Team Hillary: She never ordered the Code Red that, er, is in her e-mail

posted at 6:01 pm on January 8, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

It depends on the meaning of the word classified …. maybe. It took several hours for Team Hillary to respond to the big reveal in this latest tranche of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. Rather than explain what “turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” meant about information Hillary needed when the secure fax was balky, her campaign issued a simple denial to CBS’ Nancy Cordes:

Let’s parse this message out. Clearly she asked Sullivan to send something through the non-secure system, as the e-mail in question states:

hillary-e-mail2

So the hinge in this case seems to be on the word “classified.” The e-mail does not discuss the content or the topic of the talking points, but clearly Sullivan intended to have them transmitted through the secure system rather than any other method, several of which would have been easier to use. The State Department told Buzzfeed’s Katherine Miller that it still doesn’t mean the information would necessarily have been classified. “Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified.”

There are still a couple of problems for the “nothing to see here” explanation. First, Sullivan isn’t a college intern; he was and remains a key Clinton adviser who had been on this job for over two years by this point. If there was a problem getting unclassified data to Hillary on time, it’s almost certain that Sullivan wouldn’t need direction on how to get around the secure transmission. This was 15 hours after Sullivan first promised the talking points, and his 8:17 am message back would have been lame for a clerk in those circumstances if the information was unclassified.

On top of that, Hillary directs Sullivan to remove the “identifying heading” before “send[ing] nonsecure.” Why would that have to be done for information allowed to be transmitted through unsecured means? Simply removing a header does not mean information meant to be secured can be suddenly transmitted in the open. And if it was okay to send in the open, then the headers would not need to be removed.

Besides, as I pointed out in the earlier post (and several other times over the past year), 18 USC 793 does not require information to be classified to take action on violations, although that does allow prosecutors to build a case easier. It just requires information that transmitted or stored in the open could damage national security. Clearly Sullivan thought this needed to go through secure channels, and yet Hillary not only tried to override it, she wanted the headers deleted to allow for it — which shows a pretty clear intent to violate the regulations on handling of secure information.

This explanation won’t cut it … if the Department of Justice takes its job seriously. We’ll see.

Update: Why was Hillary so anxious to get these talking points that morning? As it happens, she had a discussion with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov that morning. According to the State Department readout in the daily briefing later on 6/17/2011, it was quite a conversation:

QUESTION: On Syria, has Secretary Clinton spoken with her Russian counterpart, Lavrov?

MS. NULAND: She did speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, and she did discuss Syria with him. She also discussed Middle East peace, Libya, UN Security Council 1267, and Russian-Georgian relations. With regard to Syria, the discussion focused on action in the UN Security Council and how the U.S. and Russia can work together to make sure that we can get to a UN Security Council resolution that supports peace and security in Syria.

A reader sent me this after a site called Tass in Lichtenstein Lithuania tracked down the data using my earlier post as a springboard. I have no idea whether this is affiliated with the old Soviet publication or not, but the links and the transcript from Victoria Nuland’s briefing are accurate. The writer ends by sarcastically wondering whether talking points for use with Lavrov on Syria, Libya, and Georgia might have been classified. Assuming that Hillary needed the talking points for this conversation (which we don’t know from the e-mails), it would seem likely that the information was at least sensitive to national security — and therefore needed to be secured. But was this the topic? Maybe Hillary Clinton will enlighten us … or maybe the FBI already knows.

Update, 1/9/16: The site is hosted in Lichtenstein, not Lithuania, and the tipster has explained to me that the site’s theme is a parody of Tass. It’s … a darned good one, actually. Good for them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I miss the old days, when Michelle vlogged on HotAir in a cheerleader outfit.

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 6:42 PM

I found it.

fossten on January 8, 2016 at 6:44 PM

Missed that oldie but goodie back in the day.
Needs to be kept handy.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 8:04 PM

You said it was not evidence if any plausible (and/or possible) alternative exists.

Based on that criterion, having no plausible alternative to work with, then I consider the content of the email evidence supporting the only reasonable conclusion.

The Schaef on January 8, 2016 at 7:59 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Your conjecture contradicts the evidence. So you’re “playing the game” wrong.

The Schaef on January 8, 2016 at 8:00 PM

No, sorry but it fits perfectly.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

If they don’t prosecute her at this point, it makes a mockery of the laws and pretty much makes it impossible to ever prosecute any other USG employee for unlawfully disclosing classified information.

