Link and video - http://www.foxnews.com/politic...se.html?intcmp=hpbt1



EXCLUSIVE: The intelligence community has now deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.

Fox News is told the emails include intelligence from "special access programs," or SAP, which is considered beyond “Top Secret.” A Jan. 14 letter, first reported by Fox News, from intelligence community Inspector General Charles McCullough III notified senior intelligence and foreign relations committee leaders that "several dozen emails containing classified information” were determined to be “at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, AND TOP SECRET/SAP levels."

The State Department is trying to finish its review and public release of thousands of Clinton emails, as the Democratic presidential primary contests get underway in early February.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, there is an exemption that allows for highly sensitive, and in this case classified, material to be withheld in full -- which means nothing would be released in these cases, not even heavily redacted versions, which has been standard practice with the 1,340 such emails made public so far by the State Department.

According to the Justice Department FOIA website, exemption “B3” allows a carve-out for both the CIA and NSA to withhold "operational files." Similar provisions also apply to other agencies.

Fox News reported Friday that at least one Clinton email contained information identified as "HCS-O," which is the code for intelligence from human spying.

One source, not authorized to speak on the record, suggested the intelligence agencies are operating on the assumption there are more copies of the Clinton emails out there, and even releasing a partial email would provide enough clues to trace back to the original – which could allow the identification of “special access programs” intelligence.

There was no comment to Fox News from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or the agency involved. Fox News has chosen not to identify the agency that provided sworn declarations that intelligence beyond Top Secret was found in the Clinton emails.

Reached for comment by Fox News, a State Department official did not dispute that some emails will never be made public.

“We continue to process the next set of former Secretary Clinton’s emails for release under the FOIA process and will have more to say about it later,” the official said. “As always, we take seriously our responsibilities to protect sensitive information.”

The State Department was scheduled to release more Clinton emails Friday, while asking a D.C. federal court for an extension.

FBI investigators looking into the emails are focused on the criminal code pertaining to “gross negligence” in the handling and storage of classified information, and “public corruption.”

“The documents alone in and of themselves set forth a set of compelling, articulable facts that statutes relating to espionage have been violated,” a former senior federal law enforcement officer said. The source said the ongoing investigation along the corruption track “also stems from her tenure of secretary. These charges would be inseparable from the other charges in as much as there is potential for significant overlap and correlation."

Based on federal regulations, once classified information is spilled onto a personal computer or device, as was the case with Clinton and her aides, the hardware is now considered classified at the highest classification level of the materials received.

While criticized by the Clinton campaign, McCullough, an Obama administration appointee, was relaying the conclusion of two intelligence agencies in his letter to Congress that the information was classified when it hit Clinton’s server -- and not his own judgment.

Joseph E. Schmitz, a former inspector general of the Department of Defense, called the attacks on McCullough a “shoot the watchdog” tactic by Clinton’s campaign.

The developments, taken together, show Clinton finding herself once again at the epicenter of a controversy over incomplete records.

During her time as the first female partner at the Rose Law firm during the mid-1980s, she was known as one of the “three amigos” and close with partners Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. Hubbell ended up a convicted felon for his role in the failure of the corrupt Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan which cost taxpayers more than $65 million. Hubbell embezzled more than a half-million dollars from the firm.

Foster killed himself in Washington, D.C., in July 1993. As Clinton’s partner in the Rose Law firm, he had followed the Clintons into the White House where he served as the Clintons’ personal lawyer and a White House deputy counsel.

Clinton’s missing Rose Law billing records for her work for Guaranty during the mid-1980s were the subject of three intense federal investigations over two years. Those records, in the form of a computerized printout of her work performed on behalf of Guaranty, were discovered under mysterious circumstances in the Book Room of the private White House living quarters.

The discovery of those records was announced during a blizzard in January 1996 by attorney David Kendall, who still represents Hillary Clinton. After Clinton testified before a grand jury, prosecutors concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she committed perjury or obstruction of justice.

Despite Clinton’s recent public statements about not knowing how the technology works, at least one email suggests she directed a subordinate to work around the rules. In a June 2011 email to aide Jake Sullivan, she instructed him to take what appeared to be classified talking points, and "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

A State Department spokesman could not say whether such a fax was sent.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2016-01-29-14-48-31

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets,censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification
. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.



The Associated Press has learned seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be "top secret."

