back to article State Department finds 22 classified emails in Hillary’s server, denies wrongdoing

The US State Department is to release another 1,000 emails from the 55,000 found on Hillary Clinton’s private (and insecure) email server, saying that 22 contain material that is classified, but wasn’t at the time the messages were sent. "The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because …

  1. gerdesj Silver badge

    Spot the oxymoron

    I've given up with trying to quote and [sic] etc. After de bullshitting and trimming (this is an abbreviation):

    1,000 emails include 22 that contain material that is classified, but wasn’t at the time the messages were sent.

    Re-read the above carefully and note the words "wasn't at the time".

    This is a carefully placed piece of wank against a politico against whom I nearly don't care about and who is running for a position in a country I call foreign. Why should I care?

    I care about facts or at least a reasonable argument about what is factual.

    1. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      Oh, it's even better.. They contain a "category" that has at a later date been made "top secret".

      Could easily be there's nothing special in the emails per sé, a "category" is such a nice catch-all.

      I can think op a couple that sound good in theory, but can render the most innocuous remarks as "Top Secret".

    2. Big John Silver badge

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      Uh, guys, this article is a full brown-nosing for Mrs. Clinton. The actual truth is that she is guilty of major federal felonies and probably every bit of sensitive stuff she had on that insecure server is in the hands of the Chinese and Russians, at least. She knows this and it's eating her candidacy alive.

      Notice the pathetic (and false) "Bush did it too" defense. Hillary herself could have written this article.

      1. Grikath Silver badge

        Re: Spot the oxymoron @ big john

        "and probably every bit of sensitive stuff she had on that insecure server is in the hands of the Chinese and Russians, at least."

        That's a probably.. Not proof then..

        Not that there hasn't been a spate of leaks from just about every important section of the US govt in the public domain, hasn't it? At least professional Spais are supposed to be subtle and ideally won't leave much trace.

        But hey! It's Election Season! Moar! Mudslinging! Well done chaps.... well done...

        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: Spot the oxymoron @ big john

          It's immaterial if the data was taken or not. She had hundreds of these classified files in her possession on that server, and that alone is enough to burn anyone else. All that stuff had to be copied off the secure server she had access to and was placed on hers. That is criminal. Then she ordered staff to remove the classified tags from those files so she could send them via unsecured email. Very criminal. All the while she swore up and down that none of this was happening. Liar.

          As the Lurker says, if she skates on this there is no more rule of law for politicians in the US, at least if they are Democrats.

      2. oldcoder

        Re: Spot the oxymoron

        It isn't sensitive UNTIL someone declares it is sensitive.

        I've had to handle several public mail servers that were given information that later was labeled "secret"... A few even "top secret".

        What counted was whether it was so labled AT THE TIME OF TRANSMISSION...

        AND whether the sender knew it was identified.

    3. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      Apparently Foggy Bottom does not understand US law. It is the originating agency that sets the classification not any recipient or intermediary one. The US spookhauses are saying (off the record mostly but in letters to Congress) they classified some of the information at top secret and even higher. Migrating the information from one system is apparently a felony. There also appears to be a conspiracy, some aides actually did the dirty work at Hildabeast's prodding.

      The sense growing over here is that Hildabeast and cronies should heading to the Big House not the White House. But the concern is she will not be indicted which means the rule of law is toast and the various feral overlords are not that much different than any totalitarian goons past or present - pick up favorite analogy.

    4. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      The emails are reported to contain classified material. That is consistent with the Clinton campaign claim that the messages were not classified, but almost certainly indicates either carelessness or malfeasance within the State Department that reaches the Secretary's office if not the Secretary herself.

      Of course none of it would have been much of an issue if she had not, violating both law and regulation, deployed a private (not to say quite insecurely configured) server to conduct government business. Instead, she would have done email on State Department systems either in the office or remotely using a government provided VPN and examined classified information either in hard copy or using systems attached only to a secure network that did not interface with the public internet (and secret and above possibly in a physically secured and electromagnetically isolated interior room).

      Every article I have seen, including this one, treats this much more lightly than it warrants, as do a large fraction of comments, both here and elsewhere.

      1. Grikath Silver badge

        Re: Spot the oxymoron

        "The emails are reported to contain retroactively classified material. That is consistent with the Clinton campaign claim that the messages were not classified, "


        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: Spot the oxymoron

          A few emails are retroactive, and all the rest were "born classified," and we now learn that some are so dangerously sensitive that even redaction cannot render them safe to release. Clinton has no defense except to lie her arse off. But then there are plenty of useful idiots who will swallow whole anything she says and then try to shout down those who don't.

          1. oldcoder

            Re: Spot the oxymoron

            some of us have actually handled public mail servers that were given secret information...

            What counts is if the sender knew it was sensitive or not.

            It is NOT the recipients fault.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Spot the oxymoron (UNLESS)

              She is deliberately running an illegal mail server in order to circumvent the official secrets act!

              Like Hillary DID!

              1. Tom 13

                Re: She is deliberately running an illegal mail server

                You're thinking too small. She wasn't running the illegal mail server in order to commit one crime. By my count it was at least three types, with each message being a new violation of the law:

                1) Handling Classified information

                2) Ensuring a record of all Official Records

                3) The Hatch Act, which prohibits Federal Officials from using their government email accounts for partisan fundraising.

                4) Hide paper trail for selling access via the Clinton Foundation.

                Note that merely trying to use her original excuse of only wanting one account (which somehow got convoluted to one device even though she's been seen with two cell phones) necessarily means she is violation of #3.

