Hillary Clinton emails included very secret satellite images

HilRods Email:
================

Daily Press Briefing – August 12, 2015

Aug. 12, 2015: Daily Press Briefing with Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner at Department of State.

http://video.state.gov/en/video/4417131328001
=============================================

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 12, 2015

TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everyone, welcome to the State Department. Happy Wednesday. Just a couple things at the top. First of all, I wanted to speak to the possible death of a Croatian citizen in Egypt that took place; many of you are aware of the video that’s circulated earlier today. We’ve obviously seen Prime Minister Milanovic’s statement about the reported murder of a Croatian citizen, Tomislav Salopek, by ISIL terrorists in Egypt. We understand the Government of Croatia is still working to confirm this brutal act. Our thoughts, obviously, are with Mr. Salopek’s wife and children, his family, and the Croatian people at this very difficult time.

We obviously condemn in the strongest possible terms the horrific violence and brutality that ISIL continues to carry out across the region. The United States stands shoulder to shoulder with Croatia, with Egypt, and all of our friends and partners in the fight against terrorism.

And I just – I did want to commend to all of you – I know most of you got to see or read the Secretary’s – the transcript of the Secretary’s event at Thomson Reuters yesterday in New York. It was a thorough discussion of how the JCPOA effectively shuts down all of Iran’s pathways to enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon and also why other options that opponents of the deal have proposed, such as walking away or securing a better deal, are not only not realistic but are likely to have the opposite effect, which would remove – see the removal of all constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and the crumbling of the international sanctions regime.

I also want to call your attention to the continuing support that we’ve seen for the Iran deal. Over the weekend, I think there was a letter from the nation’s leading scientists – a letter sent to President Obama. And also yesterday an open letter that was shared from three dozen retired U.S. military generals and admirals who unequivocally stated that, “There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” end quote. We believe that the more the American people understand how good this deal is, how effective it is for America’s security and that of our allies and partners around the world, the more they’ll support it.

I’ll take your questions. Brad, do you want to go?

QUESTION: So I think we’ll get back to both of those in a bit. I just wanted to ask firstly about the emails of former Secretary of State Clinton. We heard from this podium when we first learned about her private email account that no classified information was supposedly within those emails, and now we found out yesterday. Does that make you worried about what more is – we’re going to learn from these emails?

MR TONER: Well, so obviously most or many of you saw the statement that we put out last night. Just to reiterate, the emails that have been discussed have not been released to the public, and where we’re at in this right now, this process, is we’re working with the director of national intelligence to resolve whether in fact this material is actually classified. But in the meantime we’re taking steps, clearly, to make sure that the information is protected and stored properly.

So it’s also important, I think, to emphasize that these emails were not marked as classified at the time they were sent, and both of – both of which they were received obviously by Secretary Clinton. They weren’t sent by her. But none of them were classified at the time. And what we’re – our focus has been throughout this is obviously we need to be responsive to the request put on us to release publicly all of her emails that she provided to us, the State Department, per FOIA regulations and processes. We’ve been doing that. We’ve been working to clear these in a manner that’s been as responsive as possible and quick as possible, because we know that many members of the public and you journalists want to see these emails, and are redacting them as necessary, as we find things that need to be upgraded in their classification.

We have not seen anything at the TS level yet, and so – but that is our function throughout, and we have an embedded group of folks from the IC community – or from the IC, rather, who are looking at these emails and helping us clear them as we go through them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So it’s your assertion that none of the information even in these latest emails, like, that have come to light contained information that was classified at the time they were penned? Is that right?

MR TONER: Again, I think we’re – what I would say is we’re in discussions with ODNI about their recommendations. They’ve clearly – and we’ve seen those and acknowledged the fact that they’ve – they – so they’ve taken two of the emails and they’ve said there’s no IC equities in these. The other two they’ve said should be classified, I think, at the Top Secret level. We’re now assessing that ourselves internally. I think we’ve said in the past, classification, looking at these kinds of issues, it’s – sometimes it’s black and white but oftentimes it’s not. And so there’s lots of considerations to take into account when we’re looking at these. So we’re looking at – or we’re working with ODNI on these emails. We’re looking at – we’re trying to clarify their findings and trying to resolve whether we think they need to be classified.

QUESTION: But you – at this point you’re not satisfied that it was classified at the time that they were written?

MR TONER: I’d just say we’re in discussion with them.

QUESTION: Okay. But that shouldn’t be – I mean, that’s not – that should be pretty black and white if somebody’s classified it, and until that —

MR TONER: Well, they weren’t marked. Let me clarify that. They were not —

QUESTION: Well, the emails weren’t marked.

MR TONER: Yeah, they were marked as classified, right.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: But as we’ve been doing throughout —

QUESTION: But the information therein doesn’t – if you write down everything you heard at a classified briefing and put it in an email, that’s – it’s not marked as classified but that’s classified information.

MR TONER: Right, right. Right, correct.

QUESTION: I mean, not that that happened here, but —

MR TONER: No, no, right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, shouldn’t – did all of her aides get some sort of training in how they handle classified information when they joined the State Department?

