Exactly When Did Chelsea Clinton Become Entitled to Receive Sensitive Information

One aspect of the ongoing Clinton email controversy that I have not seen discussed, is that Hillary emailed her daughter Chelsea numerous times...er, Diane Reynolds (Chelsea needed to use a fake name when corresponding with her mother because, why?)...about official State Department business, with sensitive (if not classified at the time) information.

A previous release of emails from a separate FOIA action showed that on the night of the attack, Clinton told her daughter, who used the email pseudonym Diane Reynolds on clintonemail.com, that the attacks were the work of an "Al Queda-like group" – with no mention of an obscure anti-Islam video Clinton publicly linked to the 2012 terrorist attack. Chelsea Clinton uses the same pseudonym in the Menendez email.

Chelsea Learns the Truth Before the American Public

Actual Email

Aside from the fact that Hillary was telling the truth to her daughter, while she and her colleagues were cooking up the "talking points" (ie. lies) to be told to the public...exactly why is a relative of the Secretary of State entitled to (or allowed to receive) mid-crisis updates - not to mention that these were transmitted over an unsecure private server? Do relatives of senior Government officials automatically have equivalent Security Clearances?

How much is an official, or an employee, allowed to share with their spouse/siblings/offspring/inlaws? In Hillary's case, this would include Bill Clinton...who we all know was in constant contact with foreign actors in his "work" for the Clinton Foundation (and $140 million speech operation)?

How much sensitive/classified/top secret information, one wonders, did Huma Abedin share over dinner with her very-loose-cannon hubby Anthony Weiner?

An honest question...what are the rules surrounding this (not that Hillary or Bill would think they apply to them of course)?

a reply to: mobiusmale

Without getting into the politics, I personally think this is down to human nature - in that you tell your nearest and dearest the truth and what they need to know.

So telling Chelsea that it was an Al Qaeda like group is not, in my opinion, a problem. If she also dicussed aspects that were Top Secret, that would be another matter.

However, there is recognition in higher echelons around the world that people talk, especially to those they are close to (one reason Mata Hari was so successful). Whether a signatury of the Official Secrets or not, some aspects will be revealed to the nearest and dearest. Probably / possibly not the operational details as that would be a big no no but certainly a loose overall picture.

Good question....Ive never heard if Chelsea has a security clearance or not ?...she's not employed by the government or in the military ,so there's no reason she would have one.....my husband has clearance , but I don't ....it's not automatically granted to your whole household. Although everyone in your household is looked into and checked out before giving anyone a clearance.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I'd say the biggest reason was it wasn't al queda. It was Ansar al-Sharia thr same group thr US hired to provide security for the compound. This is why thr guards fled they were told to do so.

a reply to: Flavian

I am absolutely against your point of view. Classified information is only for people with the according security clearing. Not for husbands/wifes/daughters/sons or others.

It s really the point of "classified".

I remember the first leading female politician in Switzerland; it was a huge thing that the first woman took office as "Bundesrat".

Her husband was involved in some shady tax tricks but never convicted. Then she heard through gov sources that one of the companies he was involved with will be targeted by the "IRS" (or whatever it s called in switzerland).

She did one single phone call to her husband to warn him. She got impeached.
Over one single phone call.

And thats how it should be handled. Everything else is just opening the gates to corruption and real conspiracies.

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Good question....Ive never heard if Chelsea has a security clearance or not ?...she's not employed by the government or in the military ,so there's no reason she would have one.....my husband has clearance , but I don't ....it's not automatically granted to your whole household. Although everyone in your household is looked into and checked out before giving anyone a clearance.

Aside from the "human nature" aspect that another poster mentioned...ie. that some "private" talk will almost inevitably happen between spouses (not suggesting this to be the case with you)...is your husband required, officially at least, to not discuss sensitive aspects of his work at home?

I would expect so.

And...which was kind of the point of my thread...I would think that your husband would definitely not be allowed to send you texts or emails in the middle of a crisis (while the "fog of war", so to speak, was at its thickest) - lest those communications be intercepted and used by adversaries in the crisis itself.

For example, in her email to Chelsea, Hillary said, "Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow." While this is not overly specific, it might suggest to an enemy, who was monitoring the communication that (if they had another attack planned for "tomorrow") they should change tactics or timing.

a reply to: svetlana84

Disagree all you like - the fact remains that people talk. You can argue against it but why do you think the Russians used Anna Chapman? Why do you think the French Resistance used prostitutes to garner info from Gestapo and Wehrmacht officers? Heck, why do you think MI6 has been so intent on recruiting female spies recently?

We all know the purpose the Offical Secrets Act but like i said, it is accepted (if not discussed) that some info will leach out.

If all Clinton has told Chelsea is the bare bones (as seems likely from the OP's linked article) then there is no really sensitive information out there. If operational secrets are being discussed, that is a whole other ball game and endangers lives, etc.

Who determined that the info passed was actually classified?

This is the crux of this election. The Clintons by their name play with a different set of rules. If you think that the elite should have a different set of rules, you vote for Hillary. We know she will stand up for the status quo.

But

The way all elites, from both parties and the media, are going after Trump, it appears that he just might be, for the people.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: mobiusmale

Without getting into the politics, I personally think this is down to human nature - in that you tell your nearest and dearest the truth and what they need to know.

So telling Chelsea that it was an Al Qaeda like group is not, in my opinion, a problem. If she also dicussed aspects that were Top Secret, that would be another matter.

However, there is recognition in higher echelons around the world that people talk, especially to those they are close to (one reason Mata Hari was so successful). Whether a signatury of the Official Secrets or not, some aspects will be revealed to the nearest and dearest. Probably / possibly not the operational details as that would be a big no no but certainly a loose overall picture.

