a viable alternative they are insane.


      I consider the referendum on Hillary Clinton (because let’s face it, the democratic nomination is a referendum on Hillary at this point) to be a test of the Democratic party. Now I recognize that they’re anethema to my own believes in most every way, but this woman is so obviously incompetent that I’d prefer the Dems nominate and elect a more ideologically dangerous (from my POV) candidate than Hillary is.

      I used to believe that the true believer was more dangerous than the craven power seeker. But looking at the abysmal record of incompetence that Hillary has evidenced, I gotta think that Warren, even with objectively worse ideological underpinnings, would be less of a trainwreck in the oblong office.

  7. While 50% classified seems like a rather uncharitable estimate, even one or a few instances represent failure to protect the information, which, if done deliberately, gets you jailed.

    They seem to be getting better at this, but they still haven’t touched on unclassified that is still protected at the State Department’s insistence: export-controlled, ITAR, and third-party confidential.

    1. For anyone actually imprisoned or even just fired for violating the same laws she did, I’d fucking appeal and/or sue.

      1. Good luck with that one. Tu quoque isn’t much of a legal argument.

        1. It’s about enforcement and abuse of discretion.

        2. no but equal protection and enforcement of the laws is

          1. It’s all prosecutorial discretion, anyway. Nothing to see here, folks.

        1. I bet he’s re-thinking his plea, though it really wouldn’t help in any practical way.

        2. That’s one example, yes.

        3. Petraeus’s plea deal was a trial balloon for the Hillary debacle. You set the bar low and then argue that while Petraeus potentially placed American servicemen in danger, all Hillary could have done was to accidentally leak the hors d’oeuvres menu for the 2011 Davos conference. Leniency ensues.

  8. Such effrontery! Everybody shut up. She answered your questions, now it’s time to move on. She’s Hillary Clinton and you can trust her.

    1. You have to wonder if she sat down with her political advisors and carefully crafted this “You’lll just have to fall back on your deep reservoir of trust for me” response.

      Actually, no, you don’t have to wonder. Her people know by now that she will do what she wants and that their job is to clean up the mess afterwards. It’s a tough job, but it pays well, and they weren’t planning on using their immortal souls for anything anyway.

    2. In some kind of masochistic splurge, I was reading the NYT and HuffPo comments on this. There were so many people posting who took her statements at face value, saying “She said there was nothing classified transmitted. She said she turned over all relevant emails. She said…”

      Why would anyone not already onboard with the Clintons trust anything that comes out of her mouth. All politicians lie, but even in the swamp that is DC, the Clintons have always been standouts in the Dirty Politics arena.

      I had to wonder — at least momentarily — what these same people believing her would be saying if, say, Dick Cheney found himself in a similar situation. Or BUUUSSSSHHH. Or those “extremists,” Romney or McCain.

      And WTF is up with so many of them pointing at Jeb Bush’s email? Was he in a position that involved national security? I think they secretly hope he’s the nominee, just so they can extend the lilfe of the “BUT BUSH ALSO DID X!” mantra.

      If this election comes down to Bush/Clinton, I’ll probably go with the Libertarian, just like I did the first time it was Bush/Clinton.

  9. I don’t understand why the servers weren’t seized as soon as the news came out. Well, I do understand, but come on. Those emails are federal property, are they not? Shouldn’t the servers have been taken?

    1. It’s hard to tell what to seize or turn over–until you’re sure what the press knows about.

      How are you supposed to know how much the press knows–until you read it in the paper?

      That’s why Obama is always talking about how he found about what was happening watching the news.

      If you don’t watch the news, you might accidentally send them something they don’t know about yet, and you wouldn’t want to do that!

      If only there were an Eric Snowden or Bradley Manning in the Clinton camp somewhere.

      I bet the server has been unplugged and the hard drives crushed with the claw end of a hammer, too–otherwise someone would have already hacked it.

      Maybe we should subpoena the NSA! They should be able to give us all of Clinton’s metadata anyway, right? Hell, since it’s just metadata, we probably don’t even need to subpoena it. If the NSA doesn’t need a warrant, why would we need a subpoena?

      1. See I think that she has copies of those emails somewhere. I’m sure she has dirt on other people in those emails and I can’t believe that she would willingly torch those.

    2. Rules are not for the Rulers.

    3. I’m with you. We have umpteen SWAT teams with nothing to do and judges who are willing to sign warrants for just about anything.

      What is the hold up?

  10. She claimed that she used her private email because setting up two email addresses on the same phone was too complicated.

    So she set up her own email server?!

    It’s all horseshit.

    Hillary Clinton is as corrupt and secretive as she ever was, and she didn’t want the voters to know what she was doing while she was Secretary of State in case it might hurt her presidential candidacy.

    And the Democrats and the media are going to drop this very quickly–because if Hillary isn’t the Democrats candidate for president? They have nobody.

