HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Intel Community and DOS I...

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:40 PM

Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified"

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRC's violations of classified information laws before the FBI issues its final report, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution. Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf.

(If pdf does not come up, go to statement posted at office of the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails )

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and it will be devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.

There is abundant precedent for the prosecution of heads of federal agencies for classified information violations. Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.

Petraeus plead down to Sec. 1924, a Misdemeanor, while Deutch was referred for prosecution by the CIA IG, but Attorney General Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury and Deutch was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day. Both of them were found to have committed acts of mishandling classified materials. Deutch hooked up CIA laptops to his home internet, which was a chargeable offense under the law as it stood in 1996, and as it remains today.

Here's what the Deutch CIA IG Report found in 2000. (The forthcoming Clinton Intelligence Community IG Report will likely contain very similar findings): https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?

109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

113 replies, 5758 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified" (Original post)
leveymg Jun 2016 OP
Segami Jun 2016 #1
BillZBubb Jun 2016 #8
joshcryer Jun 2016 #10
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #14
joshcryer Jun 2016 #22
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #40
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #45
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #49
WhiteTara Jun 2016 #52
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #55
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #99
Skink Jun 2016 #2
leveymg Jun 2016 #18
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #61
leveymg Jun 2016 #66
brush Jun 2016 #79
Zen Democrat Jun 2016 #85
brush Jun 2016 #89
Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #102
brush Jun 2016 #103
laserhaas Jun 2016 #81
NWCorona Jun 2016 #3
leveymg Jun 2016 #69
NWCorona Jun 2016 #84
antigop Jun 2016 #91
leveymg Jun 2016 #104
MattP Jun 2016 #4
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #15
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #5
leveymg Jun 2016 #20
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #71
leveymg Jun 2016 #73
joshcryer Jun 2016 #6
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #12
joshcryer Jun 2016 #13
leveymg Jun 2016 #23
joshcryer Jun 2016 #24
leveymg Jun 2016 #25
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #82
leveymg Jun 2016 #105
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #106
leveymg Jun 2016 #110
Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #111
winter is coming Jun 2016 #7
MisterP Jun 2016 #33
scscholar Jun 2016 #76
winter is coming Jun 2016 #88
MFM008 Jun 2016 #9
leveymg Jun 2016 #26
JudyM Jun 2016 #38
unc70 Jun 2016 #11
leveymg Jun 2016 #27
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #32
leveymg Jun 2016 #35
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #39
leveymg Jun 2016 #50
unc70 Jun 2016 #37
leveymg Jun 2016 #53
unc70 Jun 2016 #75
leveymg Jun 2016 #83
jeff47 Jun 2016 #48
leveymg Jun 2016 #65
Bob41213 Jun 2016 #80
jeff47 Jun 2016 #46
leveymg Jun 2016 #57
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #16
leveymg Jun 2016 #28
lmbradford Jun 2016 #96
libdem4life Jun 2016 #51
Seeinghope Jun 2016 #59
libdem4life Jun 2016 #64
Seeinghope Jun 2016 #86
libdem4life Jun 2016 #98
randome Jun 2016 #17
leveymg Jun 2016 #30
Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #72
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #34
leveymg Jun 2016 #43
Bob41213 Jun 2016 #67
AzDar Jun 2016 #19
antigop Jun 2016 #21
Segami Jun 2016 #29
senz Jun 2016 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #36
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #41
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #42
leveymg Jun 2016 #44
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #47
leveymg Jun 2016 #77
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #78
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #90
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
DCBob Jun 2016 #60
Segami Jun 2016 #63
KingFlorez Jun 2016 #62
Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #68
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #87
uponit7771 Jun 2016 #95
HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #54
Segami Jun 2016 #56
tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #92
grasswire Jun 2016 #70
leveymg Jun 2016 #74
DCBob Jun 2016 #93
antigop Jun 2016 #94
lmbradford Jun 2016 #97
think Jun 2016 #100
Babel_17 Jun 2016 #101
okieinpain Jun 2016 #107
berni_mccoy Jun 2016 #108
Octafish Jun 2016 #109
antigop Jun 2016 #112
leveymg Jun 2016 #113

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:44 PM

1. Can't wait to see Brian 'bot-boy' Fallon popping up on

 

all the major networks saying its nothing but the same ol reprocessed points.....




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:02 PM

8. You mean Baghdad Brian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:03 PM

10. OPs own post is from 2015.

And it appears to be referring to the IG report just released.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:15 PM

14. Nope

Maybe you guys should have been paying attention instead of screaming at Bernie supporters not to read about this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:22 PM

22. They finished the report in August and referred to the FBI.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/hillary-clinton-emails-inspector-general-fbi

So they will not be releasing some mythical report that makes any kind of recommendation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:56 PM

40. Not full report

This story refers to a letter that the IC IG sent to Congress. It is not their full report. It is my understanding that their full report has not been released yet. Fox news was the first to report on the letter. You can link to it off this CNN piece (I'd post the direct link but don't want to get in trouble for linking to Fox).

