Official: Top Clinton aides also handled ‘top secret’ intel on server

Fox. News ^ | February 10,2015 | By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

[Hojczyk]

EXCLUSIVE: At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.

ADVERTISEMENT The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others. There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

[palmer]

the "defense" that no communication was marked "confidential" or "secret" can be overcome.

It is virtually certain that no email was marked secret or any other classification. There would be no reason to do that since their entire purpose was to leak and hide the leak. Plus the systems are air gapped so they are reading the secret material and transcribing it to the unclass system. To transcribe any classification marking wastes time and instantly incriminates them. would not happen and her silly excuse will hold.

There is one unlikely exception to what I described which is if one of them plugged a memory stick into a classified system. If anyone did that, they are looking at an instant guaranteed 20 years. The electronic transfer of the material would still have headers and marking and they might leave those. But it is very low probability.

The real problem with her excuse is that the marking doesn't matter. If you intentionally reveal classified material you have committed a crime, period. If you direct someone else to you have conspired in a crime. Two of her emails appear to direct people to reveal classified material.

[Gunner TLW]

This will all break when the FBI starts the intense interrogation of the Security Manager and the career Senior Executive Staff supporting the Secretary of State office. These career Government Employees will not go to jail for Hillary. They were paid to protect our secrets and they failed. You can bet that they are already singing loudly!

It required multiple players IOT migrate SAP, TS and Secret information onto an non-secure, private email system. Everyone in that office knew it was a crime and yet they went along since it was Hillary that orchestrated the entire gambit.

There will be countless careers ended, demotions and prosecutions by the time this is finished. And all of them deserve prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. They knew what they were doing and yet recklessly discarded the safety and secrets of our Nation.

[nathanbedford]

I suspect that the "absence of markings" defense has been introduced as a make weight, useful for consumption by the public even if it is of little or no legal significance and useful perhaps as a justification for a pardon. If constant repetition to the public that the absence of markings means there is no crime, it will be possible later to justify a pardon because there was no criminal intent and her transgression was only a technicality and innocent.

I was unaware that there is a second instruction from Hillary to a subordinates to send the contents of the e-mail to her with the markings removed. I am not aware whether the underlying e-mail was actually of confidential, secret or even remotely important information. Do you know?

While I agree with you that the markings defense is of no legal merit, I think it is potentially significant if a subordinate can be made to testify. I think the motive for the whole illegal enterprise was to facilitate the Clinton graft machine whereby Hillary served up State Department concessions and favors in exchange for honoraria for Bill or for contributions to the Clinton foundation, or both. It is conceivable that a subordinate might be rolled who has information of the whole criminal enterprise, if it existed.

If the FBI assembles proof of such a criminal scheme, can you imagine the uproar if Bill Clinton himself is implicated? It is not inconceivable if it comes to a subordinate singing to save herself/himself.

[Eagles6]

We can hope.

[AndyJackson]

the "defense" that no communication was marked "confidential" or "secret" can be overcome.

That is not a defense for anyone trained in generally what constitutes classified information. It is not the marking that makes it classified, but the content. Passing it around unmarked is not an excuse, but itself a violation since properly marking classified information is a responsibility of anyone handling it.

[AndyJackson]

great minds

[StormEye]

"... FOUO can be processed in an approved NIPR system with PKI."

FOUO, NIPR, PKI?
Anyone care to enlighten the rest of us as to what these acronyms mean?

[BlueNgold]

For Official Use Only

NIPR is the non-classified ‘official’ communications network

PKI/PKE is an electronic means of securing information... basically without getting into system details it is the means by which you can ensure someone cannot open, in this case, an attachment to an email unless they are verified as the intended recipient

FOUO information requires protection and special handling, but does not specifically require a security clearance because the information is not classified

Side note...
The Secretary’s home brew server did not even meet the requirements for FOUO, unclassified data transfer. Even unclass data often requires protection that was unavailable to her system.

[BlueNgold]

Side note 2.
I was very careful and made sure my descriptions above are available through open source and public release documents before posting.

Loose lips etc...

[BlueNgold]

Don’t forget, as Sec State, she was an OCA - Original classification authority.

She is responsible for establishing classifications for information generated within her purview.

I am rather disgusted with the talking heads whenever this comes up on the news.

This situation, as with so many others throughout this administration leaves me wondering whether they act with malice or if it is just gross incompetence. And then, over a glass of wine, I will then remember the two are not mutually exclusive.