MR TONER: And that’s a normal step, yes. They would all get briefings on —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: — handling classified material. That’s —

QUESTION: Does the secretary get that as well, or is that something presumed at the – that a secretary —

MR TONER: I can’t speak to – precisely to what she received in terms of training, but that’s a normal part of the process as well.

QUESTION: So shouldn’t they have known better on information that could perceivably become classified, not to have sent that over to an unclassified email account, let alone a nongovernmental email account?

MR TONER: Well, Brad, again, you’re asking me to step back in time and make judgments on who was sending what at that time and how they were assessing the information. That’s not, frankly, our job here. Our job is to look at the information that Secretary Clinton has passed on to us and release it publicly.

QUESTION: I understand.

MR TONER: And so as we release it, we’re looking to see if any of that needs to be upgraded. We’re not aware now – with the exception now of these two emails that have been flagged, and we’re looking at them and working – but we’re not aware of any classified material that was sent to her at that time.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But what we’re doing and what we have done, frankly, and you know this, is we’ve redacted stuff after the fact.

QUESTION: And then I just have —

MR TONER: Upgraded it. Yeah, please.

QUESTION: — one final question, since it deals with the retention element which you raised, and it had been the position of this building that the server and the thumb drives, that that – with – those being retained by her lawyer was acceptable. The Justice Department felt otherwise. Where did you come to the conclusion that that was an acceptable means of retention at that time?

MR TONER: So my answer to that is we had based our assessment of where these materials are being held at the lawyer’s office based on what we had determined, which was that some of it was classified as – up to Secret/No Foreign, I think is the classification level. And we sent security experts to evaluate where they were being held, and at that level that was acceptable.

QUESTION: Mark, could you clarify something —

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: — that you just said – I’m sorry – on this one.

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: How does something that was unclassified get upgraded to be classified? What is the mechanism or how is it determined that it should become classified?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, a lot of it, without getting into too much detail, deals with names, sources, all that thing – all that kind of consideration. So we would look at it – if something was not sensitive or considered sensitive at the time or classified, it could over time evolve that given who was saying what to whom, where that source – where that information was coming from, that we would need to upgrade the classification to protect those sources. That’s usually, generally. I mean, there’s other variations on that, but that’s generally the —

QUESTION: So I thought with time —

MR TONER: So what we do is – sorry, I apologize – essentially, so we – and we’ve said this before. So we don’t throw the entire document out; what we do is often redact certain lines that protect —

QUESTION: I thought with the passage of time, things that are classified become unclassified, not the other way around.

MR TONER: That’s true as well. That’s true as well. I mean, both are – again, this is – I mean, there’s very clear examples of when it’s black and white, but it’s not often black and white. And these are – it’s – some of it’s art and some of it’s science. But a lot of it is, frankly, very knowledgeable people looking at this and sharing it among those who have equities in the content and information for us all to reach a common agreement on the classification level.

Yeah, I’ll go to you, James.

QUESTION: Thanks very much, Mark. I have a few questions on this subject.

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: And forgive me if any have already been addressed in this setting, because I think you’ll agree this is rapidly becoming a sprawling subject difficult for any one person to master.

First, is it the understanding of the department that the actual server has been turned over to the FBI?

MR TONER: So unfortunately, I’m going to have to refer you to the FBI. They have not confirmed that. We’ve also seen the reports from Secretary Clinton’s lawyers and from Secretary Clinton’s staff that that has happened, but we’ve not received an independent confirmation. And it’s not for me to confirm that, so that’s a question for the FBI to answer.

QUESTION: We were just talking about what is known as derivative classification, and I just wonder if it’s your understanding that material which is classified at some level which is transmitted from one individual to another electronically, whether there are in place any coding or encryption systems that flag when such classified information is taken from a classified source and cut-and-paste, if you will, into an unclassified source. Is there like a marker, like the dye that we put on money, on banks or whatever, that will help us trace when that’s happening?

MR TONER: That’s beyond my level of expertise. I mean, a lot of times, as you note, James, whether it’s email or cable traffic or whatever, classified information – and it’s something we drill into every Foreign Service officer and take very seriously and every civil servant within the State Department – the proper level of classification, identifying it as such, and then marking it and keeping it marked. I just don’t have the expertise to say that the – in the information sphere that that’s able to – that you’re able to, as you say, dye it.

QUESTION: You just alluded to a visit to Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer’s office that was taken – made by government personnel for the purpose of verifying that the security in that lawyer’s office was adequate for the purpose of retaining the server. Who made that visit? When was it?

MR TONER: I don’t have the details, but we’ve talked about this before. We sent over a – again, I don’t know if it was one person or several persons, but we were in touch with the lawyer’s office – again, understanding at that time we weren’t dealing with a top secret level – the possibility of a top secret level email or emails. We did make the determination at the time, and that included an onsite visit. So I don’t have details of who, what, where, when, but that was done. And we ensured at that time to our confidence in – or that we had confidence that that was being appropriately stored up to that level that we had at the time.