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:09 PM

45. One report is from 2000 and the other

is from 2015. What is this about then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:16 PM

49. The IC IG

is supposed to issue a report about Clinton's emails. They sent a letter to Congress with partial information in 2015 but they have not released their full report yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #49)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:19 PM

52. Seems weird that they would send out their report

in stages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:24 PM

55. Their Report

will not be in stages. It will be one single report just like the State Dept. IG report was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:46 PM

99. Brock, Obama, et al Just Trying To Get Her To Safety... In The WHITE HOUSE... Where She Will Be Safe

from prosecution for ... past crimes no matter the gravity of said infractions... So WE Get .. MORE of THIS...

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:48 PM

2. How many IG's are there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skink (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:18 PM

18. Every federal agency is supposed to have one. Hillary never appointed hers. The current DOS IG has

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

already issued the Department's report, which pointedly did not address the laws violated by the private server and official emails found on it. The Intell Community report will be issued before the FBI report, and it will cover applicable laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:37 PM

61. The President makes the appointments but nice try...more crap...June 16th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:42 PM

66. Do you have the inside skinny as to why there was no DOS IG for 4 years? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:10 PM

79. Your OP is what's called in football terms, a "Hail Mary", a last second attempt at victory.

One day before Clinton clinches the nomination you post this again.

Nice try, but there still will be no indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #79)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:27 PM

85. There's no clinch here. She may be presumed to be the nominee, but that's not a clinch.

A clinch will happen when the superdelegates vote - during the first roll call at the convention. I can see that many here don't know how conventions work. First there are rules, platform, and credentials committees that work before there's any voting involved. I want Bernie's name put in nomination - and I want to see a floor demonstration, like in the old days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #85)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:50 PM

89. MSNBC has already said they will declared her the presumptive nominee tomorrow . . .

when the Jersey polls close, just as media outlets have done in the past when a Dem candidate reached the required number of pledged and super delagates.

IMO it would be exceedingly unfair for this not to be done, especially considering the historic nature of her victory. SHE WILL BE THE FIRST WOMAN TO WIN THE NOMINATION OF ONE OF OUR TWO MAJOR PARTIES.

News outlets aren't going to neglect that significance and not report it the moment it happens.

All the other things you mentioned will happen at the convention and Clinton will be nominated on the first ballot.

There will be no other outcome. I'm sure you know that.

Time to fact the music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:10 AM

102. Weak.

The media does not determine who our nominee will be in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:30 AM

103. I said they'd declare the presumptive nominee tomorrow

You do understand what "presumtive" means, right?

It will be official, AS I SAID, on the first ballot at the convention.

Call it weak if you want but it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:20 PM

81. Wish the United States Trustee had an OIG unit

 

Also wish they were all more...honorable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:54 PM

3. These are probably those b3 codes we've been hearing about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:44 PM

69. Do you want to introduce that subject, or should I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:22 PM

84. Feel free

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #69)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:54 PM

91. I'll jump in...

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/05/did-clintons-emails-expose-cia-agents/

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires the government to release all, or all parts of a document, that do not fall under a specific set of allowed exemptions. If information cannot be excluded, it must be released. If some part of a document can be redacted to allow the rest of the document to be released, then that is what must be done. Each redaction must be justified by citing a specific reason for exclusion.

But don’t believe me. Instead, look at page two of this State Department document which lists the exemptions.

Note specifically the different types of “(b)(3)” redactions, including “CIA PERS/ORG.” As common sense would dictate, the government will not release the names of CIA employees via the FOIA process. It would — literally — be against the law. What law? Depending on the nature of the individual’s job at CIA, National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Yet Hillary’s emails contain at least three separate, specific instances where she mentioned in an unclassified email transmitted across the open Internet and wirelessly to her Blackberry the names of CIA personnel. Here they are. Look for the term “(b)(3) CIA PERS/ORG” Click on the links and see for yourself: CIA One; CIA Two; CIA Three

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:10 AM

104. Here are some other sources that confirm that emails contained intel sources

May 10, 2016: The New York Times reports that 18 of Clinton's publicly released emails have been deemed classified on the grounds that they identified CIA officials. The Times claims that, "In 18 emails, for example, information has been classified on the grounds that it identifies CIA officials, including two instances that are now considered "secret." (The New York Times, 5/10/2016) However, this is not entirely accurate. A search of the State Department's database of Clinton's released emails indicates that 49 emails used the code "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates a redacted mention of secret CIA personnel or organizational details. Many of these are emails from the same email chain. But there are in fact five separate chains mentioning the name of a CIA official classified at the "secret" level, not two. (US Department of State, 1/29/2016) (US Department of State, 2/29/2016) (US Department of State, 1/29/2016) (US Department of State, 1/29/2016) (US Department of State, 1/29/2016) There are 17 more separate email chains that have the redacted names of secret CIA officials, for a total of 22, not 18. Additionally, it has previously been reported that a "handful" of additional emails make veiled references to the fact that certain government officials actually work for the CIA. (NBC News, 2/4/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:55 PM

4. The inspector general released his report!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattP (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:15 PM

15. The State Dept IG released his report

The intelligence community IG has not released a report yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:56 PM

5. where did you get the information that another report from a different IG would be issued?

