Hillary Deleted Email Showing She Forwarded Classified Information To Her Daughter

Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea.

The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of emails recovered by the FBI from Clinton’s private email server.

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain, entitled “Update,” started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

I did some digging to see what this might be about.

On 2009-12-19, I didn't find anything.

On 2009-12-18, I found this:

In Copenhagen, Obama urges action

But, in another email chain that started with the same redacted message, Hillary replied with:

Wow-- you can't make this up--sorry to have missed all of that Let me know if you learn anything else.

Jake Sullivan responded:

Press is more equivocal than the update below. Will let you know what else I learn.

So, I suspect that they weren't talking about Obama's speech. And, I doubt Hillary thought Chelsea needed to know about Obama's speech.

Wait!

In Michael Froman’s original message one of the addressees was “kobrenbm@state.gov.” This is the unclassified email address of Ben Kobren, a communications director in the State Department.

If the text had originallly contained classified information, Froman would not be using that unclassified address. Froman would have used an address associated with a classified channel.

Also Jacob Sullivan’s email address is SullivanJJ@state.gov, which is also an unclassified email address, not a classified email address.

While the text was redacted with the claim it was classified “Confidential” none of the header or footer markings indicating that level of classification are present in the emails

My guess is that the information in the emails was originally unclassified, since it was sent to unclassified state department email addresses, but was subsequently redacted as being “Confidential” before the emails were released to the public.

uh.... Chelsea Clinton never attended NYU.

Why did she need to have attended NYU to have an NYU email address? After all, she's Chelsea Clinton!

And she did have an NYU email. Evidence:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Anna James 
> Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Points for Memo I am writing tonight
> To: Cheryl Mills 
>
> Thank you Cheryl. I agree with the below. I think the initial announcement
> and behavior in the first couple of months is critical to instituting new
> norms - and protecting my father and the non-profit status of the
> foundation. In some ways this being 2012 and Justin/ Doug perhaps supporting
> Dad more in his political work and not at all in his Foundation work, may
> make it an easier transition. The transition itself is contingent on having
> the right policies / protocols and people following them (and their being
> consequences - even rebuking - when not).  I think given the respect John
> has engendered at the Foundation already and the fact he is 'new' would
> position him to deliver the messaging credibly, particularly if Bruce is
> there as well (in person, on the email, on the signature of the memo
> -whatever the right mechanisms are) - both to the 'senior' team (as defined
> and those who see themselves as such) and to the broader Foundation/ CGI/
> AHG/ CHAI etc.

> Before that happens, I think its important the corporate audit feedback
> happen - it would be great if in the first week or two of January John could
> have another meeting - with or without Victoria and Jennifer - with both the
> senior team and the whole staff of the Foundation (and however best to
> incorporate CGI etc too) to announce the high level results and
> recommendations .I think it is crucial that happen first.
> Separately, do you think its worth me reaching out to Doug and Justin
> (distinctly)? I really want to have a good relationship with both for all
> the reasons we've discussed - and I certainly want it to be clear, if
> helpful, why I thought a professional process was so important (ie to
> disintermediate myself so I wasn't just hearing crazy stuff). If you do
> think that's a good idea, do you think its something that would be more
> appropriate (and with a higher degree of success) before or after all of the
> above?

> Thanks Cheryl. Hope you're having a good holiday week - its beautiful here.
> Chelsea

“My guess is...”

And we can only guess. And the whole reason we are even talking about this is: HRC set up her own email server.

This is an email that HRC did not turn over, but rather one the State Department was able to retrieve, and gave to Judicial Watch.

So lets count the crimes:

1. It should have been preserved, so its destruction was a violation of the federal records act.

2. HRC’s lawyers deleted this email after a subpoena.

3. Yes, it was sent from a .gov account...but we can only guess. As an example - the original email could have been “I’m meeting with the foreign minister of LaLa Land”. And Clinton’s response could have been “BTW, he’s an Israeli spy.”. Even though the initial message was not at all confidential, the follow on conversation made it prudent to redact it all. We just don’t know - but seeing as this is all her fault, she should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt. If its redacted now, at best, she was a moron for sending it to Chelsea - it had to be obvious that was inappropriate, even is not technically classified.

There's no need to guess. Clinton's comment to Sullivan and Sullivan's response were released by the State Department. Neither comment was redacted.

The guess I referred to was whether the original email text was classified before or after the emails were sent.

Again, the addresses I noted are not email addresses used on a classified system, but on an unclassified system. If the original email sent to an unclassified email address had contained classified information, then Jacob Sullivan should not have forwarded the email chain via an unclassified system to Hillary.

I guess I’m not tracking - the email string at your link is still redacted, except for the last two messages. So I’m still left guessing.

And again, the string could have been completely innocuous when Sullivan forwarded it (or not if he was as reckless as the rest of the bunch), but HRC could have added information in her reply which made the entire thread less innocuous, and in need of classification.

And again, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, if Hillary hadn’t have broken the law in the first place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.