        2. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Spot the oxymoron

          The original statement is correct, and also consistent with possible retroactive classification. The articles report that the email messages contained classified material, but those at the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press feed do not state that it was classified retroactively. The closest to that was the statement quoted in the AP article that the source of the content was being investigated.

          In a general sense, all official material is born classified and not to be released publicly without explicit department or agency approval (or made available because of vulnerabilities) . The classification that applies is dependent on the origin and type of data. It probably happens rarely, but there may well be instances in which publicly released material was classified (or had its classification upgraded) after the fact and efforts made to collect and destroy existing copies.

          Removal of established classification information and copying information from a higher level to a lower without the associated classification marks certainly violate department or agency policy and instructions, and probably violate the law.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: The original statement is correct

            No, the original statement is a flat out lie. We've been through this already. Much of the information being identified as classified was by its nature "born classified". As such it is ALWAYS classified regardless of markings, which was the first lie $Hrillary told with respect to THIS scandal.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Spot the oxymoron

          Since it is only the Clinton campaign that is claiming that these items were *retrospectively* made classified, I think world + dog should take that claim with a veritable mountain range of salt.

          You should be aware, that retrospective classification is very rare and is the result of mistakes in most cases.

          Why, for Jesus H Christ's sake do so many want to just swallow the Clinton spin !

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Clinton campaign claim that the messages were not classified

        Only because you believed the first Clinton lie (and probably all the rest of the afterward).

        Data in not classified based on whether or not the message has headers that says it is classified. Data is classified based solely on whether or not it meets the requirements to be classified. AND as both a handler and originator of classified material $Hrillary had a duty to KNOW what was classified and what wasn't.

        And yes they HAVE released the email in which she clearly instructed her minions to strip the headers and send the information unclassified.

      3. FyveSyx

        Re: Spot the oxymoron @ Tom Dial

        I am with you here Tom. I worked with classified information for 8 years in the past. I know first hand that one of the most important things they drill into your head is how to maintain a security posture so that you don't have slip ups. Admittedly, this is my first time hearing that information can be unclassified and then made Top Secret SAP retroactively. I'm only aware of the other way around. That being said, there should have NEVER been a private e-mail server to conduct government business. We are taught that we (even the peons simply working a govt contract) are targets because of the information we have or had access to. The Sec. of State is so high profile that EVERY precautionary measure should have been taken to protect that info, even if it wasn't classified at the time. It, more than likely, was 'sensitive' at least or else it would not have retroactively made it all the way to Top Secret SAP. We may never know what those e-mails contained, and quite frankly I don't care. I care about keeping our information from prying eyes that would/could use it against us.

        Now, that being said, there is one alternative, though I think less likely to be the case. This IS election season. Saying a number of e-mails had to be retroactively classified and now can't be released can do serious damage to a campaign where a candidate's trustworthiness is showing signs of anemia. But again, I doubt this to be the case.

    5. Charles Manning

      Re: "wasn't at the time".

      To say that the emails contained info that wasn't classified at the time is surely disingenuous for at least the following reasons:

      1) Deals that the State Secretary is making are often inherently not-yet-classified because the deal is the info itself. Expecting that yet-to-be generated info should have been classified is ridiculous. That is the whole point of controlled email services: you don't always know what is classified/sensitive at the time it is generated so you apply the precautionary principle: treat it all as sensitive classified info until you have reason to declassify it.

      I couldn't get away with the same rationality releasing buggy code: "oh well, I didn't know it had a bug at the time.". No, I have to treat all code as buggy until I test the hell out of it, including getting it tested by others, and "prove" that it is solid before I ship it.

      2) So 22 out of 1000 emails were eventually classified and ended up on an unsecure server. She still leaked the classified info onto an insecure server whether she did it before or after it was classified.

      3) Apart from the lack of security, the other thing that is being questioned is her lack of judgement. After all this time in high-flying politics, she determined that those 22 documents were not sensitive enough to be treated with caution. Clearly they were sensitive enough if the info was later classified. She clearly lacks the "nose" for what is sensitive and what is not. Do you really want a Prez like that?

      1. Grikath Silver badge

        Re: "wasn't at the time".

        "I couldn't get away with the same rationality releasing buggy code: "oh well, I didn't know it had a bug at the time.". No, I have to treat all code as buggy until I test the hell out of it, including getting it tested by others, and "prove" that it is solid before I ship it."

        Oh Charles... Nice ethic, but..... Which market in vulnerabilities was there again? On both sides of the fence? Ahhhh..... You had me in stitches there...

        But let's see.. Assuming you are entirely correct, and ms. Clinton should immediately and irrevocably spend a fair amount of time cooling her heels at the States' expense..... Why specifically her? It's not as if the last decade has not had a rather luxurious selection of US officials who have done the same, similar, or even worse. That's made it out of the country into international news. Gods know how much has played out that didn't even make that grade..

        What happened to those others? ummm.. lemme see....

        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: "wasn't at the time".

          > "It's not as if the last decade has not had a rather luxurious selection of US officials who have done the same..."

          @grikath, I call BS on this. Let's hear you name some of these US officials, and don't forget to describe exactly how their actions are the same as Mrs. Clinton's crimes. Oh, and their party affiliation and level within the party would be nice. I won't accept some low-level flunky in Podunk, NJ with a rap sheet a mile long, okay?

          Frankly I can't think of a single example of any past Cabinet Member ever doing (or being caught doing) anything close to what Hillary has done, except maybe for Obama himself...

          1. Lars Silver badge

            Re: "wasn't at the time".