 

I don't see it, a little confusing. Link from 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:19 PM

20. That was a Joint Statement with the DOS on the emails that DOS first released last summer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:49 PM

71. ok but I am still confused

 

The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRC's violations of classified information laws before the FBI issues its final report, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution. Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals:


As per above, it sounds as if another report is about to be issued. That there is a second IG for Intelligence.
Can you clarify? merci

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:59 PM

73. That is correct. The Joint Statement above is from last July. The IG Report is imminent, perhaps

a few weeks away. The Intelligence Community will in all likelihood confirm the facts that caused it to refer the matter to the Justice Department as summarized, above, in its initial statement with the DOS IG from 07/24/15.

The IC IG report will provide a detailed account and its own judgment as to what laws were violated, if the John Deutch report from 2000 is a good guide. It probably is, so this is what we can expect. Go ahead and read the report. The fact circumstances are very similar to those of Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information over her private server, and the law hasn't really changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:56 PM

6. Your link from 2015 doesn't work.

But isn't it referring to the IG report recently released that, emphatically did not call for prosecution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:12 PM

12. Not the same IG

The IG report mentioned in the OP will be from the intelligence community. The IG report that we just saw was from the State Dept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:13 PM

13. OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to leveymg (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:25 PM

24. They differed to IG State.

There is no report they are sitting on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:27 PM

25. The affected agencies will all issue reports: IC, DOS

The IC report is coming out before the FBI issues its findings. The Joint statement I post above is from last summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:21 PM

82. ok but I am still STILL confused

 

How do you know the IC IG will soon be issuing an additional report?
What is your source for this statement? I am all if favor of it but baffled re your source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #82)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:44 AM

105. NYT reported on 03/03/16 that the IC IG continues to investigate:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160507055433/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/as-presidential-campaign-unfolds-so-do-inquiries-into-hillary-clintons-emails.html
In addition to the F.B.I. investigation, there are continuing inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s emails by the inspector general of the State Department, the inspector general of the intelligence agencies, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #105)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:02 AM

106. aha.. thank you so much these posts help keep a bit of sanity

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #106)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:39 PM

110. WaPo (03/10/16) HRC campaign fears "the two (IG) offices issue a report that is damaging to Clinton"

On January 19, 2016, the IGs of the Intelligence Community and State Department issued a second short letter to Congress reconfirming that the two offices had found 22 emails containing material deemed to be classified Top Secret/SAP. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/19/intelligence-community-watchdog-reconfirms-that-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified/

The next round of major activity in the case followed on March 10, when the Clinton campaign and allies on Capitol Hill publicly attacked the credibility and independence of the IGs of both the State Department and the Intelligence Community. The IGs were accused of bias by some Democratic members of the intelligence committees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/10/congressional-democrats-say-they-have-serious-questions-about-watchdogs-clinton-email-reviews/

The dual complaints from the campaign trail and from Capitol Hill regarding the watchdogs could be an effort to proactively inoculate Clinton should one of the two offices issue a report that is damaging to Clinton's presidential campaign. Clinton's campaign has already aggressively worked to undermine the credibility of the two offices. Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, has accused the inspector general of the intelligence community of working in concert with Senate Republicans to release information about classified material in Clinton's email to damage her. And he has complained that a top official in the State Department's IG office used to work for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa). He declined to comment on the new congressional letter.


Government Executive news pinpointed growing fears of the direction of forthcoming reports. On March 11, the Washington-based publication, Government Executive, identified the source of the intensifying partisan accusations against the IGs of both agencies as determinations that Clinton's server contained top secret emails, and that finding might find its way into one or both agency's reports: http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2016/03/democratic-lawmakers-accuse-igs-bias-clinton-email-probe/126617/

The lawmakers also questioned the qualifications of the IGs in classification decision making. “Classification determinations are complex, subjective, often in dispute between different agencies, and are not normally within the purview of Inspectors General,” they wrote. “In fact, inspectors general are not even mentioned in Executive Order 13526, which establishes the rules for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. We are concerned that the review process being undertaken by the two inspector general offices has not taken these complexities or the interagency differences on each email into account.”

They asked that “any future reviews and releases be 100 percent accurate, impartial and complete. We also expect written communications regarding your offices’ review to be precise and impartial,” they said.

The State Dept IG issued a statement reaffirming his office's commitment to independence and nonpartisanship. The IC IG declined public comment, and has been quiet on this topic since. The State Department IG issued its report two weeks ago, which most pointedly did not touch on violations of law. The IG of the Intelligence Community has continued to quietly investigate, and is expected to issue its own findings, likely before the FBI report is published.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #110)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 02:22 PM

111. it's unfathomable to me that indictment would not be recommended by Comey

 

with so much explicit factual information & evidence already that we know of, and they must know much more.

