Did Hillary's 22 withheld emails contain operational intelligence?

[grasswire]

On the 1st of February, this story exploded around the world.

FOX news reported that a high ranking intelligence official stated off the record that the 22 withheld emails contained secrets of national security so very important that they put CIA operatives at risk by their exposure. Lives at risk. Operations at risk.

Dozens of news outlets followed this reporting, and expanded on it.

The only original source for the intelligence official's leak is FOX. However, it is taken very, very seriously.

When will we know the truth about this?

Shouldn't we know prior to the convention whether or not HRC, through her apparent decisions that rules of national security don't apply to her, carelessly or willfully allowed transmissions of her State Dept. emails to be hackable by foreign agents?

Isn't this the highest form of betrayal of her oath of office? Isn't this the ultimate betrayal of President Obama?

I will not post a link to any of the dozens of news stories about this, because none of them are MSM. I will post a link to Jonathan Turley's commentary of Feb. 1.

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/01/report-clinton-emails-contained-operational-information-and-put-lives-at-risk/

[emulatorloo]

1. "Fox News reported"

Yes, you are correct: all the "she will be indicted" stories go back to Fox. Then happily repeated and amplified by their cohorts in the blogosphere and right wing media. In general, to be a "credible expert" on Fox, you need to be a reliable partisan hack.

Al Franken gives a pretty good summary of how Fox is so successful at this in Lying Liars

[grasswire]

2. well, no, you are wrong at least twice there.

But you knew that. It's all you've got.

[emulatorloo]

9. Well no, I am not wrong. I have seen this rodeo before. Fox 'spin' is just spin.

I trust the FBI to do an investigation.

I have no trust in Fox News spin or rightwing bloggers who present speculation as 'fact.'

Again, highly recommend Al Franken's Lying Liars if you get a chance to read or re-read it.

[Samantha]

17. CSPAN also covered the email story -- is it a partisan hack (eom)

[emulatorloo]

21. Is CSPAN pushing Fox's 'indictment' meme?

I seriously doubt it, although their callers may be.


1. There is an FBI investigation. That is a fact.

2. All 'she will be indicted' stories come out of Fox News. That is a fact as well.

I expect the FBI will do an excellent investigation. That is their job.

I expect Fox to continue to tell speculative lies about Democrats. That is their job.

[pinebox]

35. You may want to read this

It's a good article

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503

[HooptieWagon]

3. What's on her so far...

Defying FOIA orders.
Several instances of perjury/falsifying documents.
Negligent handling of classified information.
Exchanging classified information with non-cleared persons.

Looking pretty bad. All of the above is completely on her...not a RW conspiracy, not Sanders/Trump, no ones fault but hers. It's what we've seen in 30 years of Clinton arrogance...they simply don't think they have to follow any laws that are inconvenient to their grifting.

[grasswire]

4. a precise and accurate conclusion, Hooptie. nt

[JTFrog]

8. Yea, cuz you and Fox say so.

You've already judged and juried her on shit she hasn't even been charged with.

Never seen so many so called liberals sucking at the teet of Fox until this primary. And you know what they say on Fox:

[frylock]

10. List the inaccuracies in that post.

[Gothmog]

5. Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous'

Here are some more facts on this matter http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.

[NWCorona]

13. Only a few of the emails are related to the drone program

Others have HUMINT, satellite and other intelligence related matters. Infant all of the documents were reaffirmed in their classification levels by the perspective agencies.

There's no downplaying these emails.

[Gothmog]

6. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

[catnhatnh]

12. What we know today...

based on an article published February 1st and written last January...

[Gothmog]

7. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT. Your wait for an indictment may be a very long one.

Heck even Trump has given up an indictment

[MineralMan]

11. I imagine that the FBI is looking at this.

But thanks for recycling that story, eh?

[Blue_Adept]

14. No, it had bikini clad photos of Marla Maples that Trump shared

They also shared a taco bowl.

[img][/img]

[Samantha]

15. From observer.com: "Hillary Clinton Put Spies Lives At Risk" confirms Fox News Reporting

This article was dated in February 2016, but I missed it. It is explosive. I don't want to break the rule about the 4 paragraph limit to cite, so I wish to point out the following is the link, the title and 3 paragraphs.

http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage.

I can confirm that the FoxNews report, which lacks any specifics about exactly what was compromised, is accurate. And what was actually in those Top Secret emails found on Hillary’s “unclassified” personal bathroom server was colossally damaging to our national security and has put lives at risk.

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.

Bolded emphasis mine. I found this article jaw dropping. There is no walking this back. Remember what happened to Valerie Plame and multiply that many, many times over.

Sam

[antigop]

16. and yet Valerie Plame is a Hillary supporter. Go figure. nt

[Samantha]

18. She might not be aware of this

She has been retired for a few years.

Sam

[emulatorloo]

22. Fox smeared, lied about, and maligned Plame and

Ambassador Wilson. All to protect Bush and the GOP party. That is Fox's job: promote, protect, and lie for the GOP.


Some of us have seen this play out time and time again w Fox. Different characters but in the end with the same results. Fox News is not credible.

The FBI is investigating. They aren't leaking.

Fox News knows jackshit about the investigation. They are doing what they do. Speculating and spinning.

I understand your desire to trust Fox just this one time, and of course you should go with that.

However just saying "Let the buyer beware" when it comes to getting too invested in their spin and speculation.

[Samantha]

23. Thank you for your perspective, but perhaps you misjudge me

Did you see a line I posted about having banned FOX for 15 years? I watched a couple of things recently I saw advertised because I am genuinely interested in this story. And I know some people automatically think it is all about politics, but for me it is not. It is the national security angle.