            Please Big John, in a two party system you are for either the Republicans or the Democrats or for nothing like half of the Americans looking at the percentage of people who vote. But while you are for the Republicans should you not also recognize Republicans like a guy who had to resign as a president and one who started the dumbest American war in modern times. I am an outsider, perhaps an advantage as my heart and soul is not locked in to either one party. In my own country I am probably as locked in as you are, then again I can recognize it, ponder about it, and I have the advantage of not living in a one or two party system. Listening the the GOP candidates I cannot find anything of value nor for the Americans or the rest of the world, then again I find more among the Democrats. Your choice. perhaps you should evaluate your sociate in a more honest and critical manner like your part in this world.

            1. Big John Silver badge

              Re: "wasn't at the time".

              "But while you are for the Republicans should you not also recognize Republicans like a guy who had to resign as a president and one who started the dumbest American war in modern times."

              @Lars, I would like to respectfully set you straight on a couple of points.

              One, Republicans don't like Nixon any more than anyone else, and far less than the Democrats like the Clinton crime family.

              Two, where did you get the idea that Nixon started the Vietnam War? That particular event happened under Kennedy, a Democrat, and it was escalated under Johnson, another Democrat. Nixon inherited a horrific mess created by those two Democrats (very typical), and then Nixon was conveniently blamed by the Left for the entire war (also very typical). The same war (BTW) that the Left insisted Nixon was losing (when we weren't). And the same Left that pressured Congress to cut off all aid to South Vietnam after Nixon was gone, causing their downfall and the slaughter of millions by the Viet Cong.

              So please don't try to revise history that I lived thru, okay? I won't allow it to stand.

              1. Lars Silver badge

                Re: "wasn't at the time".

                I was referring to Iraq. I would blame the French for Vietnam although it was a dump decision by the USA to first finance the French and then take over the war.

          2. Grikath Silver badge

            Re: "wasn't at the time". @ Big John

            "I call BS on this. Let's hear you name some of these US officials, and don't forget to describe exactly how their actions are the same as Mrs. Clinton's crimes. Oh, and their party affiliation and level within the party would be nice. I won't accept some low-level flunky in Podunk, NJ with a rap sheet a mile long, okay?"


            juicy bits here

            corruption maybe?

            here be dragons

            not-so-small-fry then?

            Ummm.... pick and choose? The lists are quite extensive, even if you limit yourself to just the past 10 years..

            1. Big John Silver badge

              Re: "wasn't at the time". @ Big John

              Gee wizz, and I specifically stated "...and don't forget to describe exactly how their actions are the same as Mrs. Clinton's crimes." I did this because I figured you might try to dump a list of all politicians caught bending for the last 200 years on me. And yet you ignored my suggestion and did exactly that.

              Is this all you got?

          3. Tom 13

            Re: Let's hear you name some of these US officials

            I'll name one. And he's the official who actually confirms you're point that $Hrillary should already be behind bars:

            David Petraeus, (R) who barely missed spending the rest of his life breaking rocks for sharing a notebook with someone who had a clearance but wasn't actually authorized to see the data in the notebook. That is, the person had the necessary level of clearance, but hadn't been read into all the programs listed in the notebook.

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: "wasn't at the time".

          So you are an avowed shill for Hillary and still don't understand that General David Petraeus was drummed out of the service for treating classified material in exactly the same callous manner as Hillary Clinton did. Not only that, but the level of secrecy was far greater in Hillary's case than in the Petraeus' case.

          Maybe you should stop commenting on US politics, because YOU haven't got a clue what you are speaking about.

      2. oldcoder

        Re: "wasn't at the time".

        Right... You require the recipient to be clairvoyant.

        It isn't sensitive UNTIL AFTER someone labels it as such.

      3. Tom 13

        Re: So 22 out of 1000 emails

        This is another lie by distraction. As of the middle of December 2015 the number of classified messages is over 1000. El Reg's other significant omission is the reliable report that at least 5 messages have been deemed so damaging to national security that they WILL NOT BE RELEASED EVEN IN REDACTED FORM. The reason is that they provide operational details for Human Intelligence and since the raw emails are likely to be in the hands of foreign intelligence agencies it would confirm even the redacted information to those agencies.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      You actually *believe* the Clinton spin !!???!!

      Oh sure, there's lots of information that is completely open and everyone knows, then suddenly it's "top secret" and classified.

      Hey, I have a couple of bridges and some top quality "seaside" real estate for sale that you are probably interested in by the sounds of it.

      But Clinton will not be prosecuted or even charged over this. Not because there isn't illegality involved, but because Clinton is fireproof. Laws, schmlaws....they're for the little people.

    7. Dan Paul

      Re: Spot the oxymoron (Yes, YOU!)

      Of the 1,000 emails that shouldn't be on her server, there are 22 MORE emails that are so highly classified that the DoJ reviewers had to be "read in" to the program (IE added to the allowed list) and that the subject of the emails can never be seen outside those few people. They are so highly redacted that they will never be released to the public!

      Is that factual enough for you? If not then shut up and stop commenting about politics that you obviously don't understand but seem to want to shill for the second greatest liar and thief I have ever seen in my life.

      Carefully placed? You mean like all the anti Republican comments carefully inserted by the left leaning NWO at the Register?

    8. Tom 13

      Re: Spot the oxymoron

      Wrong word. The correct word is "Lie".

      The data most certainly WERE classified, and higher, at the time they were sent. We know this from several sources, not the least of which is an unclassified email in which $Hrillary directed her minions to remove the classification headers and send as unclassified.