At the same time it's unfathomable to me that it could really happen because.. well.. Fitzmas, etc. But the plot thickens.. this is the best spy thriller I have ever read. Thanks again for filling in the gaps for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:58 PM

7. Hence Hillary's shift in stance from "not classified" to "not *marked* classified".

And this is our best chance for the GE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:42 PM

33. to "not marked classified *after* we stripped them to send them nonsecure"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:04 PM

76. If it wasn't marked as classified...

 

then how is she supposed to divine that they were? This is ridiculous for criticize her for something there was no possible way to know was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:42 PM

88. She was the Secretary of State, not a temp answering phones.

It was entirely possible for her to know "something was wrong". She received training in this, and if she were even halfway competent at her job, she would at least wonder whether something unmarked-but-classified should have been marked classified. It was her responsibility to check if she was at all unsure.

She's either lying or incompetent: neither makes her fit for the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:03 PM

9. 10 days left for this crap

In DU. Days are flying by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:30 PM

26. This is a Dept State and Intel Coimmunity statement the Clinton campaign misrepresented. Censor it?

You guys are so blinded by campaign rhetoric you would censor or deny everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:54 PM

38. Have you promoted yourself to official timekeeper? You add so much to discussion with all these

thinly veiled simplistic hostilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:05 PM

11. Any idea when we might see the IC IG report?

Have we had any hints about the IC IG report? We've heard it was trailing the SD IG by a month or more, with the FBI after that. If true, that would put the IC IG report in 2-3 weeks, roughly the end of June. Hard to imagine any FBI action until after the convention.

We know the IC IG report is coming and is likely stronger than the DS IG one. We are almost certain there will indictments associated with this investigation whether Clinton herself is. (I think Blumenthal and his sources are at risk)

Curious if we have seen any hint what might be coming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:32 PM

27. My sense is the IC report third week of June, FBI findings 2 weeks after that.

One-two punch, and she's out. The Convention can sort out her replacement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:40 PM

32. That's my sense too, leveymg...

It would make sense that the FBI is holding off releasing its report after the SD IG and IC IG reports, in effect using them to soften the target.

The timing just before the convention makes sense too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:46 PM

35. The party elders have had since March, 2015 to do succession planning.

If neither report comes out before the Convention, all bets are off. But if these agency findings are released before July 22, and confirm all that has been written and released, the intent and effect are clear. They don't think she's a viable nominee.

It really makes no sense to pretend that it's all over at 5pm tomorrow. It obviously isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:55 PM

39. She's already a tremendous risk to the...

Democratic Party's hopes of securing the WH and down-ballot gains. To me it all comes down to timing, polls and what happens prior to the convention. It seems uncontionable to me that the Party wouldn't have succession plans and be ready to pull the rip-cord at any time. After the convention is too late and they are going to hit and splatter on the hard earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #39)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:16 PM

50. They probably thought it necessary to keep the Clinton campaign machine together. This was the only

way they could do it, or so they thought. Run the nomination process to the end. Make sure she has the magic number of delegates in hand, and then BOOM, BOOM. Parachute in a "party unity" ticket. High risk, but they made up their own minds that this was better than blowing her campaign (and her contributors and aparachicks) out of the water 12 months ago, which they certainly could have. Personally, I don't like these games, but that's why I didn't stay in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:50 PM

37. Your timing is better for Dems than mine

We pretty much agree on the timing of the IC IG -- the next couple of weeks. I expect it to be harsh, based on emails we have seen, the SD IG report, and the open letter to Obama from the retired intelligence officers.

If the FBI would report before the convention, it would give a lot of clarity to the situation and to allow a response if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:21 PM

53. I think we pretty much agree on most of this.

I just wish that they had simply pulled together the same reports last autumn, as they could have. No doubt they looked at the campaign polls and match-ups, and didn't like what they saw, so they d-r-a-g-g-e-d it out to the very bitter end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:02 PM

75. Had they recovered all the emails last fall?

I'm not sure the FBI or the IGs had the deleted emails last fall to have followed up on all the new stuff. The FBI would have been extremely careful to establish unimpeachable foundation for probable cause at every step.

Also not clear the details of the emails for the inner circle which were also on that server. Were they archived, deleted, or what? Then there are the foundation issues. As I remember, they didn't subpoena the foundation server, etc. until late 2015, and we only learned that in early 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:21 PM

83. According to Paul, and I've also read it, the FBI has had a complete set of all 60,000 emails

My understanding is that Platte River made a copy before the server was first wiped in March, 2013 right after Guccifer's public release of Blumenthal's email to Hillary. Guccifer reportedly did his hacking in February, around the time HRC was preparing to leave State. According to what I read, a Platte River employee thought that wiping the Secretary of State's server might not be entirely legal. If that is true, the FBI has probably known all this since mid-2013, and NSA possibly in real time.

We know that Petraeus was under FBI surveillance, which found a pattern of evasive email in early 2012, as well. Petraeus and Clinton were working together and her earliest emails on this server after the 2008 election were to him. DNI Clapper advised Petraeus to resign in November 2012. I don't know that there is a direct connection to the Petraeus case, but it certainly seems to be a reasonable investigative theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:13 PM

48. IMO, there's way too much effort being put into stalling this

for that timeline to come to pass. To me it seems like they're really trying to hold out until after the election.

