Breaking: ‘Top Secret’ emails found on Clinton Server

a reply to: xuenchen

"Congratulations, Huma! You have been chosen to take one for the team. While we cannot promise you will survive prison, or an assassin, Hillary can be counted on to quite probably, if things go well, to potentially provide you with a Presidential Pardon in just eight years time! Isn't that great news?"

a reply to: Leonidas

I have a feeling that this is not the first time Huma has taken it from Hillary.

Uh oh...Hillary's server emails may have been backed up by small firm that managed Clinton's server. FBI and Senate committee interested.

Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company

--The tech question: Were emails backed up and can they be retrieved?

--The FBI also interested in firm that managed Clinton’s server

WASHINGTON
The chairman of the Senate’s homeland security committee has asked a small, 13-year-old Denver technology company that managed tens of thousands of emails for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to describe what measures it took to safeguard national security information.

The FBI, which has embarked on its own scrutiny of Clinton’s private server, also has shown interest in the company, Platte River Networks, which began managing Clinton’s emails in 2013, according to published reports.

www.mcclatchydc.com...

a reply to: Leonidas

If that's way this goes Human could start singing which would make the case for a criminal conspiracy charge which makes
ALL participants equally guilty if convicted.

FBI has server, memory stick and is inquiring at hosting company for backup data as well as asking information from IT service company what it has.

Between electronic forensics, what's on thumb drive, possible backups from both companies involved with server it seems they could develop what was deleteted, who sent what to whom and when, who allegedly stripped tags etc.

Looks like the circle can be closed not only on the email subject but also influence peddling with foundation, SOS and Bill Clinton as well as answer Bengalzi issue and overthrow of Libyan government.

I think Obama and his advisors are done with her but also have to control events such that he does not get burned as a result.

I'm predicting a misdemeanor deal with no jail time but she loses ability to run for office. This let's her go away with the money for retirement as she can give to charity, her own.

Alternatives are much much worse as in 20 year maxes plus close down Clinton Charity so Obama does have leverage.

Look for Biden to enter race in month or less.

Abedin and the server:

Clinton aides vow not to destroy emails
By JOSH GERSTEIN 8/12/15 9:55 PM EDT

Two top aides to Hillary Clinton gave assurances to a federal judge Wednesday that they will not delete any emails or other records related to their work at the State Department during Clinton's tenure as America's top diplomat.

Lawyers for former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin told the State Department they would abide by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's request that they not erase any copies of federal records in their possession.

In addition, Clinton lawyer David Kendall confirmed that a Colorado technology firm on Wednesday turned over to the Justice Department the private server which housed Clinton's emails while she served as secretary of state. He also said he'd produced three thumb drives with Clinton's digital copies of emails she gave State in paper form last December.

"We have voluntarily provided to the Department of Justice on August 6, 2015, the .pst file containing electronic copies of the 55,000 pages of emails on a thumb drive (along with two copies), which had been securely stored in my possession, after receiving from the Department of Justice an assurance that it would maintain this file in an appropriately secure manner and the Department's opinion that such maintenance would satisfy any preservation obligations I am under," Kendall wrote Wednesday to Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.

"Similarly, Platte River Networks is today providing to the Department of Justice the server and related equipment on which emails to and from Secretary Clinton's clintonemail.com were stored from 2009-2013 and which PRN took possession of in 2013," Kendall added. "This is following the Department of Justice's assurances to us and to counsel for PRN that it would maintain this equipment in an appropriately secure manner."

Mills's attorney Wilkinson seemed to have triggered Sullivan's preservation-related order last week when she said in a letter filed with the court that Mills planned to delete her digital copies on Monday. Wilkinson stressed in a new letter to Kennedy Wednesday that the only reason Mills had planned to erase her electronic copies was because the State Department had asked her to do so.

"We ask you to clarify with Judge Sullivan that it was the State Department that asked for the return of all copies of potential federal records in Ms. Mills' possession and going forward it will be the State Department's responsibility to secure permission from Judge Sullivan to remove any copies of such emails from Ms. Mills account," Wilkinson wrote. She also seemed eager to underscore that the records Mills had planned to erase were copies of emails already given to the State Department and suggested there was no danger of any records being lost as a result.

