Turns Out Hillary Clinton Had Hundreds Of Potentially Classified Emails On Private Server; Officials Ask For Criminal Investigation [Update]

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Update: In addition to the update already added at the bottom of this story, later on Friday it came out that the initial report was wrong and the call for an investigation was not for a criminal investigation. Original post follows:

Earlier this year there was a bit of a scandal over the fact that Hillary Clinton had used a private server for her emails, something she knew was inappropriate and which clearly exposed her emails to foreign spies. When she finally agreed to address the issue, one of the key points she made in her defense was that she never had classified material on the server:
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.

So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
Many -- including State Department officials -- found this nearly impossible to believe, especially given just how much stuff the State Department classifies (whether or not that information should be classified is another discussion for another day).
A former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said that although it was hard to be certain, it seemed unlikely that classified information could be kept out of the more than 30,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton’s staff identified as involving government business.

“I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,” said the former official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. “Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”
Back in May, with the first release of a bunch of her emails, some noted that, indeed, they couldn't find any evidence of classified information, though some were later retroactively classified.

But, of course, that was just one batch of the emails. A few weeks ago, reports started leaking from inside the State Department that, in fact, there was classified information on that server, and late last night the other shoe dropped, with a report in the NY Times that two separate Inspectors General have requested the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Clinton's mishandling of sensitive information -- in particular the inclusion of "hundreds" of potentially classified emails on her private server.
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The report also notes that these same Inspectors General were particularly annoyed with how the State Department has been handling this, saying that one of the emails that was revealed publicly last month contained classified information that should not have been released (though they obviously did not identify which email).
In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.

[....]

The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.
Back in March, when the whole email scandal broke, it was pretty clear that Clinton hoped to address it quickly and then hope that the whole thing would blow over. And, for the most part, it actually did. However, a criminal investigation and potential charges would obviously put it back on the front page again. Either way, it still raises serious questions as to what the hell she was thinking and more importantly, what the hell her staff was thinking. There is no way they could not have known how dangerous this was. Clinton's bizarre defense that the system was secure because the server was physically guarded never made much sense, but it still boggles the mind that everyone allowed this to happen in the first place. At this point, it has to be considered all but confirmed that foreign intelligence agencies had full access to all of her emails, including those that had classified information.

Update: Well, this is interesting. Some have noticed that after it was published, the NY Times quietly "softened" its original story... An hour after publishing it, the report changed so that it no longer said that the question was if "Hillary Clinton mishandled" her emails, but rather if "sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Wickedsmack (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 4:46am

    Integrity....

    Aside from the very obvious that she was not in compliance with state department protocols for email and electronic documents, how is this even a question at this point? The only reason I could fathom for having a private server is to keep unwanted eyes (read: Government, the Amercian Public, or Law Enforcement) from seeing what she was doing. I do believe time to rattle some cages. Also if this criminal investigation moves forward does she 1. Automatically drop out of the race for President? 2. What exactly is she facing if this goes to trial?

    It all seemed shady from the jump, this will not end well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dreddsnik, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:48am

      Re: Integrity....

      " The only reason I could fathom for having a private server is to keep unwanted eyes (read: Government, the Amercian Public, or Law Enforcement) from seeing what she was doing."

      In other words ... Nothing to hide, nothing to fear ?

      I don't like her, I won't vote for her, but the timing of this is suspicious and this maxim is just as fascist when applied to her. Innocent until proven guilty.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:21am

      Re: Integrity....

      If any normal worker had done this they would already be in jail and maybe released if they were eventually cleared or dropped.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:41am

      Re: Integrity....

      I do believe [it's] time to rattle some cages.

      Ya think? Sorry.

      For me, this isn't exclusively a HRC problem. She's just a symptom of a systemic problem. How in the world do HRC, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump end up the cream of the crop?!? Come on, USA! You've got to up your game. These people are nowhere near what you need to be electing to high public office!

      Whatever you think of Sanders' politics, he's at least a plausible candidate. Those others? You're being sold down the river by deep pocketed backroom manipulators, and you shouldn't be tolerating it. No-one in their right mind could believe those people are going to fix anything that needs fixing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:57am

      Re: Integrity....

      Integrity,hahaha, Maybe two people in D.C have it. and they aren't politicians.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 3:22pm

      Re: Integrity....

      Spoken like someone that knows absolutely nothing about the state of US government IT and probably computing security in general.

      The primary reason one would want a private server for e'mail is precisely because Clinton's own vetted people could manage it, or manage it herself directly. That can improve security against outside intrusion, especially if it's not widely known where the physical server is located. There are a lot of things that can be done to secure a private server you have direct control over that federal purchasing rules and regulations would make onerous or impossible.

      Aside from breaking rules over potential (note it's not confirmed) legally confidential material passing through the hardware, there's every reason to maintain a separate physical plant not subject to federal rules that has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding public scrutiny. The politicians harping on this issue themselves barely have a clue on even turning a computer on, let alone using one with competence and even further divorced from the knowledge of how computer server security works (or doesn't as far as US government computers go, and that's provable).

      These are the same idiots passing moronic laws like the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) that have done vastly more to harm computer security than to enhance it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:05am

    I've been saying this for a year or so....

