What we really know about Hillary’s emails.

Day 89 – My journey to find reasons to vote for Hillary rather than just against Trump.
 
Ok, let’s REALLY talk about the emails again.
 
In light of yesterday’s revelation, or non-news, depending on whether we think what Huma did with her computer is relevant to Hilary’s qualifications as president, I want to bring to everyone’s attention some important pieces of James Comey’s original statement on his investigation of Hillary. Very few people have actually read what he said. So, here is a sampling of – what I think – are important pieces of his statement.
 
“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
 
“…With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
 
“…I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
 
“…It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
 
“…The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.
 
“…We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.
 
“…Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
 
“…In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
 
I hope this clarifies some of the findings. What Hillary did was stupid, but understandable. It is worth noting that the State Department’s technology was hopelessly outdated when Hillary was SoS. The latest “scandal” came about because Huma found it easier to print emails for Hillary from home than the office because of the quality of the output and the timing. It is also worth noting that, despite the incredible ability of hackers to crack the DNC, the RNC, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, and too many others, they have not been able to hack Hillary’s server. Unsecure? Not so much.
 

1 Comment

  1. I also remember reading, although I don’t recall where, that the server was installed by the US government, for soon-to-be former president Clinton, and Hillary thought “why not use that.” I would be pretty comfortable using it. AND she used it in the days before emails became a target. It’s important as you point out to keep events in their chronological context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Skip to toolbar