    They have Joe Biden, who has all the charisma of Darth Cheney, and they have Elizabeth Warren, who is seen by all the swing voters outside of Massachusetts and San Francisco as a bomb thrower.

    They will quickly start defending Hillary tooth and nail, make this whole thing look like some kind of witch hunt, and pretend nothing ever happened because the alternative is whoever the front runner is in the Republican Party invading their White House–and they can’t have that.

    1. Her excuses are shockingly weak. She won’t turn over the server because it’s private and contains personal corrospondence between her and Bill. Nevermind the fact that Bill, by his own admission multiple times over the years, has sent only two emails in his entire life.

      And her claim to have only one phone is bullshit because just a few weeks ago she said during some event that she has a Blackberry and an iPhone.

      I think she’s crossed the line to where not even her media allies can seriously defend her from this. The only way this goes away is if a Republican scandal erupts and so far the Iran letter just isn’t cutting it.

      1. Not only are the excuses remarkably stupid, they’re coming from people who still stubbornly insist that Hillary is the smartest person on the entire planet. Even if you leave aside her moral failings (which is a lot to ask) she is unqualified to be POTUS simply because she’s too damn stupid.

  11. The NYT had a quote from someone indicating that, as SoS, Hillary actually was the final authority on what communications constituted “classified” material. 1) I find that a bit hard to believe. 2) In the event it is true, by her saying “none of the e-mails on this server were classified,” what prevents every group out there from filing a FOIA request that, by her own admission, must be granted without one single redaction?

    1. She has already told you that she turned over all of the relevant emails to DoS. Beyond that she’s told them to release them all.

      So there ya go…. everything relevant released without redaction.

      And no, you don’t get to see everything on her private server. Because it isn’t subject to any freedom of information anything. Only the official government records. Which she already turned over.

      See how that works? Everything relevant has been turned over “because I said so”. I mean, that should be good enough for anyone, right?

    2. That is complete bullshit. The person holding the office of SoS does not have any such power. Period.

      1. That was my initial reaction too. Pretty sure she doesn’t have that sort of leeway under the Official Secrets Act or any number of other federal laws/regs.

        1. Even if it were true, she’s no longer SoS and hasn’t been for over 2 years. She can’t retroactively declassify emails in 2015 that she sent in 2011.

    3. FOIA requests can take years and years to process, so that would serve Hillary’s goals just fine. By the time anything is actually released it’ll be a moot point since she’ll eiter be president or retired.

      1. True. I’m still awaiting a response to an FOIA request I filed with Customs and Border Protection in February 2013.

    4. She is. She did have the authority to unclassify anything that DOS decided was classified. She did not however have that power over information that other agencies declared classified. So you could maybe argue that he de-classified everything she sent via that email. That argument would only apply to information for which DOS was the classification agent. She did not, however have the authority to declassify information that came from other agencies say DOD or DHS, Only those agencies have the authority to do that. And it is very likely that at least some of the classified information she dealt with came from other agencies.

      Most importantly, while she had the authority to de-classify information, there is a process for doing so. You can’t just declare it unclassified by sending it out over unclass email. If that were true, Petreus would have never gotten in trouble. He was the head of the CIA and the same authority Hillary had. He was not, however, able to claim that “I just used my authority to declassify the information when I told it to my girlfriend”. And neither could Hillary here.

      1. De-classification is not a simple process, and it requires just a tad more documentation and process than a pronouncement.

        1. Exactly that, Timon. If it were that simple, no one with classification authority could ever be guilty of leaking classified material.

  12. So, what are the chances the Republicans serve Clinton with subpoena and demand she turn over the server? Clearly the security risks and potential violation of secrecy laws by the nation’s top diplomat warrants a Congressional inquiry, right?

    1. They’ll probably try something along those lines. And fail miserably. Because that’s what they do.

      Besides, she has already scrubbed the server. She said she deleted half her inbox. The people helping her cannot be so stupid as to leave anything laying around. They will have nuked the backups and overwritten the drives’ free space. They probably even swapped out drives at some point.

      They did fix the security flaws in the email server that external probes could see pretty much the same day that they hit the news.

      1. If the server is a physical box in her house as has been alleged (rather than a server instance running in an Interderp or whatever datacenter), then it is POSSIBLE that they haven’t sufficiently deleted everything. Short of physically destroying the disk, or degaussing it eleventy times, you can recover a fair amount of deleted data with even pretty standard tools.

        1. Yes, “deleting” them doesn’t get rid of them. You have to take an extra step of writing over the part of the hard drive where they were. Doing that, however, leaves behind signs that it was done. If she was smart, and there is no guarantee she was, you will never get the emails. You would however likely get evidence that she took extra effort to destroy them forever, which would look very bad.

          1. Besides, everybody knows the NSA has every single email from that server on their servers.

            They could probably get a copy in front of Congress in a couple hours.