I expect the IC's report to be before the convention. The DoJ will attempt to delay the FBI report until after November.

But a report will be leaked as an October surprise, recommending an indictment. Even if the actual FBI report does not recommend one.

It's like people around here forget what Republican operatives do in an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:40 PM

65. I actually don't expect the FBI Report will make a recommendation. But it will confirm the IC IG

findings. The AG will likely run out the clock like Janet Reno did with CIA Director Deutch's case, and the President will end up pardoning Hillary.

But, I don't think Clinton will be nominated. That would run an irrational, unnecessary risk when there is someone who can be drafted at the Convention who has some chance of putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The other plausible scenario is that it goes to the VP nominee and the succession happens after the Convention. That one is too close to the Election for any comfort. I don't like driving or landing on Empty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:13 PM

80. Isn't this report the one they put on hold for the FBI?

Or am I confusing reports?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unc70 (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:09 PM

46. Actually, Blumenthal and his sources are the safe ones.

Blumenthal didn't have a security clearance, since he wasn't working for the government (directly or via contract).

AFAIK, Blumenthal's sources have not been identified, but from the context of his emails they don't look like US agents. Which would also mean they don't have clearance are are thus safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:27 PM

57. Actually, Tyler Drumheller's sources had active security clearances and took classified materials

directly off the Interagency Secure System. Hence, Blumenthal's emails ended up with NSA information just hours after it was first posted. Secretary Hillary "keep 'em coming" Clinton simply was so flattered that she forgot to alert Diplomatic Security Service that she getting obviously classified materials from someone who wasn't read in to receive them over a system she knew wasn't secure. She ended up sending some of this stuff on to others who didn't have proper clearances. Those are violations, respectively, of Sec. 793(f)(2) and 793(e), and arguably of (g), Conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:16 PM

16. Here's information that's much more current

From the Chicago Tribune (sort of a post-mortem opinion piece):
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton's use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn't enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like Gen. David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

...

Just to be clear: I'm not defending Clinton's decision to use her own email for work, and house it on a private server. That was a mistake. It violated State Department policy. She shouldn't have done it. But acknowledging that is very different from saying she broke the law or jeopardized national security. As of now there is zero evidence that she did either.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160509-story.html


And a story from PolitiFact:
Here’s what we know about the investigation so far.

The FBI is conducting an investigation. (It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.)

Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities*.

Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/12/fbis-investigation-hillary-clintons-emails-recap/


*emphasis mine

Y'all seem to be missing the big part of this story/investigation: Did Hillary Clinton INTEND to break the law or just skirt the rules? If it's just skirt the rules, there will never be an indictment on that matter and how they can they truly prove that she intended to break the law? Think of her what you will but I'm sorry, I just don't see Hillary Clinton intending to break espionage laws. If she's that great an evil mastermind, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. We'd never know anything about the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:38 PM

28. That's somebody's opinion an Op-ed and spin from a discredited advocacy site. Specific intent isn't

required. That's right in the language of the statute at 18 USC Sec. 793(f)(1) that lays out the evidentiary standard for that subsection's offense as "gross negligence."

The FBI Director himself said most recently (paraphrase) that "I'm not even sure what a security inquiry is. Investigation is in our name."

You are just repeating campaign spin you've heard. They've been lying to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:13 PM

96. +1000

Intent isnt needed, just negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:18 PM

51. It's really hard to get behind the excuse that she is stupid.

 

That's a Trump excuse, perhaps, but she's supposed to be really smart.

Henry Ford said it best: I may not be the smartest person in the world, but I know how to hire them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:33 PM

59. How about arrogant? Out of touch with reality? Both seem very possible to me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeinghope (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:40 PM

64. Well, I didn't want to go overboard, be a hater and all,

 

but definitely agree. She's been fawned over and chauffeured and served for decades. That will put one out of touch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:31 PM

86. The question may also be, when did she really abide by the rules?

 

Look at her whole campaign. She had Super Delegates pledged to her before the 1st vote was cast. She had the DNC in her pocket. She had the media in her pocket. She operated out of the rules and regulations concerning her e-mail operations while in the State Department. She then broke rules and withheld the emails instead of turning them over as she was supposed to do. When she finally did turn them over she first (destroyed) 30,000 of them. These are just a few samples of an attitude of having a total disregard of rules. Living as though the rules do not apply to them. Many wealthy powerful powerful people possess that line of thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeinghope (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:43 PM

98. The Clintons do not play by the rules. They, somewhat like the Bushes,

 

are our (hopefully former) American Royalty. I think that social media plus some added amount of Clinton Fatigue has plagued this latest series of events. Not to mention the sheer professional blatancy and very sloppy cover up. And before, there was just not the public interest that she has generated for herself.

