Clinton Emails Held Indirect References to Undercover CIA Officers

[n2doc]

Source: NBC

A handful of emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton's personal server while she was secretary of state contained references to undercover CIA officers — including one who was killed by a suicide attack in Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed them.

But contrary to some published reports, three officials said there was no email on Clinton's server that directly revealed the identity of an undercover intelligence operative. Rather, they said, State Department and other officials attempted to make veiled references to intelligence officers in the emails — references that were deemed classified when the messages were being reviewed years later for public release.

In one case, an official said, an undercover CIA officer was referred to as a State Department official with the word "State," in quotes, as if to suggest the emailer knew the officer was not actually a diplomat. In another case, an email refers to "OGA" for "other government agency," a common reference to the CIA. Yet another now-classified email chain originated with a member of the CIA director's staff, leading some officials to question how Clinton could be blamed.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said no intelligence officer had been identified in the emails, and that misleading details from the emails were being leaked to hurt the candidate.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-emails-held-indirect-references-undercover-cia-officers-n510741

[leftofcool]

1. Benghazi and blah, blah, blah.

[psychopomp]

9. I'll admit, Sen. Clinton lost me at "sniper fire"

and then really lost me when, as she was in the midst of a tough challenge from Sen. Obama, she changed her campaign to one of dog-whistles for the 'silent majority' vote, talking about "I stand with the hardworking Americans (nudge-nudge).

So, full disclosure and all, I really haven't really been a supporter for years, but this is really, really dumb. We are truly in a miserable state: Clinton has shown very poor judgement, Trump is an egomaniac who doesn't need to be CIC, Sanders will surely decrease the American footprint around the globe and thereby increase geopolitical anarchy and Cruz, well, he's such a lightweight that he'd be better off cheerleading the wackos on the gun show circuit. Pretty grim choice ahead!

[joshcryer]

2. Called it.

[phylny]

3. I'm confused.

Was what she did allowed at the time? Then stop.

[pnwmom]

4. Yes, it was legal and Obama was aware of it. And previous Administration officials

had actually routed their government emails through the Republican party server.

No one ever talks about that.

[phylny]

7. I'm pretty sick of the double standard n/t

[asjr]

10. Hillary Clinton must have a round red patch in the middle of her forehead with the haters who would

love to point a gun at it. She could have angel wings on her back and it would not matter to her haters. It's really becoming old.

[humbled_opinion]

13. Right let's not hold anyone

accountable for their idiocy, isn't that why we have so many problems in this country?

[asjr]

14. I rest my case.

[humbled_opinion]

16. Exactly you are the definition of

SYCOPHANT..... I guess if she said she could shoot someone in Times Square and you would still blindly support her... that is sickening and I really don't appreciate your gun references...... (see what I did there)...

[840high]

28. You have no case.

[humbled_opinion]

15. In government there are two

distinctly different systems SIPRNET (Classifed) and NIPRNET (Unclassified) there is absolutely no connection between the two. The only way to take Classified information from the classified side is to copy it and intentionally place it on the Unclas side this is a CRIME and everyone that handles said information knows that it is a crime. Second at the level of Sec State she knew what she was reading was classified the smoking gun will be the email that directs her minions to gather information from the class network and put it on the Unclass network. In the case you side government email and classification are mutually exclusive.

[pnwmom]

24. There is still nothing but GOP rumor that any classified info went into the non=classified

system.

[24601]

30. There are many more than just two nets. SIPRNet is limited to SECRET material and no compartmented

information is allowed on it. To go TS or any classification (C, S, TS) that is also compartmented, you need to be on JWICS, DODIIS or other network specifically accredited for SCI. Networks for Special Access Programs (SAPs) also require specific accreditation relating to the specific SAPs involved - one size doesn't fit all. SAPs are Intelligence, Operations or Acquisition and a subset are waived which further limits access to smaller numbers of people.

[humbled_opinion]

38. Exactly...

I had a broader point... Humans had to intentionally subvert the law to take the information from one side and place it on the other this is known as spillage. Somebody needs to go to jail over this, maybe not Hillary unless there is a smoking gun where she is directing that her minions intentionally do it, but the emails will leave a trace from originator and they need to be brought up on charges...Maybe they can get immunity for telling the truth about how Hillary directed them to do it.

[dorkzilla]

5. They’re referring to only one email here -

And her saying time and again that they were retroactively “classified” and weren’t when they were sent, well that right there appears to be BS -

Clinton insists she didn't send or receive information marked classified. But she signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that information can be classified regardless of whether it is "marked or unmarked."

Also from the article:

What makes Clinton's case different is her use of a home server to transmit emails about government business. The issue has continued to be a factor in her front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, given that the State Department's email system has been penetrated by hackers linked to Russian intelligence, it's far from clear whether the material would have been any more secure had Clinton used State's unclassified email system.

Clinton and her senior aides had access to secure messaging and telephone systems, but they were not as convenient as email.

As the Associated Press has reported, State Department emails previously made public show a history of classified information slipping into unclassified email. Examples have been posted on the State Department's website in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. Although the classified information has been redacted, it is possible to glean insights into the sensitivity from the context.