The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" - a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Clinton first called the decision a matter of convenience and then termed it a mistake, even if doing so wasn't expressly forbidden. But the matter could prove more troublesome now that Clinton's former agency has confirmed that business conducted over the account included top-secret matters.

adding from the link to make it clear it is the State Dept saying this:

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual."

That means they won't be published online with the rest of the documents, even with blacked-out boxes.

Kirby said the State Department's focus as part of the Freedom of Information Act review of Clinton's emails was on "whether they need to be classified today." Questions about their past classification, he said, "are being, and will be, handled separately by the State Department."

Call me crazy - you wouldn't be the first - but I'm starting to think that the chances of Hillary getting indicted are moving from "snowball's chance in hell" to "at least as likely as not."

I think that the FBI is almost a certainty to recommend prosecution. The big question is what Obama tells his DOJ to do with the recommendation and when. I just can't imagine them declining to prosecute before the election. The uproar would be huge. It would likely end her chances of becoming president as much as any indictment. But what if Obama waits until after the election to announce his decision? That way, he could prosecute her if she loses and no harm done for the Democrats. If she wins, he could decline to prosecute. I could see him saying some thing about how the charges are very serious but Americans have spoken and they want Hillary, so no prosecution (or maybe he gives her a pardon at this point). So many ways to game it out.

But it is definitely no longer unthinkable that she gets indicted. And that gives me warm, tingly feelings all over.

It seems to me that there will be either an indictment, or some form of popular revolt in this nation. Either way, ol' Hil is toast.

If an indictment is recommended by the FBI and then is not acted upon by DOJ, I believe there would be a mutiny in the FBI and the resultant brouhaha would be very disruptive to the Administration and probably kill any chances HRC has to be President. ("Hope springs eternal in the human breast. . ..")

flashguy

Based on my knowledge of the FBI and dealing with US Attorneys, if the facts are there the FBI will paint them into a corner and leave them no choice but to present the case to a grand jury. Hillary will get no quarter from federal law enforcement.

I suspect the intel agencies are in a very difficult position.

They have to assume all these Clinton emails were hacked and obtained by foreign sources.

The last thing the intel agencies want to do is pin point a specific email as being super sensitive. That would allow the hackers to zoom in right to the most valuable info.

Just my opinion, but if they had known how bad this was going to get, the intel community may have recommended that none of Clinton's emails be released to the public. Even the unclass ones.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It seems to me that there will be either an indictment, or some form of popular revolt in this nation. Either way, ol' Hil is toast.

She is history, even the GDC's have to see there is too much baggage to just sweep this under the carpet




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4dDi8uom7Y

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It seems to me that there will be either an indictment, or some form of popular revolt in this nation. Either way, ol' Hil is toast.

Agreed. I can't see how she shakes this. I fully expect her to be charged.

wait a minute, can you hear it????????????????????

I think I hear the fat lady warming up her vocal cords now!

Are there examples of situations like this that we can look to for guidance, no matter which party was on either side of the issue? Where Party-A not only let one of their own get thrown under the bus - and not just any old fool but a key figure, or where they actually helped with it?

What major scandals have happened that are anywhere close to this? I'm not old enough to have been in tune with Watergate, for instance. Are there good examples of any other President or Administraton facing a similar decision? What did they do, or not do, right?

Obama is on his way out, and it's not like he's demonstrated even a hint of integrity. What pressure is he facing? Beyond wishful thinking, what evidence is there to suggest the Tail (the FBI) can actually wag the Dog (the President / DOJ) when technically, legally, it's the DOJ's call?

I'm not aware of any time in history that a person campaigning for any high office had this kind of legal and criminal issues to face. I find it hard to believe that it has happened before. In years past the media would have been all over it, people in the same party would have been telling them to stop the campaign to avoid damaging the party, and those from the other party would be talking about it in every forum they could. I don't think any prior presidential candidate would have the temerity and arrogance to keep running while facing such serious charges.

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller
State Dept also withholding release of 18 emails between @POTUS and then Secy @HillaryClinton. Release covered by Pres Records Act.



wonder what those ones say...

A little sidebar - it looks like Elizabeth Warren may be salivating over Hillary's possible downfall. At least that's the current speculation...

http://twitchy.com/2016/01/29/...ee-hillary-indicted/

What we're reading and hearing isn't, obviously, the entire story but it's pretty damning and can't be explained by political warring from election year politics. It's a course of action from deliberate choices made by her, her people or all of them together but it's not a trivial inconvencience.