  2. fallen2stealth

    Um... da fuq

    Okay, so I am supposed to care about the emails that were not classified when sent but (due to operations of my government that had not happened at that time) are now asked to be treated as classified by the IC who are separate from the Department of State. (So not classified at that time and was at that time a State issue... now classified due to military operations or some such that have taken place.)

    But, you know, this is the big issue... not the failure of OPM and the Department of State over the last 14 years to protect their systems. This server, with out proof that it is compromised is the issue... not the ones that lost MILLIONS OF PEOPLES RECORDS... you know... kinda in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974... a little.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Um... da fuq

      As a present beneficiary of OPM paid credit and identity theft watching, I do not see that either of these events should be taken to excuse or downgrade the importance of the other.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Um... da fuq

      Liar. They WERE classified at the time they were sent. $Hrillary explicitly instructed her minions to remove the classified headers and send it via unsecured channels.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Um... da fuq

        "Liar. They WERE classified at the time they were sent. $Hrillary explicitly instructed her minions to remove the classified headers and send it via unsecured channels."

        And how do we KNOW this?

  3. phil dude

    Olbigatory YM quote

    Bernard: That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act

    A pox on both the Elephant and Donkey for turning partisan, stalemate, politics into a rewarding profession.


    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      Re: Olbigatory YM quote

      International politics are tricky. A lot of what is actually good statecraft when done at the top levels (Prez, SecState, ambassador, etc.) would be a violation/illegal on the lower levels. And only time will tell if it was a good call or not. A problem, obviously. Solution: select persons whose personal integrity is held in high regard. Which of course poses the next problem...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It could be much much worse...

    T R U M P could win.

    1. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: It could be much much worse...

      nope.. that would be a good thing..

      The rest of the world would then be *sure* the US has completely lost its marbles and can prepare for a preschooler with power tantrums sitting on top of one of the worlds' largest nuclear arsenals.

      Not a pretty thought, but at least we'd be *sure* .

    2. Raumkraut

      Re: It could be much much worse...

      I'm personally not so sure that Trump winning would be as bad as the doomsayers are proclaiming. It's not like the US President is an absolute monarch - AFAIK most every decision they make can be either blocked or overturned by Congress. I can't see Trump being able to get anything too wacky done, before he's impeached on some technicality.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It could be much much worse...

        "get anything too wacky done"


      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: It could be much much worse...

        >>"It's not like the US President is an absolute monarch - AFAIK most every decision they make can be either blocked or overturned by Congress"

        Tell that to Obama. He's currently using a technicality to enact his own laws and bypass Congress because the Republicans would block him. And lots of Democrats and media are supporting him despite it being undemocratic because he's one of theirs. If a Republican did the same they'd have a blue fit.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It could be much much worse...

          So I take it you opposed George Bush's use of Executive Orders 291 times as against Obama's 224? Clinton's 364 looks high, but then Reagan used them 381 times. And given that an overwhelming majority of Americans actually want gun control, who is being democratic? A president imposing a few sensible gun safety rules or a senator ignoring his constituents because he is paid by the NRA?

          1. Big John Silver badge

            Re: It could be much much worse...

            Executive Orders are not inherently evil. Have you looked at the list? Huge numbers of mundane but important governmental changes that are not quite worth all the bother of the congressional process.

            The difference with Obama is that his are far more sweeping and will affect the public in a big way. That sort of change is the purview of Congress, not the President. Obama just can't accept that Congress won't kiss his ass any more, so he's trying to assume their powers, as wannabe dictators will do.

            And about your assertion that " overwhelming majority of Americans actually want gun control...", that lie is old and tired, and should be taken out back and shot.

            Americans are buying guns at record rates and have been since Obama was elected. We know that our guns are the only thing giving Obama and the hard-core Left pause when they consider how to gain permanent control over the population. Basically we'd rather live with the problems guns create than live with Emperor Barrack Hussein Obama the First.

            And no, we don't expect to stand off the US Military; our bullets are meant for any brownshirt goons that he might try to raise against us. Obama hinted at just that when he was elected. Remember this gem from his first campaign?

            "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

            And now he's trying to organize the local police thruout the country into one big organization, supposedly because they are all racists who love to kill little black boys skipping down the street.

            And he's going to use executive orders to do so.

      3. Tom 13

        Re: either blocked or overturned by Congress.

        You obviously haven't been paying attention to our current mini-Mao.

    3. Velv Silver badge

      Re: It could be much much worse...

      Scary fact...

      There hasn't been a Republican Presidency since 1928 that didn't have either a Bush or Nixon on either the Presidential ticket or Vice Presidential ticket.

      1. phil dude

        Re: It could be much much worse...

        yeah, but if we get another Clinton it will start to look a bit too much like family entrenchment (I'm being polite).

        It will be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton.

        80% from same familys.

        100% fuc*ed


        1. Chris G Silver badge

          Re: It could be much much worse...

          So it could be 8 years of the Hildbeast and if she doesn't nuke somebody's real estate because they won't sell it to her, she could be followed by 8 years of another Bush. By which time if Obarmy has been inducted into the US chapter of the NWO Illuminati, his kids will be about ready for their turn.

          Trump would be the fly in the oinkment, if he gets in I am going to brush up on my bunker building skills, even if it'sonly to get away from the rubbish he spouts.

      2. Big John Silver badge

        Re: It could be much much worse...

        "Scary fact...

        There hasn't been a Republican Presidency since 1928 that didn't have either a Bush or Nixon on either the Presidential ticket or Vice Presidential ticket."

        This sounded sorta disturbing in a vague, ill-defined way, but not as scary as you described it. So let's review.

        In 1953 Eisenhower/Nixon entered office for 8 years, and it definitely happened 'since' 1928. So far so good.

