IG: Highly Classified Emails on Clinton’s Server

From Fox News:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton’s emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Intelligence from a “special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as “top secret” – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton’s private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a “need-to-know” because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection — or a human asset — at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

The article continues:

While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.

The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

Remember, Hillary, “There should be no bank too big to fail no individual too big to jail.” If you violated federal law, when will you be turning yourself in?

Administration Claim of Executive Privilege Rejected by Judge Appointed by Obama
Supreme Court to Review Executive Amnesty
  • TS/SCI. Arrest, indict, hold in confinement until passport surrendered and bail or bond posted.

  • retired military

    “If you violated federal law, when will you be turning yourself in?”

    Okay Scalia. I triple checked to ensure that you actually wrote that question.
    You need to really break that bad drug habit that is proven by just the fact you asked the question even faciscally (spelling).

    • Scalia

      Yeah, kicking the habit is hard.

    • Scalia

      By the way, I’m glad you’re posting again. You were missed.

      • retired military

        Thanks.

    • Facetiously…

  • I’d like to think something will finally come of this… sadly, I think nothing will… hoping I’m wrong big-time.

    • Scalia

      Me too.

    • Scalia

      By the way, how is your wife doing?

      • Doing great Scalia, we’re coming up on 4 years since the initial diagnosis. Now cancer-free, thank God.

        I appreciate your asking.

        • Scalia

          That’s great to hear. I hope and pray it’s forever in the past.

    • iwogisdead

      Her first act after being sworn in will be to pardon herself.

  • Heh. The IG involved had to have his clearance upgraded just to review the e-mails…

  • Commander_Chico

    She should be prosecuted. This is much worse than Petraeus’s case, which was just him and his girlfriend with a TS/SCI clearance. The transmission on unsecure lines is much worse.

    • Jwb10001

      Finding a jury of her peers might be difficult, I’m not sure there are 12 people nearly as slimy as HRC.

      • You must not have spent any time in or near the District of Columbia…

        • Jwb10001

          I have been, but to me she represents a whole new level of slime. Her level of corruption would make Nixon blush.

      • Commander_Chico

        Do you have to give a jury a security clearance for a case like this?

        • Jwb10001

          No they just need to hack into Clinton’s server.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          No. If a judge determines the classified material is necessary for a fair trial, it goes in the public record.
          A defense tactic in criminal trials known as “graymail” was often used to ward off prosecution. The Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980 was passed to at least partially counter “graymail”:

          ‘Graymail can occur in two ways:

          [1]To straightforwardly blackmail the government, forcing it to drop the case using the threat that if the trial proceeds the defendant will reveal classified information he or she already knows.

          [2]To request use of classified material, e.g. as evidence, in the trial. The defendant speculates that the government will be unwilling to make the material fully available to the case, and that this will raise the possibility, in the eyes of the judge or jury, that the unreleased material might clear the defendant, making it difficult to prove guilt. Wiki.

          The Classified Information Procedures Act
          requires the defendant to notify the government if he intends to use classified information in his defense, and allows a private adversary proceeding before a judge to determine if the material can be used in trial. If the judge rules against the government, it can immediately appeal.

  • JWH

    Well, this isn’t good. I don’t think it’ll sway many Democratic voters, though.

    • Commander_Chico

      Bernie is going to win Iowa and NH.

  • JCA100

    The number of people voting for has will amaze you. So sad too.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Who knew? An Obama appointee is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy: “Hillary Clinton’s spokesman accused the Intelligence Community Inspector General Wednesday of working with Republicans to attack the Democratic presidential front-runner….

    McCullough was nominated by President President Barack Obama in August 2011 to be the first inspector general for the 16 intelligence agencies and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article55628755.html

  • Constitution First

    SAP; “need to know” doesn’t really tell the whole story. Sap is a protocol. Before you can look at any document, you have to prove to the document controller you have the need and the clearance to view, you may never remove from the room, retransmit, copy, make notes or even tell another person who is not in your “compartment. Hence the term “compartmentalization”.

    The protocol starts with your signature to a document that spells out in painful detail, all the penalties, fines and jail terms for each type and level of disclosure. The Minimum being termination, ten years in jail and a $10,000 fine up to and including capital punishment. If your release caused the death of another, your life is forfeit. This is as serious as classification penalties get.

    Given that five or more SAP documents were found on Clintons private server where the potential existed (it doesn’t have to be actual disclosure) for non-cleared persons to have viewed these documents, the data within is now deemed compromised. It is almost certain the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, French, Israelis, UK (et. el)…. intelligence agencies have all had a good long peek at these documents, knowing Clinton was using a hotmail account rather than a .gov account. The only real question is how much damage has been done.

    For those of us who play by the rules, the thought of someone simply walking away from high crimes simply because they are “special” does incredible damage to moral, to the idea of “rule of law”, to the idea we are all subject to the same scrutiny… If charges are not brought forward, why should anyone obey any law?

    • Constitution First

      I have to add: what kind of person would vote for Clinton if these charges prove true?

      • Democrats.

      • Scalia

        Good question. If a Republican were guilty of such things, I’d never vote for h/er, but a couple of Wizbang Democrats have already stated that though they might have to hold their noses, they’ll vote for her.