As you can imagine, many people here in DC have friends and relatives that work in that field. When I saw that line about agents identities being compromised, even covent agents abroad, I found that literally jaw dropping. That list was reportedly on Hillary's server with real names and code names listed. Keep in mind that sometimes these things become personal, and by that I mean relationships one has, and there is a strong driving desire to read anything that will shed some light on what is going on. If the only sources that will report are FOX and occasionally CSPAN, that is where people like me will go.

I totally agree with your first sentence. I followed that story carefully and was outraged over that.

If I am repeating myself, I apologize. I am tired and need to go take a nap. Take care.

Sam

[emulatorloo]

24. I appreciate the long reply. I share your anger about agents identities being compromised

Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

I totally get what you are saying about that and national security. Bottom line we are in agreement about many things and you are right that I misunderstood you about some things. For that I apologize.

I still don't trust Fox to report the truth. That is not Roger Ailes' mission.

Take care and

[Samantha]

37. I wish I had mentioned that I also regard CBS, ABC, NBC (MSNBC) with extreme skepticism

I watch almost zero coverage from the networks because they have not been honest brokers in this election.

And thank you for your kind words.

Sam

[Demsrule86]

28. Right

Fox is my go to for all things concerning national security and hatred of President Obama of course and of Democrats in general

[pdsimdars]

31. This is exactly what I have thought. The Left Media is not covering it at all

Fox has done a great job with explaining the facts. They do have their take on what will happen, but they do explain the facts well.

They also had a congressman in the intelligence committee who was a former AF pilot who had read those 22 emails and his summary of the content was SHOCKING. You have to wonder what she was thinking.

If all some do is ignore sources because of their name, how is that different from the tea baggers who disdain all newspapers and other networks other than Fox? It's the same ignorant mind set.

[emulatorloo]

32. Teabaggers flock to Fox because Fox tells them lies they want to hear.

[Progressive dog]

19. Fox news

I will not post a link to any of the dozens of news stories about this, because none of them are MSM. I will post a link to Jonathan Turley's commentary of Feb. 1.

She's won a lot of delegates since then, so this isn't working out well for the Republicans or for Bernie.
Even MSM, other than Fox News, usually needs some facts to support an unnamed source. That should be true even when investigating a Clinton. I'm eagerly awaiting the actual truth (not the spin) about the e-mails.
BTW The state department e-mail servers have actually been hacked.

[Samantha]

20. The MSM is not reporting on this story because they stand behind passage of the TPP

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

and Hillary is the candidate who will support its passage. People are looking at FOX now because it is the only network that will cover the story.

This is not political for me. I think our national security is the most important issue we can address. Yes, Washington is the political capital of the world, but it is our national security that protects the interests of this whole country. People tend to forget Washington, DC was also attacked on 9/11, and that is one of the reasons that national security trumps politics here. We have our priorities straight.

Sam

[Demsrule86]

26. People are looking at Fox

because it is the only network that will cover such baloney...Bernie supports feeling the love for Fox now?

[Progressive dog]

42. The MSM media did not report this

because it was not able to verify it, likely because it is just another in the string of "leaks" from the Clinton haters

[Demsrule86]

25. It exploded really

Guess what ...it didn't. The email scandal is just more right wing crap.

[merrily]

27. Chelsea's wedding and pregnancy. Nothing to see here. Thanking you to shut up now, clap louder

and not be so misogynist and Republican. Everyone knows the FBI under a Democratic President is a RW source.

[pdsimdars]

30. One British reporter said something about how they expect us to believe that

Sid Bloomenthal is a tireless worker for charity since he was on the Clinton foundation payroll.

[merrily]

34. I'm confused: isn't the issue security clearance and not not for profit versus for profit?

[pdsimdars]

38. There are a number of issues.

There's the un-secure, unencrypted private server with the top secret messages on it.
There's the communicating top secret information with people, including Sid, who don't have the proper clearance.
There's the corruption related to the SoS and her foundation. There are some irregularities there. Like middle eastern countries who are not approved for arms sales, then, for the first time, making big donations to her foundation and then, miracle of miracles, they get approval. A number of things like that.

[merrily]

40. Thanks. Well, the important thing is

she REALLY wants to be President.

[pdsimdars]

29. There have been a few congressmen on that intelligence committee who have read those emails

One was a former Air Force pilot for 15 years and he said they were clearly top secret and put people's lives in danger. Like the names of some people on the CIA payroll in other countries. . .something like that. Some people referred to troop movements, sat photos of military sites of other countries in the middle east. . . things like that.

He was a Republican congressman but just because he was Republican I don't think he would LIE about his summary of the content. The things they spin are when they talk about what will happen as a result.

[emulatorloo]

33. Sorry, partisan Republicans lie all the time.

Lying, projection, and fabricated outrage are taught in Republican 101.

We know for sure a Republican who received a briefing on the investigation lied to the WaPo about 147 agents being on the probe.

[merrily]

36. And Hillary hasn't? Besides what he is saying is subject to contradiction by the FBI or anyone

else, Democratic or Republican, who has looked at the stuff.

[pdsimdars]

39. Wow! I am always shocked when I see such narrow minded nonsense of the left.

I have come to expect it from the Fox viewing right, but to simply dismiss it like that. Breath taking.
Go ahead, live in your bubble.

[emulatorloo]

43. So odd, since I am skeptical of Fox and the truthfulness of Republicans, I live in a "bubble"?

If you wanna take every word out of Senator Grassley's mouth as the honest truth, be my guest.

[Darb]

41. What a hunka hunka burning bullshit.

Nose.