            1. Or just ask the Chinese or the Russians. I bet they have those emails. That is the worst part of this that no one is mentioning. It is almost certain that foreign intelligence agencies hacked that account. That means if there is anything incriminating on it, they now have blackmail material against her. Risking the Russians or someone having blackmail material on the President would seem to be a pretty big risk for the country to take.


      In all seriousness, they should from a letter of the law standpoint. I’m generally someone who believe most of the national security pantsshitting done by conservatives is sky is falling nonsense. But here we’re talking about the SoS having all of her electronic correspondence unsecured or at least of dubious security. There is actually a compelling national security concern here. Though I think the GOP may actually not pursue the one episode of real threats to the security of classified information here because they think this makes her easier to beat come 2016 and that any congressional inquiry would be regarded as a “political witchhunt” that would aid her campaign.

    3. Hasn’t Gowdy already done it for Benghazi?

    4. “So, what are the chances the Republicans serve Clinton with subpoena and demand she turn over the server? ”

      How many divisions do the Republicans have?

      They can serve a subpoena, but in our current corrupt banana republic, who is going to *enforce* that subpoena for them?

  13. Pete, you need to do a bit more research on this matter.

    There are classified email systems/servers and there are unclassified email systems/servers and neither the two shall meet…EVER (at least that’s the way it is in DoD). In the DoD there is a NIPRnet and a SIPRnet (and others when required to do something in between regarding foreign nationals) The NIPR is for unclassified correspondence only. SIPR does the classified stuff and can only be used in a vault. Unless state has some other system, talking as if the email account in question (Clinton’s government NIPR) could EVER be used for classified is missing the mark. Apples and oranges.

    1. Francisco, I can very easily disclose classified information right here.

      I’m not going to because I don’t want to go to jail.

      Regarding the ROUTINE and proper use of class vs. unclass is certainly as you say, more or less. But when i worked in the DoD contracting world, you bet there were (accidental, potential) classified data spills – which luckily all were contained to satisfaction because the company’s INTERNAL unclass network was well-policed and the people accidentally receiving the potential classified attachment were smart enough to leave it be (i.e. not save it to any further unclass networks, burn it to media or anything like that).

      1. In short, it is easy for a person with clearance to “use a network for classified data” when it’s not a SIPR net.

        1. In short, it is easy for a person with clearance to “use a network for classified data” when it’s not a SIPR net.

          And…in short…anyone doing so has committed a security violation punishable by prison time.

          The email account (type) in question is is NOT for classified information…EVER. The scandal is, that there are now government regulations that require all official government correspondence to be sent from a government server (NIPR) so that that information can be archived IAW law. The reason is that they want to be able to retrieve that information for years so it can be subpoenaed for investigation of wrongdoing.

          It’s NOT about classified, as Peter suggests. Putting classified information on an unclassified computer system is ALWAYS a crime. This is about her breaking the law that says she must use a government computer (unclassified) for all government business.

          1. I think we’re in violent agreement as to what constitutes a crime vis-a-vis classified data on unclassified systems.

            I’m not so concerned with the full content or accuracy of Suderman’s post as a whole here. I’m happy that media generally is getting closer to the concerns that truly matter, though – data spills of various sorts on an uncontrolled information system (rules about which have been in place – by the DoS/DoD/DoC since AT LEAST 2002). The fact that this information system was even set up in the first place to be used for official business is the problem.

            Classified, export-control, and ITAR are all forms of data that are controlled that, if spilled on uncontrolled systems, spell trouble. A SoS using an uncontrolled system for all business almost certainly spilled one or more of those three types of information at some point.

          2. In other words, Francisco, the SoS is pretty likely to have committed a spill punishable by prison time at some point during her tenure. THAT’S not being talked about sufficiently, and I think that’s sort of what Peter was going for. Maybe I’m wrong.

    2. I completely believe that Hillary could not disclose classified documents via her personal email account.

      But does that mean she never had an email conversation with a DoS employee in which they discussed a covert operation? I’m skeptical.

      1. People avoid such subjects all of the time Hazel. Understand her government email account would not have been classified either. You have to go to the special classified network to email classified information.

        So it is entirely possible that Hillary didn’t send any classified information in her emails. The problem is that she claims not to have sent any classified emails either. That means she either was completely out of touch with her job or she violated the law. It could be either one or both.

        1. The problem is that she claims not to have sent any classified emails either.

          Any cites for this, with context?

          Ima guess, she was referring to the communications on her private server only. Not sure how one could be SoS and not ever send classified emails?

          1. She claims to have not had any official email account. That would include a syper account as well, though I have not heard her say that specifically. I think, however, if she had such an account, her defenders would be pointing that fact out and diminishing this scandal by saying “all of the important stuff was done on her government classified account”. That would actually be a fairly reasonable defense or at least a very significant mitigation. Since I have yet to see anyone make that point, it seems likely she didn’t have such an account.

            1. She probably can’t even SPELL SIPR (though neither can you – couldn’t resist).

          2. She’s banking on the public accepting that, indeed, she never did send classified e-mails.

            Thing is, Francisco, I can easily imagine a scenario where the discussion in the e-mail thread tipped over into being classified, even just through aggregation (which is a nasty concept that must be guarded against), and took place on that private server.

  14. FAKE SKANDUL!!!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!! /DERP

  15. So she more or less has to insist that there was zero classified information passed through the account.

    “Has to” insist? Really? When that assertion can be shown to be blatantly untrue?

    So her staff has culled out all the emails with classified stuff that they said were work-related and that they would release?

    Either she is telling an easily disproven lie, or her staff is withholding relevant work related emails. Neither sounds like a good outcome for her.

    1. OOOr, BOOOSH. Cuz it wOOOrks.

    2. The funny part is she is getting exasperated with the question. Anyone else would be panicked about the corner she’s trapped in – and the dire legal consequences either tack involves.

      1. The funny part is she is getting exasperated with the question.

        Good. We could use another “WDATPDIM?” outburst.

  16. Why did none of this get revealed at the first WikiLeaks dump?

  17. It would be a moral boost to see something stick before the devious old hag gives up the ghost.

  18. If she was just a figurehead and cut out of the loop of all real decision making in the State Dept., then it is plausible, but I would not think she would want to admit that.

    1. That is a great point. It is a bit hard to on the one hand claim you were traveling a million miles and doing all of this great work for America and then on the other claim that in the process of doing that you never sent a classified e-mail or had any need to do so.

  19. Hillary chose poorly. That’s not the cup of a carpenter.

  20. Isn’t her claim that “none of my communications were classified” a double edged sword = suggesting that there is no reason 100% of her emails couldn’t be turned over without any risk of compromise?

    Same with her claim about sharing the server resource with Bill (which seems a blatant lie) – while she seems to be posturing that this means its “doubly-private” and beyond government subpoena for ‘record keeping’…. that the claim would be admitting a clear violation of security protocol from the outset – sharing resources between senior govt communications and some completely unrelated private users…..

    1. Even if they were classified, that wouldn’t protect them from Congress, just the public. She has to claim they are all unclassified or admit to committing a felony. That is why she is saying they are all unclassified.

      The big lie going on here is that she gets to choose what is “personal” and what is official and thus should be turned over to Congress or the national archives. That is not how it works. Once you mix official and personal emails, it is all subject to be turned over and the government then decides what is official and what is not. You don’t get to say “here is all of the official emails and you will just have to trust me when I tell you I am only keeping back the personal ones.”

  21. All the parsing aside….

    I could imagine she structured things in such a way that she never actually sent “classifed” emails herself, but rather dictated anything to subordinates and sent through them. Or reviewed their drafts and approved them. There are plenty of ways to document-share that enable people plausible denial who ‘created’ it and then change the address that is tasked for critical ‘inbound/outbound’ mail such that it is never commingled with daily comms.

    I oversaw projects where similar process was followed – and if anyone ever demanded all the emails related to the project, all they’d ever get were the ‘official’ things sent on the ‘official’ address – none of the group chats related to the project where those official communications were drafted, or the files shared on servers where various people added different input. In fact, you’d never even be able to identify any of the people involved in the process beyond 1-or 2 who were used as the ‘mouthpieces’ and ‘directors’ of the project (and who were actually ‘account managers/executives’ with little to no actual knowledge of how the sausage was actually getting made by the internal ‘subcontractors’ )

    1. Yes. It is possible she did just that. She would have had a ton of aides all of whom would have had clearances and classified accounts.

      It, however, seems a bit odd that a women who claims to be so connected that she built her own email domain so she wouldn’t have to carry two smart phones would then completely rely on her aides to send classified emails. It all reeks of what it is; half assed post hoc justifications for obvious misconduct.

    2. All of that could be true, GILMORE. The problem with that line is that it essentially admits to intentional obfuscation, which is almost always taken as de jure proof of guilt when handling this sort of information.

  22. my buddy’s step-sister makes $76 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for six months but last month her income was $17228 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit their website……..

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  23. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do


  24. If I were Hillary, I would have replied, regarding possibly classified messages, that all diplomatic or classified messages are transmitted through the State Department’s secure diplomatic cable system. Simple email messages cannot really be secure.

    That she didn’t say that reveals one of two things; either A), she’s not as smart as I am, or B) this is a lie that would be too easy to check, or C) both.

  25. I suspect we believe Hillary’s story about as much as SHE does. (It’s not like a Clinton would LIE to us, right?)

  26. No but it is likely that she erased every single classified email she sent using her crappy little illegal email server.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.