Totally disagree to the enth degree !

It is because of this "human nature" as you call it that people for these positions are vetted. While in the military, I had a high security clearance, as well as some other members of my family, but we did not and still do not speak of ANYTHING which would even hint at subjects of a "sensitive nature". These things are a part of the sacred trust which we gladly bare and is a part of who we are. I would expect no less from anyone else who has shared in gaining such thrust for the security of our nation.

ANYONE who would violate this trust, even with family members, should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Actually, we were told, "you don't speak of this to fathers, mothers, brothers, or lovers unless you want everyone prosecuted and jailed along with you." Those who are told about "state secrets" are just as guilty as those who would tell them; even if they never repeat what they hear, and can be prosecuted for it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Who determined that the info passed was actually classified?

According to ardent Hillary supporters, there was never any classified information in any of her emails.

According to the FBI, that is a lie.

Chelsea Clinton had her own email address on that server.

The server had NO password protection for the first four months of Hillary's term as Secretary of State.
How can you say that Chelsea had no access to classified info?

a reply to: tinymind

There is a clear distinction between military and civilian. Hillary doesn't get vetted for approval for clearance - she gets it automatically because of the position she holds in government.

Military do not get clearance unless they pass tests / procedures.

But seeing as people are so concerned about military rather than civilian, here is a simple example. People knew for years (because of people talking) about the Stealth Bomber. People talking and leaking this info is against the Official Secrets Act - but it makes no difference as no operational or technical details have been divulged. The article in the OP appears to be a version of this type of breach of the Act, as opposed to the specifics of what actually happened.

If it can be proved that Hillary has leaked operational and technical secrets, that will change things completely. Although i still probably wouldn't expect charges as you get the feeling that if she goes down, she will bring as many down with her as possible.

originally posted by: mobiusmale
*snip* ... with sensitive (if not classified at the time) information.*snip*

Answered your own question before you left your first paragraph.

However, let nothing slow down another "Clinton Bash."

Have fun.

When she became the spawn of her famous mother Hillary and Hillary's Rose Law Firm colleague, attorney Webster Hubbell.



Clinton’s Paternity Bombshell Explodes — Identity Of Chelsea’s Real Father Is The Best Unkept Secret In Arkansas, Says Relative
radaronline.com...

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: tinymind

There is a clear distinction between military and civilian. Hillary doesn't get vetted for approval for clearance - she gets it automatically because of the position she holds in government.

The only individuals exempt from investigation under EO 12968 are the President (because he signed the thing) and the Vice President. No one is granted eligibility to access classified national security information by virtue of their title, rank, or position.

But seeing as people are so concerned about military rather than civilian, here is a simple example. People knew for years (because of people talking) about the Stealth Bomber. People talking and leaking this info is against the Official Secrets Act

What "Official Secrets Act?" Reference to US Code or Statutes at Large, please.

originally posted by: [post=21214737]FurvusRexCaeli]
What "Official Secrets Act?" Reference to US Code or Statutes at Large, please.

Its the British version of whatever passes in the USA, once you sign it you can't even officially reveal you've signed it, which can make things a bit messy if you need to pass on information.

I'd of imagined she'd of been vetted when Bill was in the job as living in/around all the paperwork that the president would of been required to read would of meant at some point there was a risk she could read/hear something by accident so better to give her a security clearance and a very boring speech by someone from the FBI/NSA etc.

Dianne Reynolds was the go between in the government / Clinton Foundation pay for play schemes and international cover-up operations.

Follow the money.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: mobiusmale
*snip* ... with sensitive (if not classified at the time) information.*snip*

Answered your own question before you left your first paragraph.

However, let nothing slow down another "Clinton Bash."

Have fun.

When it comes to the Clintons, there's lots to bash certainly...but I was using this one exchange of sensitive information, between a mother and daughter, to ask the question "what are the rules?".

So, I answered my own question how?

It seems that most other posters have understood, and we are having a productive discussion about what can/should - and what cannot/should not - be done within this context.

By all means, feel free to join in.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: mobiusmale
*snip* ... with sensitive (if not classified at the time) information.*snip*

Answered your own question before you left your first paragraph.

However, let nothing slow down another "Clinton Bash."

Have fun.

When it comes to the Clintons, there's lots to bash certainly...but I was using this one exchange of sensitive information, between a mother and daughter, to ask the question "what are the rules?".

So, I answered my own question how?

It seems that most other posters have understood, and we are having a productive discussion about what can/should - and what cannot/should not - be done within this context.

By all means, feel free to join in.

The rules are ... nothing classified, confidential, sensitive or otherwise was revealed.

Chelsea doesn't need a security clearance to hear that the group were "like terrorists" from her mom.

Heck, the American people didn't need to hear that a coordinated attack on our outpost was done by terrorists.

You note that fact that there was nothing classified revelaed, yourself, in your first paragraph. What is there to discuss?

And, as you can easily see, the topic isn't focused there, but again on mere Clinton bashing.

a reply to: Flavian

From your statements it seems quite clear that you have very little, or no, knowledge of such matters.
The idea of people "knowing" about the stealth bomber was based entirely upon their own speculation and the random sightings of a craft which no one had information about. I remember actually reading some unbelievable "facts" in various aviation magazines before it became public.
However, it still remains true about those who would talk about security matters, even in the abstract, putting themselves and others at risk by talking, not too much, but any at all. Many times it is better to not acknowledge any information than to stir up speculation by openly bringing charges on figures in the public eye. There are, however, ways and means of the scales of justice being brought into balance if such things go too far.