        Then in 1968 Nixon won outright. Yup, starting to get sinister all right.

        In 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the presidency, and sure enough, his VP was Bush! No wait, it was Nelson Rockefeller. Huh. I guess the incorrectness of your basic statement detracts just a bit from the pucker factor, but let it go.

        Then in 1981, Reagan/Bush assumed office. Ahh, that's better, our first Bush, and only 53 years after the start of the scary period. Good enough I guess.

        After Reagan, that same Bush won outright. Uncanny!

        Then after 8 years of Clinton, Another Bush! It's a dynasty! I'm getting scared.

        Finally we come to now, when Jeb Bush (another one!) is about to begin his sweep to office. Wait, last I heard he was in the loo and going down for the third time.

        End of a dynasty I guess. And whatever happened to those Nixons? What's that you say? There was only ever one of them? I was sure there was a whole swarm...

        1. Velv Silver badge
          Black Helicopters

          Re: It could be much much worse...

          For Big John :)

          "In 1974, Gerald Ford assumed the presidency" - yup, he assumed the Nixon presidency.

          Gerald Ford is the only person to have been both President and Vice-President without being elected to either office.

    4. Lars Silver badge

      Re: It could be much much worse...

      I must admit I find Cruz even more disturbing as a person than Trump. But I hope Michael Moore is right about him in this interview. Vote people vote.

      1. Big John Silver badge

        Re: It could be much much worse...

        Thanks, but I prefer not to besmirch my eyeballs with the spoutings of that washed-up propagandist, Michael 'Gobbels' Moore. You are aware that he is guilty of editing video of his enemies to make them appear to say damaging things? But hey, it's the sort of stuff YOU like to hear, right?

        1. Lars Silver badge

          Re: It could be much much worse...

          Please Big John, I know and you know the "Gobbels" part is just ridiculous.

          "Where to invade next" is a film made by an American for Americas, not for me. I have been to each and every country (except Italy) and about 30 more (including the USA, with found memories). I have studied and worked in several of those countries he visited. There is nothing that I did not know in advance. That film is for you Americans to wake up, and I would (not his words) add to become as "selfish" as the ones who piss you in the face. You can do better, you should do better, you have to do better and there is nobody, at least not in Europe, who does not agree. Just get it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It could be much much worse...

            The trouble is that Michael Moore, like Bill Ayers and Obama, HATE THE USA, JUST LIKE YOU DO!

            They need to go somewhere else. That "film" is just further evidence that they are traitors to this country and belong over there where they can join you in Britistan under sharia law.

            1. Lars Silver badge

              Re: It could be much much worse...

              "HATE THE USA, JUST LIKE YOU DO!". What a dumb thing to say, we all need, regardless of country, people who will not stick their head up their arse and feel comfortable. Moore is a true American, aware, intelligent and informed. Just take Flint. We all need more people like him.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    saying that 22 contain material that is classified, but wasn’t at the time the messages were sent.

    This is stupid, that's like saying I'm bad for selling 22 mars bars that were poisonous even though I didn't know at the time I was selling them.

    Kirby declined to comment on whether the 22 emails were written by Clinton, or merely viewed by her.

    So they don't even know if it was Clinton making the error by sending from her mail server or someone else's for sending them outside the government network.

    Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago.

    It's took them a year to come up with this, I mean really, if you're running for president are you going to supply information that can be used to discredit you.

    I initially found this whole Clinton email saga quite funny but now it's turned into some ridiculous attempt to discredit while trying to treat the public as complete morons.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Whether the information in the withheld emails was classified when sent has not been reported as yet. If it was not, the particulars may only indicate incompetence;. If it was, and copied without the applicable classification marks it becomes a criminal matter implicating whoever prepared the email and possibly others, including the recipient. In the end, it does not matter whether Secretary Clinton sent or received them, since she was responsible for deployment and operation of the probably illegal and certainly insecure server where they were stored. As head of the Department of State she also had the responsibility to ensure that the department and its employees, including herself and her close advisers, complied with the law and with federal and department regulations.

      This is not "funny" and never was. While her supporters may claim otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to consider Secretary Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State in evaluating her fitness for nomination for any other office of public trust, especially including the presidency. OPM director Katherine Archuleta was forced from office, and OPM CIO Donna Seymour is being pressured to resign, for less. As bad as OPM's failures were, the evidence does not suggest that OPM management flouted the law and regulations as appears to be true of the State Department.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: was classified when sent has not been reported as yet.

        Liar. It has been reported that the information was classified, much of it was born classified, and some of it is so sensitive we will not even get a REDACTED version of the email.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You're saying Donna Seymour's (OPM CIO) failure was less egregious than Hillary's?

        Seymour was warned multiple (at least 3) times of attempted hacks, yet she completely ignored them. Her main background is HR, not IT. She is not only technically incompetent, but has blatantly disregarded the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) on numerous occasions, thus prompting OPM's Inspector General to cite multiple violations (see She somehow believes she has carte blanche because she's "acting in the interest of national security." Do you people believe that Seymour's incompetence and negligence should be excused simply because OPM's previous CIO ALSO did not implement protective measures against a data breach? She was hired by the totally incompetent Archuleta, remember? And the people hired by Seymour are also totally incompetent. She is incapable of knowing who'd have the appropriate IT security expertise, even if a competent person applied she would only hire cronies and sycophants--i.e., those who wouldn't question her stupid decisions. I heard she hired a petite (little Napoleon) former Marine lance-corporal (who did data-entry in the Marines) with a degree in criminal justice from a barely-accredited mid-west school to be her right-hand man. Instead of being fired along with Archuleta, this woman still has her job, is still building her incompetent crony kingdom, and is still squandering taxpayer dollars and still violating the FAR. And federal workers must forever look over their shoulders for fear of having their identities stolen. How could you--or anyone--possibly defend this woman?