Also, other scandals have not had the real hatred of the other party...even during Nixon. And they are in power right now. My sense is they are hoping she gets the nomination and may hold off until or if she's elected. You may be sure Impeachment Papers have already been drafted. And they may have learned a think or two since the last one.

Being famous risks infamy. Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:16 PM

17. Deutch was not prosecuted and Petraeus knowingly gave away classified material.

 

So...meh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:39 PM

30. Neither of them became the Democratic Party nominee for President, either. Meh to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:58 PM

72. And if Petraeus or Deutch ever did run for Prez...

...I kinda suspect they wouldn't do all that well because of it either. I see your meh and add my own meh in support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:46 PM

34. Clinton received and may have sent classified information...

From/to someone (Blumenthal) she knew did not have any sort of security clearance, and failed to report it. That's an offense that may well rise to the level of intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:05 PM

43. She knew. Here's one such email from Blum. to HRC

And this one is among those deemed unclassified, and is posted by the State Department at its Reading Room. The State Department found 104 of Hillary's own emails to be classified. There are 22 others found on the server that were deemed so highly classified, TS/SCI that the Dept of State didn't even release them.

B6
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
RELEASE IN
PART B6
From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:57 AM
To:
Subject: H: Latest intel: Libyan leadership private discussions. Sid
Attachments: rim memo Libyan Leadership Private Discussions 102512,docx
CONFIDENTIAL
October 25, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Latest Libyan Leadership Private Discussions Sz Plans
SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the
highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services.