    Hillary Clinton will NOT be president. I know everyone thinks she will be, which is part of the reason she won't be (voter apathy), but even without that, she's un-electable.

    1. She was deeply involved in helping her husband run Arkansas like their own personal piggy bank

    2. She was deeply involved in slandering several of her husband's sexual assault accusers

    3. She essentially betrayed women by "standing by her man", a cheating man who I still think ought to be brought up on war crimes charges for bombing a Sudanese pharma plant to drive attention away from his admittedly silly Lewinsky trial. Despite is sexual deviancy, despite several accusers of actual sexual assault, despite the lies and the crimes, she stood by him....for political reasons. To all my female comrades out there: THAT'S NOT A REASON TO VOTE FOR A WOMAN FOR PRESIDENT.

    4. She herself has been lying about her own use of classified material on her own private servers, circumventing security and records keeping. She's untrustworthy of any public office.

    5. While her affiliation with the Clinton Family Foundation while Sec. of State isn't the humungo mega-scandal that idiots like Rush Limbaugh claim it is, it still creates a massive conflict of interests for future office, as money was directly given to her foundation by entities with which she'd have to interact on the world stage. That's an untenable situation.

    She can not be president.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:59am

      Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

      She can not be president.

      Cannot and will not are two different things. I agree, she is completely unfit to be the President, but the left doesn't really care about such things. Her goal in being President is just that, to be President. She only wants it as the final feather in her cap. She has a very poor record at nearly every office she has held, yet here she is the, the top Dem candidate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:58am

        Re: Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

        In correct Sir. She is the top candidate period, because... the Donald.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 10:24am

        Re: Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

        "The left doesn't care about such things"? Get your head out of your ass.

        Most people of a more liberal and socialist mindset have been gravitating towards Bernie because Clinton is such a mess. And if we ignore everything that Dark Helmet has said she still isn't that great of a left leaning politician. It's more like "eeeh... she's better than anything the GOP has been able to put forward for like 10 years or something."

        And even then Bernie is such a long shot it is like hoping for a third party to take the presidency. The 2016 elections are a joke and Trump is the punchline.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:05am

      Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

      About the war crimes charges - why not charge the both of em? I'm pretty sure Hillary's tenure at the State Dept involves many things of the drone variety...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:55am

      Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

      Hmm, isn't this the standard behavior of most of the elected presidents nowadays? Except maybe Obama (and I'm not convinced of it myself) and Obama has been a disaster for free speech and other Constitutional rights along with international relations and human rights.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:12am

      Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

      I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I have no idea what he's been saying about the Clinton Foundation, but you really ought to read the book Clinton Cash. If you can read that and not think it's a humungo mega-scandal then you seriously need to get your scandal detector recalibrated.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:23am

      Re: I've been saying this for a year or so....

      2 quotes you can add to that list

      "what does it matter", in regards to being asleep at the switch during Benghazi.

      and

      "I am dead broke", in regards that she considers being a multimillionaire as being poor because she isn't a billionaire.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mcinsand, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:13am

    although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

    If classified material is mishandled, then there should be a criminal investigation. The investigation might clear the person and it might not, but an investigation needs to happen. Sadly, in the current US climate, Joe Voter is generally only going to call for an investigation if the person in question belongs to 'the other party.' Whether the person is a Democrat, Republican, or unaffiliated is irrelevant. Whether the material is justifiably Classified is irrelevant. The fact is that the information is marked as being legally-required to being handled with certain protocols.

    However, I absolutely cannot help but wonder if there is a partisan motivation behind this. Getting HRC out of the way quickly would be the Democrats best way to secure the presidency in 2016.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:03am

      Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

      Yes, the fact that Hillary knowingly kept her email off public servers is a partisan issue. /sarc

      This is the problem with the left, no matter how serious their candidate messes up, they stand behind them just because their party starts with a D.

      Have you ever noticed, that no matter what happens when a Democrat is in the WH, nothing ever gets investigated? Can you say partisan politics there? Absolutely. I believe that whatever party runs the WH, the other party should appoint the head of the DOJ.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:32am

        Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

        "Have you ever noticed, that no matter what happens when a Democrat is in the WH, nothing ever gets investigated?"

        Yes, there is obviously a double standard. It's the easiest to see in the media. When a Republican messes up, typically the media rides them like a rented mule, but when a Democrat mess up, the media spin machine goes into overdrive.

        I'm a independent. I vote for the best candidate not the best party. So looking at it from relative neutral ground, it is pretty obvious that the media favoritism towards the left helps drive these investigations. Don't forget, media is owned, for the most part, by the corporate masters...

        It's actually kind of funny. I always thought the Republicans were the corporate lap dogs. In the last 10 years or so the Democrats have been fighting hard to take the title.... Just look at immigration; Because of the flood of cheap labor, the price of labor at the entry level has taken a dive and profits are way up... doesn't do much for the struggling American kids with huge debt coming out of college... but meh, that's who they voted for. You get the Government you deserve right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:49am

          Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

          You sir, get it. Too bad more people don't. You can see with this administration for sure, who the Dems are really for. They talk about the little guy, yet all of their policies go against the little guy. Even the generous social programs act as a trap, keeping people at the bottom. Instead of helping people advance, they pay them to stay put.