QUESTION: It seems to me that if this department has working for it people with the expertise to make such a determination about the security procedures and their adequacy in the lawyer’s office, this department also has access to people who’d be in a position to judge whether the procedures that Mrs. Clinton herself was using with respect to the server were adequate or appropriate. And has that determination been made?

MR TONER: Again, two points to make. One is – and we all understand this in this room, both those of us who are in government service but also all of you in the media – cyber security is an evolving issue, and so what the level of cyber security that existed four or five, six years ago, is not at the level that we need today. So let me just finish. So we’re obviously always looking to upgrade and assure that we have the best protections available both on our unclassified but certainly our classified systems.

But I would also just remind you, so this was in response to a FOIA request that Secretary Clinton handed over these emails for us to go through and make public. We’ve been doing that. That’s our goal in this. She said this is the – encompassed the entirety of her email exchange on that given issue, Benghazi and Libya, and we’ve been focused – our efforts have been focused on sifting through this stuff, making it public, and then classifying where we – or upgrading the classification where necessary.

QUESTION: Just a few more.

MR TONER: Yeah, please. No, that’s okay.

QUESTION: And I appreciate your indulgence and that of the room.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has, to your knowledge, Secretary of State Kerry, at any time since March when this story first broke in The New York Times, discussed this matter with former Secretary of State Clinton directly?

MR TONER: I can tell you that Secretary Kerry is very seized with the overall issue. Two points to make here. One, in making sure that we fulfill our requirement to make these emails public while classifying them or upgrading their classification if necessary, takes that very seriously. We have devoted a considerable amount of resources and manpower to this effort.

Secondly, I’m not – he wants to make sure that our existing security – computer security is at a level that’s needed in today’s age.

QUESTION: Has he spoken to Clinton?

MR TONER: I don’t know – that’s what my – the last thing is. I don’t – I’m not aware that he has spoken directly with Secretary Clinton about this issue. I’d have to check on that.

QUESTION: Obviously, the Department of State has been in touch with Secretary Clinton or her aides just for the logistical purposes of meeting the various timetables for requests, the litigation involved, and so forth. Is the Department of State providing any counsel or maintaining any contact of any kind with respect to this matter with any of Secretary Clinton’s former staff?

MR TONER: No. Not that I’m aware of, no.

QUESTION: The revelations about ex post facto amplification of classification level – does this place any of Mrs. Clinton’s former aides in any kind of jeopardy such as you understand it?

MR TONER: Again, it’s not really my position to make that kind of a judgment, frankly.

QUESTION: Last question.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: We have here the former Secretary of State, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States, and she’s now engaged in the business of turning stuff over to the FBI. That’s pretty heavy stuff, isn’t it?

MR TONER: Well, again, I would just return to what our role is and the State Department’s role is in this process, which is to go through these emails, to make them public, while making sure that any material within them that needs to be upgraded in classification is – that we do so. It’s not for me to talk to the broader issues at hand here. That I’d refer you to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: Do you see parallels with the Petraeus case?

MR TONER: I do not. I’ve said this before; it’s apples and oranges in my view.

QUESTION: Can I just do one here?

MR TONER: Yeah, please go ahead, Brad.

QUESTION: Do FOIA processes ever lead to investigations on the improper use, storage, or transmission of classified information? Or are those two things completely siloed off? I mean, has there ever been an example where in a FOIA process —

MR TONER: Yeah, and I —

QUESTION: — you’ve ever referred something then for an investigation?

MR TONER: Right. It’s a good question, and I don’t have a ready answer in terms of examples of where that’s been the case. I think – and again, I would refer you to the IG, because I think what’s – that would be in the purview of the IG, to look at those kinds of issues. And that’s frankly why they exist, is to see if there’s broader implications and to conduct investigations as they see fit. And they’ve got full autonomy to do so.

QUESTION: And then just in these emails, without describing what they are, you don’t see any element, even if something was or has now become top secret, of intent by any official to transmit classified information?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: So even if —

MR TONER: You’re talking about – sorry, you’re talking about intent by the originators of the —

QUESTION: By the sender, yeah. Or the sendee too, the recipient, to receive classified information improperly or something like that.

MR TONER: Again, we’re still in the process, frankly, of discussing with ODNI whether they need to be classified at that level.

QUESTION: Mark, one more, just one more?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead, James.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry responded in an interview setting recently to the question of whether it was likely that the Russians and the Chinese had had access to his email. And he said words to the effect that it was a safe bet. Is it a safe bet that the Russians and Chinese had access to Hillary Clinton’s official email given how little security procedures were in place?

MR TONER: Again, where the Secretary’s remarks – and he speaks to the reality, as I said, that we all live in today, which is that anything sent in an unclassified setting is vulnerable. So I’d leave it there.

QUESTION: Following up, did you —

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Do you have access, the United States, to the emails of Chinese and Russian officials, since he’s so sure – (laughter) —

MR TONER: Nice try, Brad.

QUESTION: I mean, how does he know they have his emails unless he has their emails, maybe?

MR TONER: Nice try. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right. New topic?

MR TONER: Please. Sure. Are we done with —

QUESTION: A new topic?

MR TONER: Okay, yeah.