Hayabusa on January 8, 2016 at 6:12 PM

.
I’d like to agree but I disagree. Depending on whom you mean by “they,” this administration has no compunction about pursuing victims on a political basis just as they have no reservations about excusing offenders and law-breakers who are political allies. Remember the slam-dunk NBPP conviction in 2009 that was vacated by the Obama Administration and never explained or justified? …

ExpressoBold on January 8, 2016 at 6:39 PM

Indeed.
And Her Man Bill started it all.
Anybody remember LT. Flinn, cashiered from the AF for adultery at the same time her CinC was getting away with it in spades?

Kelly Flinn (whose surname was sometimes misspelled as Flynn; born December 23, 1970) was the first female B-52 pilot in the United States Air Force (USAF).[1]

She was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 1997 after an adulterous affair with the husband of an enlisted subordinate, for military offenses including disobeying a direct order from her commanding officer to break off the affair, and for lying to him about having done so.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 8:08 PM

If deleting 18.5 minutes of tape made Nixon a crook, what does 30,000 deleted emails make Hillary?

Rebar on January 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM

A Democrat.

Browncoatone on January 8, 2016 at 6:38 PM

Looks like you can tell a raven from a writing-desk pretty well.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 8:09 PM

Benghazi Hearing: Hillary Clinton Ignored 600 Requests for More Security in Libya

If the ‘Media’ can give Hillary a pass after 600 calls for help went unanswered and an American Ambassador and three other Americans are killed and many wounded in a 13 hour fire fight…

… What makes anyone think they, or this Lawless 3rd World Banana Republic would hold her accountable for this?

Such is the Country we live in folks…

Seven Percent Solution on January 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM

There is no IF about it: DeMedia did give her a pass, and practically a commendation.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 8:10 PM

“Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified.”

You gotta love the ability of liberals to create the appearance of a gray area where there clearly isn’t one.

antipc on January 8, 2016 at 6:10 PM

Gray is all they got.

AesopFan on January 8, 2016 at 8:11 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

They have no reason to use code words if they are the only two people who will ever see this email.

They have no reason to troll the public when the entire point of the server was that the public would not be privy to these emails.

Any foreign intelligence that compromised their network to the point where they can see their secure email can also see their secure faxes; they use similar encryption protocols. So false flags would be a waste of time because the agent could see everything sent by both means.

All of these alternatives assume that anybody other than the two of them will ever see the email, but every indication is that extraordinary measures were taken to prevent anyone from seeing these emails, ever. They’re not consistent with the policy that drove the existence of the server to begin with.

The Schaef on January 8, 2016 at 8:13 PM

No, sorry but it fits perfectly.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

No, it doesn’t, and the reasons for such have been explained to you in detail.

If reasonable discussion interested you, and not being a friggin troll, you would be honest enough to acknowledge this.

The Schaef on January 8, 2016 at 8:14 PM

I can’t figure out if Tiaioc is trolling or really stupid enough to claim that his alternate explanations are credible in any way. Hillary doesn’t have much of a defense at her disposal, but Tiaioc’s comments are pure stupidity.

blink on January 8, 2016 at 8:28 PM

No. He shows no interest in resolving outstanding issues, and refuses to recant any lies he tells about other people.

Someone stupid but honest would first have to be honest and he does not comport himself that way.

The Schaef on January 8, 2016 at 8:29 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Welcome aboard the conjecture coo-coo train destination Oregon State Hospital.

RickB on January 8, 2016 at 8:38 PM

“Removed the header? You mean like in soccer?”

PackerBronco on January 8, 2016 at 8:39 PM

Clearly she asked Sullivan to send something

Wrong. There is no question mark at end of her statement, nor is the syntax interrogative.

She didn’t ask anyone to do anything. She told them to do it.

BobMbx on January 8, 2016 at 8:47 PM

I can’t figure out if Tiaioc is trolling or really stupid enough to claim that his alternate explanations are credible in any way. Hillary doesn’t have much of a defense at her disposal, but Tiaioc’s comments are pure stupidity.

blink on January 8, 2016 at 8:28 PM

When you run out of defenses, you employ the absurd.

This email is essentially the “video” that doesn’t match the official report. Unlike the Tuzla lie, this stuff is illegal.

$10 says she cries again now that she’s been outed as liar by her own hand.