          Now I am in no way saying the Repubs are perfect or even close. Just that the Dems are way worse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            steell (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

            "Even the generous social programs act as a trap, keeping people at the bottom. Instead of helping people advance, they pay them to stay put."

            Ah yes, the Republican mantra, based on zero evidence but an enormous ego. Based on 50 years of observation (across 50 States) and first hand experience, I can attest that your statement is a damn lie perpetrated by ignorant self entitled Republicans.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:34am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

              So 50 years of generous social programs and we have no improvement so yes, there is evidence it doesn't work.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

              LOL. I wouldn't call our social programs generous, I would say we don't do enough of the right things. Maybe instead of maintaining people at below poverty levels with hand outs, lets spend more money educating and equipping people to enter the work force. Hopefully people that are already here. We have enough people to fill the worker ranks, we need to take care of them not import more low wage earners by opening our borders. Let's take care of our own first, and at that point if we need more, then lets utilize immigration.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

            As an aside, if our social programs are screwed up it's in part due to the push by neoliberals like Clinton and Gingrich. Not saying these programs would be perfect otherwise but a lot of the clowns who complain about waste/abuse in social welfare programs turn a blind eye to corp welfare...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:26am

          Re: Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

          kind of weird when you think about the history of the democrat party was supporting the south during the civil war, while the republicans were supporting the north.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re: although it shouldn't be a partisan issue...

        This is the problem with the left ...

        This is not a left vs. right, Red vs. Blue problem. When are you going to wake up and notice they both stink to high heaven?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MadAsASnake (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:13am

    Could you suggest a candidate that would have a chance at a Presidential Election in the US electoral system that does not carry a list of baggage of these if not greater proportions?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:20am

      Re:

      Your question is VERY easily answered: any other candidate of the current crop carries less baggage than Hillary Clinton, from Bernie Sanders to Scott Walker.

      Now, if your question is: find a candidate that doesn't have serious political negatives, then no, that cannot be done. But I don't see Bernie Sanders trying to publicly smear sexual assault victims, even if he wrote some weird shit in the 70's, and I don't see Scott Walker acting loose with government secrets even if he is the most divisive political candidate currently up for the ballot.

      Some of this is likely because Hillary has had more opportunity with a longer public career to fuck up. But that doesn't mean she didn't fuck up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MadAsASnake (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:45am

        Re: Re:

        The key to my question is "have a chance at a Presidential Election". Donald Trump is a candidate. Not going to happen.

        BTW, I'm not disagreeing. We've had enough Bushes and Clintons in the White House for a few generations.

        Unfortunately, US presidential elections are not won on merit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:56am

      Re:

      Homer Simpson?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      SomeoneElse, 24 Jul 2015 @ 11:09am

      Re:

      Bernie Sanders.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:24am

    Didn't a bunch of emails that she released get immediately classified? How is that not classified information?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:49am

    It's not a problem until it's a problem for someone important.

    Sounds like the best chance we have to rally against over-classification on mundane "secrets".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 5:52am

    NYT is a Clinton surrogate news outlet, no wonder they softened the story...

    I always thought the BENGHAZI! outrage was just a limited hangout to distract everyone from whatever shady operations were going on in the consulate annex. That sounds more and more likely as after reading this article...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:43am

    It might be better if the classified emails were on Hillary Rodham Clinton's personal server. It's quite possible that server is more secure than the ones managed by the government.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 6:47am

    maybe a russian terrorist organization wants it's aq work hidden from the world

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    jim, 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:24am

    Love all the sarc!

    Yea, dems don't get investigated? By who? And the repigs, only get looked at? Love the sarc. Which was worse, a cigar or lying to the people to kill a ruler of another country? Which one got investigated?
    Hillery should run, vs the Donald, cool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:35am

    As far as elections go

    We the voters need much earlier primaries with a "none of the above" on the ballot - which must force the party to go and get a new slate of candidates - but we'd have to pass a law making it illegal to change your name to "none of the above".

    As all we get now is "choose the least offensive from the following list" we really have damn little choice.

    And this election is shaping up to be a barrel scraper...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wayne Andersen (profile), 24 Jul 2015 @ 7:41am

    Which Email did she use

    If she never dealt with clasified email on her private server then which account/server did she use for secure communication and where are those emails?

    Unless of course she never sent or received any classified email, which I guess is the safe way to prepare for a presidential run.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:23am

    Retroactive classification

    Sweet!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Hero, 24 Jul 2015 @ 8:44am

    Passive Voice

    > "sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton."

    Passive voice should not be allowed in the Public forum that is our democracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:20am

    Hillary sucks, Monica swallows, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. See you all in Havana after the next election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2015 @ 9:27pm

    there's every reason to maintain a separate physical plant not subject to federal rules


    Except that, insomuch as it was used by the Secretary of State for official government business, it *is* subject to federal rules whether she likes it or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2015 @ 5:00pm

    Jumped the gun on this one didn't you. Still a non story that will not effect next years election in any way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.