Loading...
Title : The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."
link : The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."
The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."
Here's Glenn Kessler (who does not assign Pinocchios on this one)(the boldface is mine):During the contest between Trump and Clinton, we wrote 16 fact checks on the email issue, frequently awarding Pinocchios to Clinton for legalistic parsing. But in light of the Trump investigation, Clinton is trying to draw a distinction between Trump’s current travails and the probe that targeted her....
Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That’s technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.
At a July 5, 2016, news conference, Comey said: “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
He added that out of “thousands of emails 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.”
Separately, he said 2,000 additional emails were “up-classified” to make them suitable for public disclosure. This statement has generally been translated in news reports as the FBI determining that 113 emails contained classified information.
Referring to seven email chains that concerned issues classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program” level, Comey said: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” ...
The State Department has both classified and unclassified systems — known informally as the “high side” and the “low side.” The classified system has tight controls, often housed in what is known as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF); it is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system.
Clinton’s private email system was designed to deal with the unclassified communications, similar to the unclassified state.gov email account. But sometimes classified information seeped into email exchanges.... “The senders used unclassified emails because of ‘operational tempo,’ that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified systems,” said a nearly 600-page Justice Department inspector general report released in June 2018....
One prosecutor who worked on the case told the IG: “The problem was the State Department was so screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department people.”
“There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information,” the Justice IG report said....
David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, told the Fact Checker: “The State Department personnel who originated the emails did not think their content merited classification, and not a single one of the over 33,000 emails bore classification markings.”
In his news conference, Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.” At the time, he said one was marked “secret” and two “confidential,” but at a congressional hearing two days later, he said all were marked “confidential,” the lowest form of classification.
Moreover, he acknowledged that markings — a (C) — were contained in the body of the text and, contrary to standard practice, there was no header at the top alerting someone that this was classified material. He told lawmakers that without a header, it was “a reasonable inference” that this material was not classified.
The emails concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through “human error,” they had not been deleted. In her FBI interview, Clinton said she did not know what (C) meant and “speculated it was a reference to paragraphs ranked in alphabetical order.”
The IG report said the FBI missed the (C) markings until late in the investigation. In her Twitter thread, Clinton said, “Comey admitted he was wrong after he claimed I had classified emails” — a reference to his remarks at the congressional hearing.
“When he testified before the House Oversight Committee, he was forced to concede the markings he pointed to were ambiguous, did not comply with federal classification guidelines, and did not contain proper classification markings,” Kendall said....
During the Trump administration, two more investigations were conducted... The unclassified version of the Diplomatic Security investigation that was publicly released notes that “a typical security violation involves premarked classified information discovered contemporaneously with the incident. None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified.”...
The report was critical of Clinton’s decision to have a private server — “it added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.” But the report concluded: “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
That's the distinction between what Clinton did and what Trump is accused of doing. It has to do with whether documents are marked "classified."
Loading...
Here's Glenn Kessler (who does not assign Pinocchios on this one)(the boldface is mine):
During the contest between Trump and Clinton, we wrote 16 fact checks on the email issue, frequently awarding Pinocchios to Clinton for legalistic parsing. But in light of the Trump investigation, Clinton is trying to draw a distinction between Trump’s current travails and the probe that targeted her....
Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That’s technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump.
At a July 5, 2016, news conference, Comey said: “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
He added that out of “thousands of emails 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.”
Separately, he said 2,000 additional emails were “up-classified” to make them suitable for public disclosure. This statement has generally been translated in news reports as the FBI determining that 113 emails contained classified information.
Referring to seven email chains that concerned issues classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program” level, Comey said: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” ...
The State Department has both classified and unclassified systems — known informally as the “high side” and the “low side.” The classified system has tight controls, often housed in what is known as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF); it is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system.
Clinton’s private email system was designed to deal with the unclassified communications, similar to the unclassified state.gov email account. But sometimes classified information seeped into email exchanges.... “The senders used unclassified emails because of ‘operational tempo,’ that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified systems,” said a nearly 600-page Justice Department inspector general report released in June 2018....
One prosecutor who worked on the case told the IG: “The problem was the State Department was so screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department people.”
“There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information,” the Justice IG report said....
David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, told the Fact Checker: “The State Department personnel who originated the emails did not think their content merited classification, and not a single one of the over 33,000 emails bore classification markings.”
In his news conference, Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.” At the time, he said one was marked “secret” and two “confidential,” but at a congressional hearing two days later, he said all were marked “confidential,” the lowest form of classification.
Moreover, he acknowledged that markings — a (C) — were contained in the body of the text and, contrary to standard practice, there was no header at the top alerting someone that this was classified material. He told lawmakers that without a header, it was “a reasonable inference” that this material was not classified.
The emails concerned proposed talking points for Clinton when she called a foreign leader. The State Department later said the (C) markings should have been removed as a matter of course once Clinton decided to place the call but through “human error,” they had not been deleted. In her FBI interview, Clinton said she did not know what (C) meant and “speculated it was a reference to paragraphs ranked in alphabetical order.”
The IG report said the FBI missed the (C) markings until late in the investigation. In her Twitter thread, Clinton said, “Comey admitted he was wrong after he claimed I had classified emails” — a reference to his remarks at the congressional hearing.
“When he testified before the House Oversight Committee, he was forced to concede the markings he pointed to were ambiguous, did not comply with federal classification guidelines, and did not contain proper classification markings,” Kendall said....
During the Trump administration, two more investigations were conducted... The unclassified version of the Diplomatic Security investigation that was publicly released notes that “a typical security violation involves premarked classified information discovered contemporaneously with the incident. None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified.”...
The report was critical of Clinton’s decision to have a private server — “it added an increased degree of risk of compromise as a private system lacks the network monitoring and intrusion detection capabilities of State Department networks.” But the report concluded: “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
That's the distinction between what Clinton did and what Trump is accused of doing. It has to do with whether documents are marked "classified."
Thus articles The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."
that is all articles The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-washington-post-fact-checker-checks.html
0 Response to "The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified.""
Post a Comment