Clinton’s Mindboggling Email Controversy


Even as the stories and evidence mount, it blows my mind that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is still being treated as almost a peripheral issue in the election.  I mean, this is even in the New York Times:

The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.

The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release.  The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.

I’m no expert, but my understanding is that there’s no way for such emails to get onto a private email server without somebody’s having committed a crime.  Add to that the fact that a president who claimed to have had no idea about the private email address is now acknowledged to have interacted with that email address.

How is this not an absolutely huge story, given Clinton’s status as a presumed front-runner, with Democrats’ substantive option being a candidate who may very well be indicted and inarguably made the nation less secure as Secretary of State and an avowed socialist?  How bad does this thing have to get before the question on every commentary show is: Can she continue to run?

Whatever the case, Clinton’s candidacy and the handling of it is a fascinating case study of the American Left (particularly in the media) and the sort of governance that it engenders.  One lesson is that the key point with political audacity is that the fatal step is ultimately an acknowledgement that the crime or unconstitutional action is actually a big deal.  The law doesn’t matter… only whether the sycophants feel as if they can wave the action away as inconsequential.

  • Northern Exposure

    Well, if Bradley Clapper is correct, it makes the perfect argument for absolutely prohibiting the use of private email servers under any circumstance. Why is it allowed?

    • Guest

      Northern Exposure, it is not allowed and must be
      specifically approved by higher command and even though it can only be used for
      unclassified information all the required electronic systems security must be
      put in place out of the user’s individual pocket.

  • bottomfish

    It would seem to me a serious lapse for an e-mail previously considered not top secret to subsequently become top secret after (probably) several people had read it. The value of the security classification system would to be seriously impaired if messages become top secret after being released to the wrong people. Sounds thunderingly obvious to me.

    • Guest

      Bottomfish, one of the subject emails in question now marked top secret compartmented is from a public newspaper article that was widely disseminated
      world-wide. Investigation so far shows a great majority of the emails originated from the U.S. State Department unclassified email server.

      In the realm of Intelligence, Federal and DoD military electronic automated information systems the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has mandated that there will be NO DIRECT cross connections between networks of different information security classification
      levels. All information systems will be operated system high (at one security level) and ingress/outgress is via network gate keepers (which check security level of information). All Intelligence, Federal and DoD military personnel and
      civilian contractor electronic information system access is via positive unmodifiable electronic identification system with security access level based on need to know and restricts the individual user’s abilities to their level of approved access on the individual network. Two person integrity is built into the system and an unmodifiable full audit trail of each person’s electronic actions is
      produced and saved unclassified up to classified all electronic information systems.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I grant Guest’s point that material which requires classification varies with time and the course of events. However, wouldn’t anyone “smart enough” to be Secretary of State note this as obvious and take ordinary precautions. I am sure she had “security experts” to advise her.

    • Guest

      Rhett Hardwick, obviously her security professionals were
      not providing her proper guidance and I would love to see what federal, State Department, DoD, NSA and NIST security course certificates they obtained. So far the majority of information to her unclassified personal email server came from the U.S. State Department unclassified server so there would be no reason
      for her to go back and review information.

      If she attended a briefing where information was top secret
      compartmented as suggested by information found on her server and she recognized her unclassified information mixed in with the higher classification which paints a fuller picture then she would be obligated under law to go back and review and request direction from the higher authority classifying agent. You can only have one classifying agent of any information.

      Odd, information found on her server was a public world-wide newspaper article now classified at the highest security level.

  • guest

    When will the Koch’s let you know who to back in the primary?

    • Rhett Hardwick

      Regardless of the rules, it would seem to me that anyone smart enough to be Secretary of State (President?) would be smart enough to know the likely hazards and “unintended consequences” (politicians love that one, almost as much as “heavily nuanced”. I preferred the now dated “dog whistles”))

  • bottomfish

    So someone (Clinton?) “possibly added” to information in a public-domain news story so that the entire message became top secret. Why didn’t Clinton KNOW that her annotation made the information top-secret and therefore that she should not have been using her home server to re-send it or store it?