With the White House confirming earlier today that some of those emails were indeed restricted, at what point do party leaders have a private talk with her?

The only thing that I think rivals the scope and breadth of this is Nixon and Watergate. At some point, as this starts to unfold with sorid details and names dropped, senior party officials will have to have a private chat with her about stepping down for the good of the party. It's how these things are done.

Who in the Democrat party will be those people and how far do they let this go? I personally believe it will be Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Durbin who do so at the private request of the president.

Obama has enough trouble with his legacy and if he doesn't urge her to step down, he won't want to leave office with massive FBI revolt and his DOJ/Lynch refusing to indict. It would be an epic and very unattractice send off for him.

Instead, my thought is that if the FBI recommends an indictment, she'll be urged to step down and deal with the criminal matter and I do think that day is coming sooner than later. I cannot fathom where Barry doesn't let Lynch proceed in a prompt manner against her because it only makes things worse for him.

There is not much new here. It really doesn't matter whether she mishandled two SAP level classified documents or two thousand, one is enough for prosecution.


It has been obvious from about page two of the thread that Ol' Hill was a dirty as she could possibly be. Further there was nothing inadvertent about it. She may have not personally removed identifiers from the classified documents but she knew it was being done.

The damage to National Security is a great as the Snowden affair.


HRC has always been a vindictive, conniving bitch, corrupt in the money sense and willing to do anything for power. She is now facing the consequences of years of doing anything she wanted to do without regard for legality or morality.

Most if not all of official Washington on the Democrat Side have been willing to overlook her conduct (and Bill's as well) because they shared the power and loot.

I see chickens coming home to roost and I love it. Certainly some of Hillary's Accomplices will go under the bus, many of whom by-the-way are involved in her campaign. In the end though I expect to see Hillary indicted for serious crimes, although I am not holding my breath for a perp walk..

Some one could get rich with a pay-for-view of HRC in cuffs doing the perp walk.

The next question is- how damaging was this to national security? 0 already said it wasn't so that means it probably was.

There's a lot of satisfaction that this is transpiring during a democratic administration.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
What we're reading and hearing isn't, obviously, the entire story but it's pretty damning and can't be explained by political warring from election year politics. It's a course of action from deliberate choices made by her, her people or all of them together but it's not a trivial inconvencience.

With the White House confirming earlier today that some of those emails were indeed restricted, at what point do party leaders have a private talk with her?

The only thing that I think rivals the scope and breadth of this is Nixon and Watergate. At some point, as this starts to unfold with sorid details and names dropped, senior party officials will have to have a private chat with her about stepping down for the good of the party. It's how these things are done.

Who in the Democrat party will be those people and how far do they let this go? I personally believe it will be Reid, Schumer, Pelosi and Durbin who do so at the private request of the president.

Obama has enough trouble with his legacy and if he doesn't urge her to step down, he won't want to leave office with massive FBI revolt and his DOJ/Lynch refusing to indict. It would be an epic and very unattractice send off for him.

Instead, my thought is that if the FBI recommends an indictment, she'll be urged to step down and deal with the criminal matter and I do think that day is coming sooner than later. I cannot fathom where Barry doesn't let Lynch proceed in a prompt manner against her because it only makes things worse for him.

Obama can't stand the Clintons. He probably wants nothing more than to indict her - well, nothing more except for a legacy. With the House certain to stay Republican and the Senate a toss-up, Obama wants to do as much as possible to put a Democrat in the White House. If a Republican wins the WH and the Senate doesn't flip, then most of Obama's entire 8 year record could simply disappear. So my guess is that, while he wishes he could just indict her, he's more likely trying to think of any way possible to help her out of this mess. He knows the socialist can't win and that Biden is a long shot. Even Warren or Bloomberg wouldn't have great odds either. Hillary is their best chance right now - so it's quite the pickle for someone who doesn't want to see their entire presidential tenure flushed down the toilet.

That's why I think he waits until after the election. If she loses, toss her under the bus. If she wins, he has more options.

Time for the Churchill Quote:


"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Step one on the path to jail is the indictment.

I'm hoping the cameras are on her when they announce the indictment, and it looks like this...