Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 03:40 PM Jun 2016

Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified" [View all]

Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 05:50 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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can't wait to see Brian 'bot-boy' Fallon popping up on Segami Jun 2016 #1
You mean Baghdad Brian? BillZBubb Jun 2016 #8
OPs own post is from 2015. joshcryer Jun 2016 #10
Nope pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #14
They finished the report in August and referred to the FBI. joshcryer Jun 2016 #22
Not full report pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #40
One report is from 2000 and the other WhiteTara Jun 2016 #45
The IC IG pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #49
Seems weird that they would send out their report WhiteTara Jun 2016 #52
Their Report pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #55
Brock, Obama, et al Just Trying To Get Her To Safety... In The WHITE HOUSE... Where She Will Be Safe CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #99
How many IG's are there? Skink Jun 2016 #2
Every federal agency is supposed to have one. Hillary never appointed hers. The current DOS IG has leveymg Jun 2016 #18
The President makes the appointments but nice try...more crap...June 16th. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #61
Do you have the inside skinny as to why there was no DOS IG for 4 years? nt leveymg Jun 2016 #66
Your OP is what's called in football terms, a "Hail Mary", a last second attempt at victory. brush Jun 2016 #79
There's no clinch here. She may be presumed to be the nominee, but that's not a clinch. Zen Democrat Jun 2016 #85
MSNBC has already said they will declared her the presumptive nominee tomorrow . . . brush Jun 2016 #89
Weak. Major Hogwash Jun 2016 #102
I said they'd declare the presumptive nominee tomorrow brush Jun 2016 #103
Wish the United States Trustee had an OIG unit laserhaas Jun 2016 #81
These are probably those b3 codes we've been hearing about. NWCorona Jun 2016 #3
Do you want to introduce that subject, or should I? leveymg Jun 2016 #69
Feel free NWCorona Jun 2016 #84
I'll jump in... antigop Jun 2016 #91
Here are some other sources that confirm that emails contained intel sources leveymg Jun 2016 #104
The inspector general released his report! MattP Jun 2016 #4
The State Dept IG released his report pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #15
where did you get the information that another report from a different IG would be issued? Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #5
That was a Joint Statement with the DOS on the emails that DOS first released last summer leveymg Jun 2016 #20
ok but I am still confused Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #71
That is correct. The Joint Statement above is from last July. The IG Report is imminent, perhaps leveymg Jun 2016 #73
Your link from 2015 doesn't work. joshcryer Jun 2016 #6
Not the same IG pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #12
OK. joshcryer Jun 2016 #13
Here's the same Joint Statement as posted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence leveymg Jun 2016 #23
They differed to IG State. joshcryer Jun 2016 #24
The affected agencies will all issue reports: IC, DOS leveymg Jun 2016 #25
ok but I am still STILL confused Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #82
NYT reported on 03/03/16 that the IC IG continues to investigate: leveymg Jun 2016 #105
aha.. thank you so much these posts help keep a bit of sanity Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #106
WaPo (03/10/16) HRC campaign fears "the two (IG) offices issue a report that is damaging to Clinton" leveymg Jun 2016 #110
it's unfathomable to me that indictment would not be recommended by Comey Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #111
Hence Hillary's shift in stance from "not classified" to "not *marked* classified". winter is coming Jun 2016 #7
to "not marked classified *after* we stripped them to send them nonsecure" MisterP Jun 2016 #33
If it wasn't marked as classified... scscholar Jun 2016 #76
She was the Secretary of State, not a temp answering phones. winter is coming Jun 2016 #88
10 days left for this crap MFM008 Jun 2016 #9
This is a Dept State and Intel Coimmunity statement the Clinton campaign misrepresented. Censor it? leveymg Jun 2016 #26
Have you promoted yourself to official timekeeper? You add so much to discussion with all these JudyM Jun 2016 #38
Any idea when we might see the IC IG report? unc70 Jun 2016 #11
My sense is the IC report third week of June, FBI findings 2 weeks after that. leveymg Jun 2016 #27
That's my sense too, leveymg... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #32