    2. Captain DaFt

      "it's turned into some ridiculous attempt to discredit while trying to treat the public as complete morons."

      So, like every American presidential race since Washington ran against John Adams and George Clinton then?

  6. Doctor_Wibble

    Quick, hide the embarrassing ones!

    Does it matter these are from different departments? Are we supposed to take it on trust that there hasn't been (requested or possibly unprompted, someone after brownie-points or a job after the next election) some rather arbitrary reclassification?

    There's lots of reasons why someone would want to keep their lucrative contract, or stay on the good side of someone with so much money and power, some would kill for a round of mini-golf in the company of the right ear to bend (etc) and I am sure it is all for love of the job and nothing to do with power and money.

    Maybe the whole thing is completely above board, but it just reeks of a "oh crap, they might read that embarrassing email I sent when I inhaled that time, quick, change the password"...

  7. georgyz


    Henry Kissinger will die laughing.

  8. chivo243 Silver badge

    Welcome, step right up

    to the biggest dog and pony show on Earth! Were these 22 emails about Donald perhaps?

    It's all so surreal...

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

      Re: Welcome, step right up

      My sources tell me that 11 of them are in fact originating from the Victoria's Secret online sales department.

  9. Charles 9 Silver badge

    Here's a very honest and serious question.

    The article notes that some of the e-mails won't be released, even redacted, because they're part of Special Access Programs, basically "deny it even exists" clearance even above "top secret".

    Here's the question. Given the nature of security, is it even possible for unclassified data to be reclassified, especially to SAP level, after it was previously disseminated in an unclassified level? It's sort of like a "genie out of the bottle" situation in that you can declassify something to a lower level but you can't classify something from a lower level to a higher level. The material has to originate at the higher level from the beginning. I know a bit about it because I had family in the military who had to deal with classification levels, and I've personally seen military media carrying things like green "Unclassified" designations.

    1. The little voice inside my head

      Then what you're saying is that she didn't have a clue of what she considered to be unclassified would become SAP, or Top Secret, and that it would take other agencies to re-classify that info? That falls under the category not of unclassied but "I don't care" attitude (worse than negligence) for convinience sake (having her own server and control of what would be left if stuff hit the fan)

      You see, she had the server "wiped" but didn't count on the fact that data was recovered by a third party That is proof that so important material was not kept under a secured environment and ended in a private business with no secuirty clearance at all, therefore breaking the law. There is a motto in the military "practice good opsec". Kind of sad to see rules only applies to certain people.

      Does lack of judgement excuse someone in her level to be sending "unkwon at the time, above top secret or top secret information via an insecure communication device?" Do you really think someone in her position would not know how to handle or consider that type of information as Top Secret? Seems like the answer is yes for her.

      I hope she gets better advisors, or the IT guys in the government area make something really easy to use for her, but secure, if she gets elected.

    2. Dan Paul

      Uma Abedin is also responsible..

      Uma Abedin (Hillary Clintons secretary) deliberately removed these classified headers on the emails so they could be sent to Hillary Clintons illegal private mail server. This is all covered in various WAPO and NYT articles.

  10. Gray

    Thursday's lunch menu

    Classified emails? What anyone outside the United SillyStates of Amurkiness fails to understand: anything and everything under the US Gov't Classification System is "Classified" in one category or another, ranging from "Confidential" to "Destroy Before Reading!"

    ... including Thursday's lunch menu.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Thursday's lunch menu

      Indeed so. Everything of any significance has at least the status of "For Official Use Only." As I remember, however, nothing with a classification above Confidential may be stored on or accessed using an internet-accessible computer, and I think that includes remote VPN access using computers provided and maintained by the government.

      Transferring material classified Secret or higher requires sneakernet use. If that happened in this case, it involved more than forwarding or careful copy-and-paste operations. Moreover, we are justified in expecting those officials who engage in email correspondence with the Secretary of State and her immediate staff to have the wit and will to recognize classification issues and refrain from sending sensitive material into environments where it cannot legally exist even if it is not (yet?) formally classified.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Thursday's lunch menu

        But here's the big question. Were the e-mails in question classified BEFORE or AFTER they ended up on the server?

        1. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: Thursday's lunch menu

          "Were the e-mails in question classified BEFORE or AFTER they ended up on the server?"

          It really does not matter. The server was less fit than gmail, yahoo, or the local ISP's POP or IMAP serverfor storing ANY official documents. Moreover, we ought to be able to think government department or agency heads to take the initiative to prevent compromise of organization data rather than encourage or simply allow it to happen.

          I also would fault the State Department CIO for inadequate oversight of an IT operation in which this was not found out, reported, taken up with the Secretary, and failing correction, with the Inspector General and Department of Justice.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: Thursday's lunch menu

            I would think it DOES matter since if they were classified AFTER they were received, then ex post facto kicks in and no one can be at fault for handling stuff that was only classified after the fact. Unless the material was classified in some way BEFORE it was put on a non-classified machine, there's no standing.

            1. tom dial Silver badge

              Re: Thursday's lunch menu

              I could have stated the point more clearly and succinctly.

              It does not matter whether the email messages were marked classified before they arrived on the (almost certainly) illegal server or were recognized and classified during review preliminary to public release. No official records, classified or not, ever should have been on that server, which is known from various sources to have been configured and operated without much regard for security over much of its service life.