A lawyer for Abedin responded to the court's request with an email briefly confirming that she would not be erasing or disposing of any work-related records.

"We want to confirm for the Department that in accordance with your request, Ms. Abedin will not delete any potential federal records in her possession," attorney Miguel Rodriguez wrote.

The correspondence filed with Sullivan Wednesday night (and posted here) came in connection with a lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed two years ago seeking records related to Abedin's employment arrangements at State. The case was closed last year but Sullivan agreed to reopen it after it became evident that Clinton's email account had not been searched in response to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act request.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Tea & Crumpets.

Right on schedule:

Hillary Clinton email probe turns to Huma

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted confidante, is increasingly becoming a central figure in the email scandal that’s haunting her boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges seek information about Clinton’s communications while she was running the State Department.

The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin — long considered her boss’s keeper and even dubbed her “shadow” — had her own email account on Clinton’s now infamous home-brewed server, “which was used at times for government business,” Clinton acknowledged. That’s an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.


Abedin has hired a team of lawyers, one of whom is a former Clinton aide, who are responding to information requests from the courts and State.

www.politico.com...

Imagine if this happened to us.

If any of us were to divulge sensitive information on upcoming NYSE trends via email and if we were caught the book wouldn't be thrown at us, it would be fired at us from a cannon. But Hilliary Rodham Clinton? surely not.

If Hilliary is not using official avenues to conduct official business...well two and two don't make five. There has to be more to this. But then again if Hilliary is going to be targeted then why not investigate every campaigner?

If we dig a little deeper then we could find that she might not be the only one.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Imagine if this happened to us.

If any of us were to divulge sensitive information on upcoming NYSE trends via email and if we were caught the book wouldn't be thrown at us, it would be fired at us from a cannon. But Hilliary Rodham Clinton? surely not.

If Hilliary is not using official avenues to conduct official business...well two and two don't make five. There has to be more to this. But then again if Hilliary is going to be targeted then why not investigate every campaigner?

If we dig a little deeper then we could find that she might not be the only one.

Not a bad idea.
I think we deserve to know if our candidates are a major national security risk...BEFORE we elect them.

So...here's the new Clinton defense narrative going forward and developing.

Hillary:
"I did nothing illegal because I didn't know those high-rez spy satellite photos of Turkish air bases were 'classified'...the darn things had no labels. I guess some silly bonehead in my inner circle accidentally removed all those 'Top Secret' labels before I received and sent them."

Huma:
"Sorry, I accidentally removed all of the 'Top Secret' labels before Hillary got them....My bad---sometimes, I'm such a ditz : )."

originally posted by: Bilk22
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet - I am catching up on a few pages - BUT, email Hillary, she herself created, could post-facto be considered classified, yet weren't at the time of sending, but are now considered that due to their content.

Short story on the facts here..

According to the inspector general the emails contained "information" "derived" from classified information or docs at the time they "originated".

That means the information was classified by another agency at the time it was emailed to Hillary. We don't know when it was classified.

The State Department is responsible for classifying their own material.

According to the State Department, the "information" had been circulated on non-classified servers and email systems at State since 2009.

So it's possible it wasn't classified when it was first circulated at State...but was classified before it was emailed to Hillary..but State never classified it. Example: 2009 CIA shares unclassified Satellite data with State. State references the info in emails amongst themselves...maybe in 2011 the CIA tags the info as Classified...but State (who is responsible for classifying their own info) never follows suit and the info. continues to circulate and lands on Hillary's server in 2012.

The Inspector General did not file this as a criminal inquiry, but rather a security "heads-up" as he is obligated to do.

This was an email sent to Hillary Clinton.

So what we likely have is some State Department employee who shared the information without concern for it's classified origins or it wasn't classified at the time back in 2009 or earlier...and the information became semi-common knowledge and was not considered classified going forward as State Department employees shared it and it eventually got mentioned in an email to Hillary.

If it is satellite data from 09 or prior, it might be hard to discern whether anyone at State should have recognized it as potentially classified. I would suspect it appears innocuous since it was "circulated" without concern on non-secure servers for 6 years or more without being recognized as potentially classified.