The party elders have had since March, 2015 to do succession planning. leveymg Jun 2016 #35
She's already a tremendous risk to the... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #39
They probably thought it necessary to keep the Clinton campaign machine together. This was the only leveymg Jun 2016 #50
Your timing is better for Dems than mine unc70 Jun 2016 #37
I think we pretty much agree on most of this. leveymg Jun 2016 #53
Had they recovered all the emails last fall? unc70 Jun 2016 #75
According to Paul, and I've also read it, the FBI has had a complete set of all 60,000 emails leveymg Jun 2016 #83
IMO, there's way too much effort being put into stalling this jeff47 Jun 2016 #48
I actually don't expect the FBI Report will make a recommendation. But it will confirm the IC IG leveymg Jun 2016 #65
Isn't this report the one they put on hold for the FBI? Bob41213 Jun 2016 #80
Actually, Blumenthal and his sources are the safe ones. jeff47 Jun 2016 #46
Actually, Tyler Drumheller's sources had active security clearances and took classified materials leveymg Jun 2016 #57
Here's information that's much more current justiceischeap Jun 2016 #16
That's somebody's opinion an Op-ed and spin from a discredited advocacy site. Specific intent isn't leveymg Jun 2016 #28
+1000 lmbradford Jun 2016 #96
It's really hard to get behind the excuse that she is stupid. libdem4life Jun 2016 #51
How about arrogant? Out of touch with reality? Both seem very possible to me. Seeinghope Jun 2016 #59
Well, I didn't want to go overboard, be a hater and all, libdem4life Jun 2016 #64
The question may also be, when did she really abide by the rules? Seeinghope Jun 2016 #86
The Clintons do not play by the rules. They, somewhat like the Bushes, libdem4life Jun 2016 #98
Deutch was not prosecuted and Petraeus knowingly gave away classified material. randome Jun 2016 #17
Neither of them became the Democratic Party nominee for President, either. Meh to you. leveymg Jun 2016 #30
And if Petraeus or Deutch ever did run for Prez... Peachhead22 Jun 2016 #72
Clinton received and may have sent classified information... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #34
She knew. Here's one such email from Blum. to HRC leveymg Jun 2016 #43
This is the standard of defense you're at? Bob41213 Jun 2016 #67
K & R AzDar Jun 2016 #19
kick nt antigop Jun 2016 #21
Kick Segami Jun 2016 #29
Cavalier about classified information, lies about it, and then wants to be elected POTUS. senz Jun 2016 #31
Let's all clap as hard as we can. We can make this happen DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #36
You better start clapping for the non-indictment fairy... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #41
For Bernie. Sing along, tex-wyo-dem -:) DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #42
Hillary is going to find "the end of the line" a lot more uncomfortable than Bernie. leveymg Jun 2016 #44
... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #47
Thank you for kicking the thread. leveymg Jun 2016 #77
My pleasure. I need a laugh. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #78
This message was self-deleted by its author tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #90
Bye, Felicia. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
I have a message for you from DSB.. DCBob Jun 2016 #60
Oh,...ok....I was expecting another poll.....my mistake, carry on. Segami Jun 2016 #63
DemocratSinceBirth wears your scorn like a medal of honor KingFlorez Jun 2016 #62
Just serving as messenger here: Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #68
My sources tell me that Democrat Since Birth does indeed wear your scorn as a medal. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #87
DSB et al wears this kind of scorn like a medal, we put it on our walls uponit7771 Jun 2016 #95
Heads are gonna explode at Castle Bansalot. HooptieWagon Jun 2016 #54
ROFL Segami Jun 2016 #56
+1 tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #92
excelllent work and analysis Leveymg. grasswire Jun 2016 #70
Thanks! Feel free to share with attribution. leveymg Jun 2016 #74
I guess you missed this part... DCBob Jun 2016 #93
"rather these emails contained classified information WHEN THEY WERE GENERATED" antigop Jun 2016 #94
^^^^This lmbradford Jun 2016 #97
K&R. think Jun 2016 #100
Honestly, I forgot to even consider this Inspector General Babel_17 Jun 2016 #101
I'm noticing everytime someine posts one of okieinpain Jun 2016 #107
Kick berni_mccoy Jun 2016 #108
At best, the off-the-books communication is insubordinate. Octafish Jun 2016 #109
so, pls explain to me how she can have a security clearance, based on your OP antigop Jun 2016 #112
Meet the new Decider in Chief. Security Clearances are for the little people. leveymg Jun 2016 #113
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Intel Community and DOS I...»Reply #0