1. During mid-October 2012 Libyan President Yussef el Magariaf stated in private that he and
Prime Minister Ali Zidan have ordered National Libyan Army (NLA) Chief of Staff General Youssef al
Mangoush to establish a more coordinated operational relationship with Misrata and Zintan militias
in order to support expanded army operations throughout the country. According to a sensitive
source, prior to the death of the United States Ambassador on September ii, 2012 Mangoush resisted
greater reliance on these specific large militias, believing that such a move undercuts the
government's efforts to disarm and demobilize all of the militias left over from the 2011 civil war. At
this point, however, Mangoush agreed with Magariaf that the situation in the country is becoming
increasingly dangerous and unmanageable. Accordingly, the Chief of Staff stated that he will work
with Ousama al Jouwali, the leader of the Zintan forces to step up operations against the other
militias, (supported by the Misrata troops), that also come from the mountainous region of Western
Libya. At the same time he will instruct NLA troops under ground force commander General Khalifa
Belgasirn Haftar to pursue operations against tribal forces fighting on behalf of the Qaddafi family in
Southern and Southeastern Libya.
2. (Source Comment: In the opinion of this individual, Magariaf and Zidan agree that Libya's
future depends on the success of their efforts in this militia demobilization operation over the next six
months. While they believe that the involvement of Ansar al Sharia forces, with the assistance of al
Qai'da in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), in the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador has focused the
world business and diplomatic community on the reality of the security issues surrounding the
militias, the President and Prime Minister also fear that the situation is far worse than Western
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045748
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
sources realize. Mangoush informs them that AQIM and radical Salafist groups are increasing their
efforts to take advantage of the frustrations of the various militias with the government, using the
attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as an inspiration for their activities. Just as Ansar al Sharia
began as a militia supporting the federalist claims of Eastern tribal leaders, and was then infiltrated
by AQIM radicals, Mangoush believes many of the other regional and ethnic militias around the
country could follow the same path, if his troops do not succeed in the disarmament program. He
also agrees with Zidan that they must move quickly since Libya's tradition of avoiding the Sunni-Shia
conflict that dominates most of Middle East is beginning to erode during this period of chaos.)
3. A particularly sensitive source noted that NLA operations have already begun against Ansar
al Sharia forces south of Benghazi, after members of that militia/terrorist group killed four national
policemen during a grenade attack at a roadblock in the Sousa Mountains. Under orders from Haftar
Libyan troops surrounded more than 100 Ansar al Sharia fighters in the region of the town of Sousa.
According to this sensitive source, the NLA suffered relatively heavy casualties in the fighting, but
believe they captured a number of AQIM operatives and one of Ansar al Sharia's senior commanders,
Sufian bin Qamu, who they believe ordered the attack on the police. Mangoush also reported to Zidan
that Qamu had been previously captured by United States forces and imprisoned at the Guantanamo
Bay facility.
4. At the same time the Libyan army and forces from the Misrata militia entered the town of
Bani Walid approximately 100 miles south of Tripoli, in an area still loyal to the Qaddafi family,
engaging in close fighting with pro-Qaddafi forces. During the fighting Haftar dispatched troops with
heavier arms to support the Misrata forces. According to this source, the NLA downplayed the level of
the fighting, in an effort to reassure the supporters of the Government. That said the NLA/Misrata
force had captured the city center and the airport after suffering significant casualties. The
Government forces entered the city after shelling opposition positions around the city hospital, using
heavy mortars and motorized guns.
5. (Source Comment: In the opinion of this knowledgeable individual, while Magariaf and
Zidan remain optimistic about the future of Libya, they believe that the security situation will remain
tenuous throughout 2013. Magariaf also sees the national election scheduled for mid-2013 as a
potentially complicating factor. According to this source, Mangoush and Haftar focused on Bani
Walid under pressure from the Misrata commanders. These militia leaders were, according to a
knowledgeable source, angered over the death of one of their senior officials, Omran Shahan, at the
hands of pro-Qaddafi forces in Bani Walid. The Misrata commanders report that Shaban was one of
the organizers of the Misrata militia unit that captured and executed Qaddafi in 2011 outside of the
town of Sirte. The Misrata leaders, supported by the General National Council (GNC), demanded the
surrender of the men who arrested and killed Shahan. As the fighting expanded through late
September and early October, Magariaf and his advisors came to see Bani Walid as an important
symbol of their commitment to disarm the militias and anti-government groups, and increased their
involvement accordingly.)
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045749
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
CONFIDENTIAL
October 25, 2012
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: Latest Libyan Leadership Private Discussions & Plans
SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as
the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services.
I. During mid-October 2012 Libyan President Yussef el Magariaf stated in private that
he and Prime Minister Ali Zidan have ordered National Libyan Army (NLA) Chief of Staff
General Youssef al Mangoush to establish a more coordinated operational relationship with
Misrata and Zintan militias in order to support expanded army operations throughout the country
According to a sensitive source, prior to the death of the United States Ambassador on
September 11, 2012 Mangoush resisted greater reliance on these specific large militias, believing
that such a move undercuts the government's efforts to disarm and demobilize all of the militias
left over from the 2011 civil war. At this point, however, Mangoush agreed with Magariaf that
the situation in the county is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable.
Accordingly, the Chief of Staff stated that he will work with Ousama al Jouwali, the leader of the
Zintan forces to step up operations against the other militias, (supported by the Misrata troops),
that also come from the mountainous region of Western Libya. At the same time he will instruct
NLA troops under ground force commander General Khalifa Belgasim Haftar to pursue
operations against tribal forces fighting on behalf of the Qaddafi family in Southern and
Southeastern Libya.
2. (Source Comment In the opinion of this individual, Magariaf and Ziclan agree that
Libya's future depends on the success of their efforts in this militia demobilization operation
over the next six months. While they believe that the involvement of Ansar al Sharia forces,
with the assistance of al Qai'cla in the Islamic Magrel• (AQIM), in the assassination of the U.S
Ambassador has focused the world business and diplomatic community on the reality of the
security issues surrounding the militias, the President and Prime Minister also fear that the
situation is far worse than Western sources realize Mangoush informs them that AQIM and
radical Salafist groups are increasing their efforts to take advantage of the frustrations of the
various militias with the government, using the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as an
inspiration for their activities Just as Ansar al Sharia began as a militia supporting the federalist
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045750
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768 .
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
claims of Eastern tribal leaders, and was then infiltrated by AQIM radicals, Mangoush believes
many of the other regional and ethnic militias around the country could follow the same path, if
his troops do not succeed in the disarmament program. He also agrees with Zidan that they must
move quickly since Libya's tradition of avoiding the Sunni-Shia conflict that dominates most of
Middle East is beginning to erode during this period of chaos.)
3. A particularly sensitive source noted that NLA operations have already begun against
Ansar al Sharia forces south of Benghazi, after members of that militia/terrorist group killed four
national policemen during a grenade attack at a roadblock in the Sousa Mountains. Under orders
from flaftar Libyan troops surrounded more than 100 Ansar al Sharia fighters in the region of the
town of Sousa. According to this sensitive source, the NLA suffered relatively heavy casualties
in the fighting, but believe they captured a number of AQIM operatives and one of Ansar al
Sharia's senior commanders, Sufian bin Qamu, who they believe ordered the attack on the
police. Mangoush also reported to Zidan that Qamu had been previously captured by United
States forces and imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay facility.
4. At the same time the Libyan army and forces from the Misrata militia entered the
town of Bani Walid approximately 100 miles south of Tripoli, in an area still loyal to the Qaddafi
family, engaging in close fighting with pro-Qaddafi forces. During the fighting Haftar
dispatched troops with heavier arms to support the Misrata forces. According to this source, the
NLA downplayed the level of the fighting, in an effort to reassure the supporters of the
Government. That said the NLAJMisrata force had captured the city center and the airport after
suffering significant casualties. The Government forces entered the city after shelling opposition
positions around the city hospital, using heavy mortars and motorized guns
5. (Source Comment: In the opinion of this knowledgeable individual, while Magariaf
and Zidan remain optimistic about the future of Libya, they believe that the security situation
will remain tenuous throughout 2013. Magariaf also sees the national election scheduled for
mid-2013 as a potentially complicating factor. According to this source, Mangoush and Haftar
focused on Bani Walid under pressure from the Misrata commanders. These militia leaders
were, according to a knowledgeable source, angered over the death of one of their senior
officials, Omran Shaban, at the hands of pro-Qaddafi forces in Bani Walk). The Misrata
commanders report that Shaban was one of the organizers of the Misrata militia unit that
captured and executed Qaddafi in 2011 outside of the town of Sirte. The Misrata leaders,
supported by the General National Council (GNC), demanded the surrender of the men who
arrested and killed Shaban. As the fighting expanded through late September and early October,
Magariaf and his advisors came to see Bani Walid as an important symbol of their commitment
to disarm the militias and anti-government groups, and increased their involvement accordingly.)
UNCLASSIFIED
U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2015-04841
Doc No. C05739768
Date: 05/13/2015
STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045751