BobMbx on January 8, 2016 at 8:51 PM

Your You’re welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

You’re welcome for correcting your lack of education.

bigmacdaddy on January 8, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

I really hope the DNC or HRC doesn’t pay you too much. You’re not worth it for results, but you sure are amusing with your incessant banter.

byepartisan on January 8, 2016 at 9:05 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Criteria #1: The statement was an order, and would be interpreted as such. The world is not a god damn spy movie, this wasn’t some Bourne Identity crap. State doesn’t run spies.

Criteria #2: The statement was an order. An if/then statement. There’s no joke.

Criteria #3: No. Counter-intel would rely on sending a document through a means known to be compromised, so unless you are stating that HRC knew her e-mail server (and all the classified information on it) to be compromised, there is no plausible way that it could be a counterintelligence operation.

I do have to address this though:

Any foreign intelligence that compromised their network to the point where they can see their secure email can also see their secure faxes; they use similar encryption protocols. So false flags would be a waste of time because the agent could see everything sent by both means.

That’s not accurate. A secure fax would involve two STEs communicating through the DSN cloud. A secure e-mail would be traversing the SIPRNET or JWICS. Those are separate networks on separate circuits.

flashoverride on January 8, 2016 at 9:15 PM

Never let a good ISIS go to waste

SpongePuppy on January 8, 2016 at 9:26 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Wow, something more pathetic than Jeb’s billboard ad.

talkingpoints on January 8, 2016 at 9:27 PM

I think we are going to need a bigger fork.

Why is this PERSON running for POTUS?

srsly

Key West Reader on January 8, 2016 at 9:29 PM

Never let a good Dreadloc go to waste

22044 on January 8, 2016 at 9:29 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Debbie WashyerHairSchultz

is on the threads..

Key West Reader on January 8, 2016 at 9:30 PM

you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Some of your whackiest work. Ughhhh.

CWforFreedom on January 8, 2016 at 9:33 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

“You keep using that word {plausible}, I do not think it means what you think it means”

Deafdog on January 8, 2016 at 9:36 PM

The NSA has all of my texts and emails, and yet… can shed no light on this situation.

Hmmm. Maybe we need to strengthen the PATRIOT Act?

/sarc

Timin203 on January 8, 2016 at 9:40 PM

There’s a simple solution to all of this.

If the talking points/papers in question are unclassified as the HRC campaign claims, HRC or the State Department should release the documents to the public. Problem solved.

*taps foot impatiently and whistles*

TheGrouch on January 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Oh no thank you. I love the image of Hillary involved in a counter espionage sting. I like to imagine the stealth machine guns mounted in her walker. It’s so very James Bond.

DFCtomm on January 8, 2016 at 10:14 PM

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Oh no thank you. I love the image of Hillary involved in a counter espionage sting. I like to imagine the stealth machine guns mounted in her walker. It’s so very James Bond.

DFCtomm on January 8, 2016 at 10:14 PM

OH, oh, oh I got it. This was Hillary’s private server so I’ll bet there were some mole agents at the State Department and she had take the matter into her own hands since she didn’t know who she could trust. The movie will be great! A rogue Secretary of State out to get the spy ring that seduced her husband with only her heavily armed walker to aid her. It sells!

DFCtomm on January 8, 2016 at 10:18 PM

DFCtomm on January 8, 2016 at 10:18 PM

*snorts decaf out my nose*

oww

but funny

Dolce Far Niente on January 8, 2016 at 10:52 PM

She gave order to strip all headers from a document that had recently been described to her as “secure” and to send it by non-secure means without being able to confirm or deny a need for secure transmission.

That’s all that’s needed, and that is proven by the email chain.

GrumpyOldFart on January 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM

On top of that, Hillary directs Sullivan to remove the “identifying heading” before “send[ing] nonsecure.” Why would that have to be done for information allowed to be transmitted through unsecured means? Simply removing a header does not mean information meant to be secured can be suddenly transmitted in the open. And if it was okay to send in the open, then the headers would not need to be removed.

The headers indicate the maximum classification of any paragraph in the materials to be transmitted; the person generating the information classifies the information appropriately.

Each paragraph is portion marked — it carries its own classification.

So, if one paragraph of a document is classified “top secret”, and all the other paragraphs are classified “unclassified”, the entire document carries the classification “top secret”.

Stripping the headers doesn’t strip the portion marking.

So, if one has to stripped the classification headers to transmit unclassified, then some content in the materials transmitted were classified at a level above “unclassified”, and those classification markings remained.

Furthermore, to transmit materials as unclassified, after generation on a classified system, requires a technical review to assure that no material classified above unclassified (up to the maximum classification level of the system) appears in the document. If the document were printed out, that would require a review by at least two people to assure that no spillage (transfer of classified material to a system of lower classification) occurred.

If you examine the faxes released, you see the “unclassified” header top and bottom. Those headers did not have to be removed to be transmitted to your computer, for the classification headers themselves are unclassified (this is true even of “top secret” headers).

What the headers served to provide was a warning to those receiving the materials that they contained classified information — and that they are to be handled appropriately.

Because the appropriate handling needed was inopportune to Hillary, she ordered it stripped out. But that did not strip out the classified information thus insecurely transmitted.

unclesmrgol on January 8, 2016 at 11:08 PM

This explanation won’t cut it … if the Department of Justice takes its job seriously.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one, Ed.

ghostwalker1 on January 8, 2016 at 11:13 PM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

Ok. Let’s assume plausible criterion #1. Those who handle classified data are told never to “talk around” the data — don’t try to encode and don’t try to obscure the data so that it can be transmitted at a lower security level. That’s because the enemy is smart and fully capable of figuring out that about which you are speaking if they listen long enough.

Ok. Let’s assume plausible criterion #3. If so, the materials would have still borne their putative classification markings, so as to best mislead the enemy. Why strip the headers if that lends even more credibility to the supposedly classified nature of the material?

Ok. Let’s assume plausible criterion #2. That would be blatant misuse of a government computing system for political purposes. In addition, it’s fully in keeping with Hillary’s penchant for lying to the American people. But it implies that Hillary fully intended for all these communications to be available for examination by the American People. Given how well she wiped her servers, I don’t think that was the case. After all, this stuff is coming from backups that she ordered destroyed — but somehow weren’t.

I like plausible criteria #2 — it’s quite damning to Hillary, but gets her off the hook for sending classified information over an insecure channel. That said, the State Department, whose people are also being roasted over this, would have told us before if Hillary was just pulling conservative legs.

unclesmrgol on January 8, 2016 at 11:22 PM

Given the burden of proof is all on you…

Lanny Davis on January 8, 2016 at 7:56 PM

F-IXED.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2016 at 11:24 PM

Plausible?

Are you $hitting us?

itsspideyman on January 8, 2016 at 11:35 PM

I can’t figure out if Tiaioc is trolling or really stupid enough to claim that his alternate explanations are credible in any way. Hillary doesn’t have much of a defense at her disposal, but Tiaioc’s comments are pure stupidity.

blink on January 8, 2016 at 8:28 PM

Remember Occam’s Razor.

I vote for the simplest. He’s that stupid.

itsspideyman on January 8, 2016 at 11:38 PM

I have a clearance. If the message was UNCLASS there is no reason to remove the header.

The only reasons to remove a header is to hide the classification or to add more space. She hadn’t seen the document so it’s doubtful she knew the readability of it.

MikeyA on January 9, 2016 at 12:00 AM

MikeyA: But she would know whether it was classified by virtue of what she was expecting, right? It’s not as if this was a surprise communication.

byepartisan on January 9, 2016 at 12:08 AM

The fact that none of this would be relevant if this idiot hadn’t set up a private server in a public bathroom to hide communication from the president, Congress and the American people cannot be understated

NYCMike on January 9, 2016 at 12:11 AM

When Hillary can just lie so easily to the Ben Gazi sp. relatives to the 4 who were killed like that makes me think I can’t believe a word she says about anything. Just like I don’t believe a single word obama says either. I think that the leftists lie so much that they believe their lies themselves! Id bet everything I owned that Hillary is lying about her e-mails as well. Once a liar always a liar.

garydt on January 9, 2016 at 12:11 AM

I think we are going to need a bigger fork.

Key West Reader on January 8, 2016 at 9:29 PM

I’ll be stealing this.

Lolo on January 9, 2016 at 12:36 AM

Tom Eastman and Mark Guerringue of the Conway Daily Sun editorial board with President-Designate Hillary Rodham Clinton

Fug y’all, until you expire, you idiots. She’s no “president designate”.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2016 at 12:42 AM

I can’t figure out if Tiaioc is trolling or really stupid enough to claim that his alternate explanations are credible in any way. Hillary doesn’t have much of a defense at her disposal, but Tiaioc’s comments are pure stupidity.

blink on January 8, 2016 at 8:28 PM

Remember Occam’s Razor.

I vote for the simplest. He’s that stupid.

itsspideyman on January 8, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Don’t assume it’s a he.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2016 at 12:58 AM

Could the identifying headers referred to be this:

The header refers to ACP-127 format lines (FLs) 1-10 that contain transmission codes necessary to transmit the message from an originating telecommunications facility to a receiving facility.

ACP-127 Format Lines – US Department of State

BobM88 on January 9, 2016 at 2:46 AM

Any regular folks who handle confidential or classified materials would be fired and/or tried, convicted and jailed for less than she has done. What a disgrace that she is not only still walking around, but running for President, as the leading Democrat candidate. A shameful, nauseating, pathetic disgrace..

Kenosha Kid on January 9, 2016 at 2:57 AM

Could the identifying headers referred to be this:

If it did, so what ? Those headers include:

This group is a string of characters representing the classification. For example:
(1) ZNR UUUUU (for unclassified);
(2) ZNY EEEEE (for UNCLAS EFTO; used for SBU NOFORN);
(3) ZNY CCCCC (for confidential);
(4) ZNY SSSSS (for secret);
(5) ZNY TTTTT (for top secret); and
(6) ZNY SSSSS/BBBBB (for secret SPECAT military messages).

So, she is still ordering her subordinates to remove classification info.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 6:39 AM

Hillary Clinton is a serial liar. That statement can be backed up by various episodes in her career. So for her to lie about sending classified documents through her server should be no surprise. It’s characteristic. It should also be no surprise that the people on her staff lie. Particularly when she orders them to do so, which is the case with this classified document.

Let’s be clear. Removing the classification from a document and releasing it is a federal crime. Sending a classified document over a non-secured network is a crime. The entire purpose of classifying documents is to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. No need to parse the matter, it is what it is.

grumpyank on January 9, 2016 at 7:08 AM

So the hinge in this case seems to be on the word “classified.”

Nope. It’s on the word “asked.” Hillary didn’t ask; she ordered.

Arnold Yabenson on January 9, 2016 at 7:45 AM

Why isn’t Hillary in jail?

albill on January 9, 2016 at 8:02 AM

Why isn’t Hillary in jail?
albill on January 9, 2016 at 8:02 AM

Democrat Privlidge.

ConstantineXI on January 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM

If the talking points/papers in question are unclassified as the HRC campaign claims, HRC or the State Department should release the documents to the public. Problem solved.

*taps foot impatiently and whistles*

TheGrouch on January 8, 2016 at 9:51 PM

I think I read the ‘Talking Points’ fax was released. Just heavily redacted. As in a page full of thick black lines.

I’m with ya, Grouch. Just release the full un-redacted copy of the TP fax.

BigAlSouth on January 9, 2016 at 8:24 AM

Untouchable. The ignorant masses care not.

Carnac on January 9, 2016 at 8:24 AM

From Guy Benson @Towhhall:

The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, . . .

Hey Tlaloc, give me a “plausible” explanation as to why the talking points needed to be “redacted” prior to production?

BigAlSouth on January 9, 2016 at 8:32 AM

Nope. It’s on the word “asked.” Hillary didn’t ask; she ordered.

Indeed. I don’t know why that is a concept so many fail to grasp; if the head of a government agency, whether it is the Secretary of State or a Company Commander in some obscure support battalion, tells someone to do something, it is an order, even if, which isn’t the case per the wording of the e-mail in question, one is “asked”.

This Sullivan chap had three possible answers:

1. “I cannot do that, it is illegal.” Of course, that would probably get him canned, audited, all his assets seized, and jailed.

2. “Roger, on the way.” Of course for anyone else in the world this would have landed either H>illary!™ and Sullivan in the hoosegow.

3. “I cannot do that, it is illegal, but let me get with the IT security guys to see how we can fix the problem and get you the info ASAP.” Of course that would probably get him demoted to assistant spittoon cleaner in the legation in Tibet.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM

Indeed. I don’t know why that is a concept so many fail to grasp; if the head of a government agency, whether it is the Secretary of State or a Company Commander in some obscure support battalion, tells someone to do something, it is an order, even if, which isn’t the case per the wording of the e-mail in question, one is “asked”.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM

As if anybody working under Hillary would say no to her, and not suffer her wrath.

BigAlSouth on January 9, 2016 at 9:08 AM

I’m waiting for the media to tell us one more time that she’s inevitable as the dem nominee and most likely will be elected the first woman president. They are all playing a long game and trying to run out the clock. The FBI is taking it’s sweet time with this investigation and we all know it will be for naught. The govt can keep secrets when they want to, like hundreds of thousands of migrants from Syria and other ME countries brought in on green cards so that they can set up mooslime enclaves all over the country. We are being infected by a cult and culture that will never become part of our one nation.

Kissmygrits on January 9, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Plausible criteria #1: it’s all a code and none of the words mean what they sseem to mean

Plausible criteria #2: it was a joke made at the expense of people like you and the doc sent was her playlist

Plausible criteria #3: it’s fake counterintel chatter meant to mislead foreign sigint.

Your welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM

When I read this I thought it was a pretty clever /sarcasm post. Then I saw Tlaloc at the bottom and I realized it was a /SeriouslyYouGuys post.

Immolate on January 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM

This group is a string of characters representing the classification. For example:
(1) ZNR UUUUU (for unclassified);
(2) ZNY EEEEE (for UNCLAS EFTO; used for SBU NOFORN);
(3) ZNY CCCCC (for confidential);
(4) ZNY SSSSS (for secret);
(5) ZNY TTTTT (for top secret); and
(6) ZNY SSSSS/BBBBB (for secret SPECAT military messages).

Haven’t seen those in a long time, I wasn’t even sure they were still in use.

Johnnyreb on January 9, 2016 at 10:20 AM

Your You’re welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM
You’re welcome for correcting your lack of education.

bigmacdaddy on January 8, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Excellent bigmacdaddy. GD, “igor-rent”, libertgard, troll can’t spell and doesn’t know grammar.

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 10:30 AM

She gave order to strip all headers from a document that had recently been described to her as “secure” and to send it by non-secure means without being able to confirm or deny a need for secure transmission.

That’s all that’s needed, and that is proven by the email chain.

GrumpyOldFart on January 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM

GOF – While I agree with you, ya’ gotta remember how dam slippery those Clintons are. Plus, I don’t think that Obumfart would want the scandal of his former SOS being brought to trial on felony charges regarding classified information.

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Anyone else would be prosecuted for this, with this kind of evidence hanging out there. Is Obama going to let Hillary get away with this? It may not make any difference, because we know Trump won’t.

bflat879 on January 9, 2016 at 10:43 AM

So, she is still ordering her subordinates to remove classification info.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 6:39 AM

Which was exactly my point.

I wasn’t offering a feeble defense for her, I was asking if those headers could be it, because it seems plausible to me that those would have to be included in all transmissions, per that document, with communications to distinguish what classification the transmission contained.

Removing them would then allow them to send a document over an non-secure fax since there was no header defining the classification.

BobM88 on January 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Your You’re welcome for broadening your world for you.

Tlaloc on January 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM
You’re welcome for correcting your lack of education.

bigmacdaddy on January 8, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Excellent bigmacdaddy. GD, “igor-rent”, libertgard, troll can’t spell and doesn’t know grammar.

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 10:30 AM

That’s Austrian.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM

Rather than explain what “turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” meant about information Hillary needed when the secure fax was balky, her campaign issued a simple denial to CBS’ Nancy Cordes:

The “nonpaper w no identifying heading” most likely means transcribing the information into an email and sent without anything in the header so as not to alert anyone to the nature of the email. Noting else makes sense for the “nonpaper” part of that except that.

Having said that, just because you use classified information without headings or classification and move it to another form doesn’t change the classification of the information. The information is what sets the classification, not the format.

When we were coming back from Iraq in 2004, we were debriefed by the Agency about classified words were weren’t supposed to use when speaking to people, even though anyone outside the community or our guys would associate those words together with anything classified. We couldn’t say “purple chicken” together, only apart. Something as dumb as that (no, those weren’t the words, but just as stupid). We couldn’t write them down either.

There is no getting around the classification of information if it was classified at the time like all of these instances were for Shillary. She can’t change them, even by taking the header off and changing how it is sent.

Patriot Vet on January 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM

Anyone else would be prosecuted for this, with this kind of evidence hanging out there. Is Obama going to let Hillary get away with this? It may not make any difference, because we know Trump won’t.

bflat879 on January 9, 2016 at 10:43 AM

What are the statute of limitations for the laws that HRC violated???

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 11:39 AM

What are the statute of limitations for the laws that HRC violated???

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 11:39 AM

I believe it is 5 years. But it could be different, not sure.

18 U.S. Code § 3282 – Offenses not capital
(a)In General.—
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-II/chapter-213

Patriot Vet on January 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM

Removing them would then allow them to send a document over an non-secure fax since there was no header defining the classification.

No, removing a header wouldn’t allow them to be sent unsecured, the information is still classified.

Everything in an office or facility that handles both classified and unclassified material is labeled, faxes, printers, filing cabinets, computers, CDs if they are allowed (floppies used to be, and most places flat out ban USB sticks), phones, though confusing a STU for a regular land line takes some doing. Even monitors, though I never figured that one out unless some one thought it was possible to read something burned into the screen. About the only thing not labeled is staplers. Pretty green labels for unclass, red for secret, and so on. The whole point is to keep from accidentally sending classified stuff out over the unclassified means.

Removing the classification header to make it seem unclassified is one offense, sending it another, ordering someone to do so a third.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 12:21 PM

Went over west of home to see Col Allen West do a talk and meet and greet.

He says among other things that he knows the FBI will indict her on some counts of not correct on securing top secret info.

Not sure what Obama and the big boss’s of the D party will do during the nomination voting.

But at convention they will de-rail her and put in Biden and Pres. and Warren as VP and go with that. He thinks that is what Obama wants and in fact it is better that Ms Clinton be charged as we can not allow any one to commit high crimes like this any longer and remain a stable country.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM

Hillary’s version of “I did not have sex with that woman…”.

Oxymoron on January 9, 2016 at 12:28 PM

No, removing a header wouldn’t allow them to be sent unsecured, the information is still classified.

Everything in an office or facility that handles both classified and unclassified material is labeled, faxes, printers, filing cabinets, computers, CDs if they are allowed (floppies used to be, and most places flat out ban USB sticks), phones, though confusing a STU for a regular land line takes some doing. Even monitors, though I never figured that one out unless some one thought it was possible to read something burned into the screen. About the only thing not labeled is staplers. Pretty green labels for unclass, red for secret, and so on. The whole point is to keep from accidentally sending classified stuff out over the unclassified means.

Removing the classification header to make it seem unclassified is one offense, sending it another, ordering someone to do so a third.

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 12:21 PM

Jeebus Cripes, Professor. I’m agreeing with you. If you don’t like my phraseology I humbly apologize, but you’re wasting your time with me, you’re already preaching to the choir.

BobM88 on January 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM

What are the statute of limitations for the laws that HRC violated???

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 11:39 AM
I believe it is 5 years. But it could be different, not sure.

18 U.S. Code § 3282 – Offenses not capital
(a)In General.—
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-II/chapter-213
Patriot Vet on January 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM

Well PV, that being the case I’ll have my popcorn on standby for 20 January 2017 and going forward. It’ll be fun to watch HRC being taken down.

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM

I predicted in an earlier thread that Obama may try to pre-empt all of this by simply pardoning Hillary and her inner circle, whilst perhaps allowing some relatively low-level flunky to be prosecuted as a sacrificial lamb. This would cause a brief firestorm, but, at the end of the day, Hillary would be able to honestly claim that she has never been formally charged with any crime, and, by election day, the low information types will pretty much have forgotten about all of this.

We shall see.

Hayabusa on January 8, 2016 at 6:12 PM

I believe there is a problem with your suggestion. A pardon cannot be issued until there is a conviction. I might be wrong on this but what needs to be pardoned if one is not indicted and convicted of a crime?

Would any attorney like to comment?

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 1:10 PM

A pardon cannot be issued until there is a conviction. I might be wrong on this but what needs to be pardoned if one is not indicted and convicted of a crime?

Would any attorney like to comment?

soghornetgunner on January 9, 2016 at 1:10 PM

Not a lawyer, but don’t forget that President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon-even though Nixon had never been formally charged with, much less be convicted of, any crimes before he resigned.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM

Went over west of home to see Col Allen West do a talk and meet and greet.

He says among other things that he knows the FBI will indict her on some counts of not correct on securing top secret info.

Not sure what Obama and the big boss’s of the D party will do during the nomination voting.

But at convention they will de-rail her and put in Biden and Pres. and Warren as VP and go with that. He thinks that is what Obama wants and in fact it is better that Ms Clinton be charged as we can not allow any one to commit high crimes like this any longer and remain a stable country.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM

This email thing might lead to the worst possible outcome — that someone other than Hillary is the nominee.

If she’s nominated, Hillary’s campaign could be one of the all time great political train wrecks.

Pythagoras on January 9, 2016 at 1:25 PM

Liar liar pants on fire, sitting on a telephone wire. Oh sorry, the trolls keep making it seem like 3rd grade here.

Nutstuyu on January 9, 2016 at 2:57 PM

Tlaloc hardest hit.

Hillary won’t be picking out any drapes. She won’t be picking out pieces of cigar from her hole either because bill refuses to touch her.

SpongePuppy on January 9, 2016 at 2:59 PM

What was a news alert on FNC about this email seems to have not made it to PBS newshour or to ABC News that night. I didn’t DVR CNN, CBS, NBC, and so on.

There was room for a news story about kids setting a world eating record, or something like that. Lame, lame, lame.

billrowe on January 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM

From 20 years ago, the late great Bill Safire’s New York Times column exposing Hillary Clinton’s Serial Perjury. For our Low-IQ Democrats here, Safire worked before joining the NYT as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, then in the Nixon White House, before turning on Nixon.

Safire would later go on to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, which he later regretted!

Blizzard of Lies…

Excerpts (Gotta love Safire’s “waterboarding” reference, years before that word came into fashion!):

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

-snip-

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2016 at 4:47 PM

If you google tlaloc and democrat, you can see our favorite pet troll is a very busy little poster.

No full time job, or does the DNC pay you?

byepartisan on January 8, 2016 at 7:25 PM

.
Wow! If this little smidgen doesn’t crumble your macaroons!
From the Google search results header:
“About 25,700 results (0.72 seconds) “

meerbock on January 9, 2016 at 6:12 PM

There is some thought that the email that is the subject of this post isn’t the “worst” in the bunch.

Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear

The author of that article believes that one email in that traunch from Sid Vicious actually contains SIGINT gathered by the NSA.

An email to Hillary from a close Clinton confidant late on June 8, 2011 about Sudan turns out to have explosive material in it. This message includes a detailed intelligence report from Sid Blumenthal, Hillary’s close friend, confidant, and factotum, who regularly supplied her with information from his private intelligence service.

And:

But the most interesting part is that the report describes a conversation “in confidence” that happened on the evening of June 7, just one day before Blumenthal sent the report to Secretary Clinton. It beggars the imagination to think that Sid’s private intelligence operation, which was just a handful of people, had operators who were well placed in Sudan, with top-level spy access, able to get this secret information, place it in a decently written assessment with proper espionage verbiage, and pass it all back to Washington, DC, inside 24 hours. That would be a feat even for the CIA, which has stations and officers all over Africa.

And:

No surprise, NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now.

climbnjump on January 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM

“Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified.”

Actually, this is fairly common. One of the issue within the intel world is overclassification. During training sessions I’ve explained to new troops that a chocolate chip recipe written on a secure system doesn’t make the recipe classified.

keyboarddude on January 10, 2016 at 7:53 AM

F X Muldoon on January 9, 2016 at 6:39 AM

Saw a report this morning she gave that order by email on more than one occasion.

Any time the “missing” er “deleted” emails are going to start showing up…

This story is not going away.

dogsoldier on January 10, 2016 at 1:20 PM

During training sessions I’ve explained to new troops that a chocolate chip recipe written on a secure system doesn’t make the recipe classified.

keyboarddude on January 10, 2016 at 7:53 AM

But if it’s marked as classified, or even described to you as classified, are you allowed to treat it as unclassified before verifying that it’s not and getting it downgraded?

GrumpyOldFart on January 10, 2016 at 1:39 PM

But if it’s marked as classified, or even described to you as classified, are you allowed to treat it as unclassified before verifying that it’s not and getting it downgraded?

If it is marked as classified, you have to verify that it isn’t before treating it as unclassified – even the chocolate chips cookies might not be referring, not wholly unlike like Rochefort’s water distillers, to actual chocolate chips cookies.

F X Muldoon on January 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM

This whole fiasco screams woeful incompetence at so many levels.

Hillary may be a skilled campaigner and politician, but that seems to be the limit of her game.

She never should have been given an important job, but I guess Obama felt like he had to give her something to do, and thought letting her deal with the foreigners instead of something domestic couldn’t do too much harm. I bet he regrets that horrific error in judgment.

s1im on January 11, 2016 at 2:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2