So if their is a sacrificial lamb to be offered to the witch hunt it will be someone in NSA or CIA that shared the info with State in 09 or earlier without the classified label..or the employee at State who first shared the data disregarding a classified label.

When Hillary claimed she has not communicated classified material on her personal server (sent or received) she is technically correct...because State is responsible for classifying all of their own material and communications and this was not classified by State.

This is the same reason the IG referred the material to the State department last week....for classification.

Notice none of that is in defense of Clinton, nor asking for her to be burned at the stake...so everyone save the ideological drama...that is just what we have thus far.

Now back to..."drown her! She's a witch!!!"

a reply to: IAMTAT

Not a bad idea. I think we deserve to know if our candidates are a major national security risk...BEFORE we elect them.

And it could be used for other reasons; it could help find unsolicited, under the table donations from third parties.

Nevermind..

a reply to: Indigo5

Is that an official campaign statement?

If so, how does the Clinton Campaign respond to the accusation that someone
in the email circle removed the classification title?

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. "[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC's server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC's personal email."

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
Nevermind..

Yeah. "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Justaposter

originally posted by: deadcalm
a reply to: IAMTAT

This could be VERY bad news for Hillary Clinton.

If only I could believe that. The Clintons are practically coated with teflon.

I don't know. I think it was very telling when the Kennedys backed Obama instead of her. I just don't think she will get the nom. I have a feeling this will not go well for her.

*for the record, I would have voted for her during that election*

President Obama was an outlier, no one was going to beat him in 2008. I don't see anyone that can compete with Hillary this election cycle absent some legitimate, huge scandal. I think the GOP sense the same and that is why they are working hard to hang some scandal around her neck...like they have been for years leading up to the election...vs. touting some great GOP alternative. Jeb might be the best shot, but he would have to dramatically step up his game and I don't see that potential.

Wow, do you really believe that this is just a GOP thing? You honestly don't think this could be trouble for her?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well ok...

I don't get how Indigo can with a straight face say "we don't know when they were classified."

The I.G. clearly stated they were classified when they were generated, meaning illegal off the bat, right at the start, on the go, at the begaining, etc. etc. etc..

I really don't get how anyone can with honest integrity, can try to defend what she and her cronies have done. My post was about that. But I'm not really feeling like an argument with dishonest partisan hacks.


So, it doesn't make a lot of difference now, does it

originally posted by: Justaposter

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Justaposter

originally posted by: deadcalm
a reply to: IAMTAT

This could be VERY bad news for Hillary Clinton.

If only I could believe that. The Clintons are practically coated with teflon.

I don't know. I think it was very telling when the Kennedys backed Obama instead of her. I just don't think she will get the nom. I have a feeling this will not go well for her.

*for the record, I would have voted for her during that election*

President Obama was an outlier, no one was going to beat him in 2008. I don't see anyone that can compete with Hillary this election cycle absent some legitimate, huge scandal. I think the GOP sense the same and that is why they are working hard to hang some scandal around her neck...like they have been for years leading up to the election...vs. touting some great GOP alternative. Jeb might be the best shot, but he would have to dramatically step up his game and I don't see that potential.

Wow, do you really believe that this is just a GOP thing? You honestly don't think this could be trouble for her?

Clinton campaign talking points. 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy'....Yesireee-Bob...those Rascally-Republicans are at it again.

a reply to: Indigo5

This is not the occasional email-this is thousands of emails.

Sure Hilliary has every right to her personal emails as we all do-but when you are running for POTUS and you have exchanged thousands of unsecured emails instead of going through proper channels-questions need to be raised.

Any employer or employee worth his or her salt does not conduct business in the same way for the obvious security reasons. I send the odd email, not the odd thousand emails and that is what makes people dubious.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Indigo5

Is that an official campaign statement?

If so, how does the Clinton Campaign respond to the accusation that someone
in the email circle removed the classification title?

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. "[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC's server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC's personal email."

www.foxnews.com...

No offense...but apparently you aren't following?

That is an accusation...not a claim. There are multiple scenarios that could lead to the current facts...One of which includes someone stripping the information of its CIA or NSA etc. classification before it was circulated at State.

Other possibilities exist as well?

And WTF do you mean "official campaign statement"?