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:43 PM

67. This is the standard of defense you're at?

Patraeus plead guilty to some stuff. Didn't Deutch need to get a pardon so he would avoid prosecution? I assume that means you're admitting Hillary needs a pardon and you want Obama to issue one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:19 PM

19. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:22 PM

21. kick nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:38 PM

29. Kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:40 PM

31. Cavalier about classified information, lies about it, and then wants to be elected POTUS.

 

We can do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:49 PM

36. Let's all clap as hard as we can. We can make this happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:59 PM

41. You better start clapping for the non-indictment fairy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #41)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:59 PM

42. For Bernie. Sing along, tex-wyo-dem -:)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:08 PM

44. Hillary is going to find "the end of the line" a lot more uncomfortable than Bernie.

The DOS and Intelligence Community IGs haven't found he mishandled classified information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:10 PM

47. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:06 PM

77. Thank you for kicking the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #77)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:08 PM

78. My pleasure. I need a laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #47)


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:29 PM

58. Bye, Felicia.

 

Last straw with you...I tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:35 PM

60. I have a message for you from DSB..

[div style="font-size:20pt;color:red;font-weight:bold"]He wears your scorn like a medal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:38 PM

63. Oh,...ok....I was expecting another poll.....my mistake, carry on.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:37 PM

62. DemocratSinceBirth wears your scorn like a medal of honor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:43 PM

68. Just serving as messenger here:

 

PM received from Democrat Since Birth at 23h34 CET:

Please do me a yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugeeeeeeeeee favor...

Mail Message

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2140168

Please tell her that Democrat Since Birth asked me to tell you he wears your scorn like a medal.

_______________________________

Duty done, promise kept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:37 PM

87. My sources tell me that Democrat Since Birth does indeed wear your scorn as a medal.

 

P.S.: My sources are usually very accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:20 PM

95. DSB et al wears this kind of scorn like a medal, we put it on our walls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:24 PM

54. Heads are gonna explode at Castle Bansalot.

 

Cognitive dissonance has a head-on collision with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:26 PM

56. ROFL

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #54)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 06:57 PM

92. +1

👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 04:47 PM

70. excelllent work and analysis Leveymg.

You are such an important asset to DU.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:01 PM

74. Thanks! Feel free to share with attribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:00 PM

93. I guess you missed this part...

"The four emails.. did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls."

If it wasn't marked classified at the time then she is free and clear. Give it up dude.. she broke some rules but there is nothing illegal in any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 07:07 PM

94. "rather these emails contained classified information WHEN THEY WERE GENERATED"

caps mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 08:14 PM

97. ^^^^This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lmbradford (Reply #97)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:49 PM

100. K&R.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:01 PM

101. Honestly, I forgot to even consider this Inspector General

Not a comfortable place to be, I guess. Not much of a forgive and forget organization I imagine, but to make a ruling regarding someone else's turf is cause for caution. So this might be interesting to see how it does, or doesn't, play out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:23 AM

107. I'm noticing everytime someine posts one of

These end of hillary posts there is a but to it. Which is really starting to make me ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 11:28 AM

108. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:13 PM

109. At best, the off-the-books communication is insubordinate.

At worst, well... When "We the People" don't know what's being done in our name, anything goes.

An example from WikiLeaks (which shows why the hate for Julian Assange):



WikiLeaks' Stratfor Dump Lifts Lid on Intelligence-Industrial Complex

WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering


by Pratap Chatterjee
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 by The Guardian/UK

What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.

The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.

SNIP...

Assange notes that Stratfor is also seeking to profit directly from this information by partnering in an apparent hedge-fund venture with Shea Morenz, a former Goldman Sachs managing director. He points to an August 2011 document, marked "DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS", from Stratfor CEO George Friedman, which says:

"What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like."

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/28-10



There are more, but, from what I understand, it's against the law for people who work in federal government to read them.

Thank you for the information and analysis, leveymg. Each OP of yours adds to what is worth knowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 04:32 PM

112. so, pls explain to me how she can have a security clearance, based on your OP

From the State Dept website:
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm

Clearances
All About Security Clearances

THE SECURITY CLEARANCE

Eligibility for access to classified information, commonly known as a security clearance, is granted only to those for whom an appropriate personnel security background investigation has been completed. It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information. A determination of eligibility for access to such information is a discretionary security decision based on judgments by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel. Eligibility will be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate access to classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States. Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access.


Hasn't she already shown that she was unwilling "to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information"?

How can they realistically let her have a security clearance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #112)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:09 PM

113. Meet the new Decider in Chief. Security Clearances are for the little people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread