Clinton Emails Were ‘Born Secret,’ an Historically Dubious Classification

by

by

Comments (5)

Comment Feed

Check out Paul Thompson's

Check out Paul Thompson's timeline of Hillary's emails.
Check out paragraph headings beginning "May 31, 2013) and the following paragraph, and two beginning "Late 2014."

Three months after leaving the State Department and keeping all of her work emails from State with limited copies through those sent from or to STATE.GOV Hillary Clinton decided to send her server, containing 4 years worth of State Department communications (be they classified or not) to a private company in New Jersey named Platt River.

How was the server sent, I don't know, I don't know if the F.I.B. investigated that.
It could have been sent Fed EX, UPS, US Mail, the kid down the block driving it down for $20 plus gas mileage and meals, or Platt River might have sent someone to pick it up.
All in all, likely no one with clearances to the material inside the server was involved in the transportation which likely took several hours.
At Platt River the server would have been stored somewhere with security less than given its contents it should have had.

Platt River was to transfer the contents of the original server onto a new server and return the new server to the Clinton home in New York State.
To do this Platt River hired / contracted with / chose your term a company Datto.
Datto, without apparently getting or even asking permission put a copy of the original server on THE CLOUD.

While I believe F.I.B. Director Comey testified that he did not know whether any of the 3 to 10 people without clearances who may have had access to the server had read any of the emails, according to Thompson's timeline in the "Late 2014" paragraphs Platt River sent to Hillary's attorneys copies of the emails from the server.
In order not to have sent emails involved in Chelsea's wedding, Hillary's mother's funeral, and misc private things, I would think Platt River had to in some manner looked at the emails.

Also, in the "Late 2014" paragraphs it seems that Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the deletions, that this was done by two of her attorneys and Cheryl Mills who had worked for her at the State Department (Mills would have lost her clearances when she left State).

The attorneys had to have had some method of discerning which emails were "work related" and which were personal, and given the fact that some work emails may have contained a short reference to a personal matter such as Chelsea's wedding I would think while they likely did not carefully read each email, that they somehow "skimmed" them.

Ir you would go back before your Howard Morland "H Bomb" article around 1979 to the late 60s / early 70s FIB files which were accessed by anti war protesters contained New York Times articles clipped out inside "Top Secret" files.

Are we really to believe that handing over 4 years worth of correspondence from the Secretary of State's office 3 months after that Secretary has left office to a private corporation who could do who knows what with it (and one did by putting it on the CLOUD) has no legal consequences?

According to an article in Alternet

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

F.I.B. Director Comey violated prosecutorial rules by essentially smearing Mrs Clinton's handling of the server issue in his public statement as to why he was making no recommendation for prosecution.

Smearing an innocent person is a "no no."

MIke Lamb 291 days ago

I read it. Perhaps my analogy

I read it. Perhaps my analogy was not good enough. But you can take my principle and adjust it, if you are inclined to consider how it appears to those who don't believe Hillary should be above the law.
Let's say President Trump argues that any classified information that his unlawful communications apparatus revealed was needlessly classified.
Instead of arguing that he did more damage to US interests than Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, would you focus on the overclassification and pretend that his manipulations are being blown out of proportion?
Hillary committed a string of serious crimes and abused her position and access to America's intelligence. I'm asking you to see it from a neutral point of view and refrain from making excuses for her behavior.

an astonished reader 291 days ago

It would be nice if you

It would be nice if you actually read the piece before reacting. It's actual point is that we don't know what we don't know about the content of Clinton's emails. What we do know is that government records are routinely over-classified and that the category of classification into which some of the most sensitive Clinton emails fall has been abused in the past.

Bill Lueders 296 days ago

For real? In this Hillary

For real? In this Hillary fiasco you're suggesting that what she did was a minor infraction?
Ok, Mr. Lueders, imagine that a President Trump wants to be able to do as he pleases, with no paper trail. He goes to great lengths to shield his Administration communications from FOIA searches, from Congress, and from the people. When discovered, he lies repeatedly about it. After years of investigations, the FBI confirms the string of lies, but claims it can't recommend indictment because they aren't sure about intent.
Is it still a minor infraction?

.

an astonished reader 296 days ago

How does one "intend" to be

How does one "intend" to be "negligent"?

Mike Lamb 291 days ago

Support-The-Progressive_Dev_HouseAd
Built with Metro Publisher™