              The fine print. As others have pointed out, anyone who removed classification markings from material before putting it in any of the emails committed a crime. Anyone who transferred material from a classified network or directed removal of classification markings from material before putting it into an email also committed a crime. Anyone who knowingly put sensitive but not yet classified material into one of the email messages certainly committed a serious error and violation of federal and State Department regulations, and may have committed a crime; if the inclusion was inadvertent or accidental, the only real difference is that the act might not be treated as criminal.

              I do not know of instances in which publicly available material was classified upward and attempts made to retrieve it but would be extremely surprised if it had not happened; the number of activities and people generating properly classified data over the last 75 years is large enough that some accidental disclosure is almost certain.

              The root cause, of course, was the server deployment and operation, along with the disrespect for law, regulations, and good management practice that accompanied it. As another poster noted but stated a bit differently, in intelligence matters it is important to know what your adversary knows, and dumping official correspondence to an insecure and apparently relatively unprotected environment certainly was a gift, whether or not any of them recognized it.

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: Thursday's lunch menu

          WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? I'll tell you....

          The people that were reviewing these emails had to be read in to the program because their TOP SECRET CLEARANCE wasn't high enough to be allowed read these emails. These emails were edited by Huma Abedin to REMOVE "CLASSIFIED" HEADERS so she could email them to Hillary on her illegal, insecure private email server and then she lied to congress about it.

          Hillary scoffs at any law because she and Bill feel they are above the laws of this country.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Thursday's lunch menu

      Only raving progtards regard that as a truism about classification.

  11. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge

    Just in

    ██████████████ suspect █████████████████████ moon ████████████████████ lizard ███████████ Register ██████████████████████

  12. Walter Bishop Silver badge

    Benghaz Benghaz Benghaz Benghaz Benghaz BENGAZI !!!!!!

    Nothing to do with clinton running for Prez, I suppose?

    "The US State Department is to release .. emails .. found on Hillary Clinton’s private .. email server .. Clinton, currently campaigning in Iowa ahead of the first state presidential nominee elections"

  13. xeroks

    But, WHY?

    Anyone know whether Clinton has stated why she wanted a private email server?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: But, WHY?

      Anyone paying attention know that question is irrelevant to the question at hand. There is in fact NO WAY TO MAINTAIN A PRIVATE SERVER WITH ONE EMAIL ACCOUNT AND OBEY ALL THE LAWS REGARDING USE OF EMAIL ACCOUNTS FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES. The very act of setting up such a server meant she was intentionally setting it up to break the law.

      The most basic conflict is between the requirement to maintain all emails which are records, and never using a government account for partisan campaign fund raising. EVERY elected politician in the capital maintains at least TWO accounts and most maintain at least THREE:

      1) Email account for official government business.

      2) Email account for campaign fund raising.

      3) Private email account for use with family and friends (this is the one the troglodytes who use phone and snail mail get to skip).

  14. DvorakUser
    Black Helicopters

    Shouldn't Be Allowed To Run

    I feel that anyone - male, female, transgender, genderless, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, whatever - that is under Federal investigation should NOT be permitted to run for President (or any other political office, really) until such time as the investigation has been concluded. Admittedly, this means that Hillary wouldn't be running, but given the choice of candidates right now, I think the best one might just be Vermin Supreme.

    Helicopter because obvious

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Shouldn't Be Allowed To Run

      While I emote the same way, when I pause to allow my brain to interject it rejects the idea.

      That gives the executive branch of government effective veto power over any and all candidates. Indeed even without it, all too frequently in the last decade politicians have been brought down on thinly sourced allegations that have ultimately been found to be without basis and undertaken for purely partisan purposes.

  15. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Thumb Down


    Any chance of something interesting being posted on El Reg?

  16. MacNews

    Translation lost across the pond

    You Brits are not understanding the seriousness of this offense. It is the equivalent of storing classified files at home and breaching the Official Secrets Act.

    This [b]is[b] a serious issue. Don't believe me? Look at how many times Petreaus has been raked through the coals the past couple years.

    The only reason she is not in jail is because she is a Clinton.

    1. cbars

      Re: Translation lost across the pond

      Clearly you Yanks don't understand.

      No-one is should be above the law. If she's not in jail, it's your problem; either your legal system is utter rubbish (smirk), or she hasn't done anything beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

      This is a stupid situation and I personally reckon she should be slapped hard with a wet fish. However I would have thought that without the convenient excuse. (That is a joke, I actually wouldn't have though that, as I had thought she would quietly divorce Mr Lover-Lover and sell some books)

    2. SolidSquid

      Re: Translation lost across the pond

      "The only reason she is not in jail is because she is a Clinton"

      Or they don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges yet, or they want to avoid bringing multiple cases and instead want to have a single case with all the charges they can bring (more chance of one sticking), or just possibly she hasn't actually committed a crime (doesn't mean it wasn't a colossal screw up, but not necessarily criminal)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Translation lost across the pond

      Or maybe it's because she didn't actually do anything illegal?

      What's with the USA and these weird paranoid conspiracies? I would love to sell blood pressure medication in the States, because if you get this het up about an email that probably says something like 'Has anyone seen my mug with the rude picture of Jeb Bush?' - god knows what you do about really big conspiracies like the UN black helicopters spraying gun melting aerosols that turn people gay.

      1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

        Re: Translation lost across the pond

        @AC Perhaps if the government wasn't bending the rules so frequently then lying to cover it up then it wouldn't breed so many conspiracies. Remember all those who said that the NSA were spying on everyone was only touted by so called conspiracy theorists?

        I mean it's not like the U.S. Public Health Service ever intentionally infected people with syphilis for forty years. Oh wait. Well at least they didn't oversee gun running walking operations into Mexico or sell arms to Iran to fund Nicaraguan rebels.

        Try to remember that most of the things we now call scandals were once dismissed as conspiracy theories.

    4. R.P.Charlie

      Re: Translation lost across the pond

      Those emails may not have any top secret intel of national security, but just highly inflammable intel on the mess Hillary and the State dept., made of the Arab Spring and Benghazi.

      They have to cover their backsides for her to become another lying president.

  17. Dave Robinson

    We need to know the truth

    I have a mail server. If someone sends me a beyond top secret copy of Thursday's lunch menu (to paraphrase an earlier poster) is it my fault? Theoretically, my entire server then becomes beyond top secret, including everything already on it, and thus has to be destroyed in a controlled thermonuclear detonation.

    The key questions are:

    a) was she *sending* classified emails from it?

    b) was she aware that she'd received classified emails on her server, in which case, why didn't she do something about it?

    c) WhyTF was she doing "work stuff" on her own server?

    Either way, the full weight of American justice should be brought to bear, and she should spend the next 10 years on death row, at least.

    1. Bob Camp

      Re: We need to know the truth

      It's not illegal to receive a classified e-mail. It's illegal to send one to an unclassifed user. Sending them to a classified person using an insecure server is also illegal. But not all e-mails for work are classified.

      The key answers are (since I worked with classified documents before):

      a) Don't know, but that would get her in trouble. Receiving them won't get her in trouble. Allowing a third-party company to back them up could get her into trouble if they were classified at the time.

      b) You're not required to do anything except immediately delete them. And maybe yell at whoever sent it to you. But remember they may not have been classified at the time she first received them.

      c) She didn't want to carry around two smart phones, two PCs, etc.

      And yes, the U.S. is dumb enough to retroactively classify e-mails. That's the problem here. I think Hillary simply didn't know that or knew it but didn't realize it happens more than it should. Having the private server is not illegal per se. But you can get into trouble pretty easily if somebody else screws up.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: We need to know the truth

        You almost had me there. But whereas b) will get you jailed, you're a liar.

        If you have a clearance and you receive spillage, you are REQUIRED to report the spillage. This in turn kicks off an investigation to castigate the culprit.

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: We need to know the truth

        Correct on all except probably the last sentence but one. Operating a private server certainly is not illegal; quite a few people do that. However, the Federal Information Security Management Act was enacted in 2002 and directed NIST to provide implementing standards and instructions. NIST did that about 2005 or 2006, although many agencies started work to bring their systems and practices into conformity with the act well before that. Government use of non-compliant systems for official business is not and was not legal, and that is true irrespective of system ownership. Nothing obvious in the law forbids using a private system for official government business, including, as far as I know, classified materials, as long as the information assurance requirements are satisfied. It would not be at all surprising if major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin or Boeing operated such systems.

        FISMA compliance is not especially easy to attain or maintain, and it is reasonably well documented that the server for was rather badly non-compliant, so was operated illegally.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: We need to know the truth

      You start from a false premise. You start from the premise $Hrillary had no knowledge about what is and is not secret and its various gradations. In order to be read into the programs she had to be trained and sign legally binding agreements to protect such information REGARDLESS OF MARKINGS. As such, she had a POSITIVE duty to report violations of secret information when she saw them. If the email was sent to her it was sent to be read by her. She is therefore culpable for the message regardless of whether she read them or not.

      a) Irrelevant. Even if as she claimed she only read them, she caused them to be sent to the server by circumventing normal Dept of State processes in the first place. As I've outlined repeatedly above, there is no way this server could EVER comply with ALL relevant federal law. That why you use Dept resources when you work for the government. It gives you actual plausible deniability when something goes wrong.

      b) Again actually irrelevant. If she knew she broke the law. If she didn't know she broke the law because she was legally obligated to know as a result of being read into the programs authorizing her to see the intelligence information when she used the proper devices.

      c) Because she regards herself as above the law. See item a) about the possibility of complying with all federal laws using one server/account.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: We need to know the truth

      Oh, and yes, if you through no cause of your own receive a classified email, and the government traces that email to your server, that server now BELONGS to the government (at least in the US, YMMV depending on international treaties if you aren't in the US). So long as no nefarious intent is determined you will be reimbursed for the cost of the hardware. Eventually. You know how long it sometimes takes them to process those payments. You might or might not get your data back. Yes, they will also take all backups which may contain the classified data. Also, you WILL be responsible for providing details about anyone else to whom you may have forwarded the email. If you fail to provide full details, when the forensic check on your mail server is completed, charges may be filed against you for failure to comply. If you forwarded the message, any recipients will likewise be subjected to the same process.

      Yes, this is scary shit and hangs over the head of ANYONE handling classified materials at any level.

  18. Wolfclaw Silver badge

    Hilton, Kennedy, Bush, what have they in common, lied, cheated, broken the law and generally screwed the US population, while making their own richer and more powerful.

    1. Peter Simpson 1

      @Wolfclaw: You forgot Nixon.

      1. R.P.Charlie

        What about Carter?

        Did you see what Admiral Lyons had to say?

  19. Jon Arden

    Grow UP!

    I'm usually impressed with the calibre of discussion on El Reg but this comment section is just crass!

    Please can we rise above the name calling and wilful ignorance to fully address the other sides criticisms and then maybe we can gain some intelligent insight. As it stands most of the comments on this thread break down into childish partisan name calling.

    You do know calling your president "Obamy" makes you sound 5 years old, right?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019