In emails about the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, department officials using state.gov accounts discussed the movement of Libyan militias and the locations of key Americans.

Even if the State Department’s email system was vulnerable, if it HAD been hacked Hillary was never going to be blamed. It’s a mess entirely of her own making.

[MBS]

8. "a mess entirely of her own making"

Right you are. And this is what I will never understand: how, she and her staff could have had such poor political judgment. Never mind the ethics (though I have issues there, too, in terms of potential conflict of interest): use of a private email servicer for her State business was so STUPID in terms of political strategy for a potential candidate long dogged (fairly or not) by memes of "entitlement" and "untrustworthiness". Especially with the extra complication of overlapping interests of the Clinton Foundation , one would think that, with her clear presidential ambitions, that HRC and staff would have gone out of their way to be sure that every single aspect of her business was conducted absolutely by the book, by gold-standard government protocols.

[karynnj]

19. +10000

What is ironic is that the CW is that she was very very risk adverse - avoiding taking on any challenging diplomatic efforts that could publicly fail. Yet, with both the private server and at minimum working around the agreement with the Obama administration designed to prevent conflicts of interests, she took enormous risks.

Consider what that with the former there is significant upside if things work, with the latter the potential gains are trivial compared to the overall scheme of things.

[MBS]

22. oh, yes, irony is the word.

Hadn't thought about that before - risk adverse in policy areas, but then taking what I consider to be foolish and unnecessary risks in terms of such mundane issues as standard operating procedure - but you're right.
The complexity and contradictions of people never cease to amaze me.

[dorkzilla]

23. This is what confounds me as well

It's either incredibly foolhardy or profoundly arrogant.

[TipTok]

32. It was a risk vs reward calculation....

The benefit of having a system not subject to FOIA vs the potential political and legal cost.

At the time, they must have been confident that her position and personality would insulate her from the cost and decided that the benefit was worth it.

[Justice]

6. exactly what I expected. nothing to see here.

[Jarqui]

11. To me article is cherry picking an example seemingly to create the false appearance

that everything is ok.

The investigation is still going on. We don't know the outcome. At the very least, everything is not ok yet.

There are a variety of issues involved. For example, no one has explained to me how exchanging 18 emails between the Secretary of State and the President of the United States with an unsecured server and then storing them on an unsecured server is "ok - no problem" under security laws and regulations.

We do know from other findings, like her signed non-disclosure agreement, that she may be facing some serious issues. We also know there are a few Dems in the administration who could overlook those problems.

Regardless, this is going to haunt her until the election:
02/04/16 House GOP chairman plans Clinton email probe

[humbled_opinion]

12. Knowing just the small part of what we

know about this fiasco, I don't see how she possibly maintains a security clearance. Can't be president without a security clearance, so if she is not held accountable at all there will be cause for any person who has lost a clearance for mishandling classified information to petition the government for reinstatement. Equal protection and all.... Hopefully she will see the writing on the wall and announce that she is suspending her campaign.

[nyabingi]

17. I think what they are uncovering here

and what the public will soon be made aware of is the fact that Hillary Clinton's State Department was heavily involved in regime change activities, most notably in Libya and Syria.

The whole Benghazi affair was about regime change, and Hillary's ambassador and others who were killed were in the Benghazi consulate working with Islamic extremists and others who were interested in overthrowing Gaddafi. They were also arranging shipping vessels to transport weapons from Libya's armories to jihadists ("rebels&quot via the CIA who were to be used to oust Assad in Syria. Obama authorized the CIA to arm these "rebels" (and this was widely reported in the mainstream media, no secrets here). This is what Benghazi was all about, not the domestic political bullshit the Republicans were trying to pull.

After 9/11, the CIA switched to a more military role (mainly drones, training and arming proxy fighters, and securing funding for these fighters) while the State Department and NGO's assumed the regime change role the CIA once handled. This is why Hillary was heavily involved in Libya and has a special interest in seeing that regime change takes place in Syria (although that doesn't appear likely at this point).

When Hillary says she has foreign policy experience and knows the world, this is the type of stuff she's referring to.

[karynnj]

18. The ironic thing about the CIA officer thing is that the damage appears to be mostly because they

are being made public. From the article, it seems that the person who wrote it tried to preserve the man's cover that he was with the State Department. Then when the cover was lifted and he was listed as CIA, the problem is that - as a now public piece of information - it can be cited to prove what many have claimed for decades -- that some CIA hide as State Department people.

[peacebird]

20. She always very carefully says she never sent or rcvd anything MARKED CLASSIFIED.

She never just says 'I never sent or rcvd classified data' on her home server.

Big difference.

[24601]

31. The legal standard has nothing to do with being marked and is only about whether the content is

classified.

If I write

TOP SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN

(TS//SI//OC/NF) Cartoons are on Saturday.

It's not any violation because the information itself is not classified.

But If I send classified content without any markings at all on an unclassified network, it's a serious violation of the law.

[peacebird]

35. Exactly. But she says only "not MARKED classified", as if that means it's ok.

If the data is classified data, it can't be sent in the clear even if it isn't marked.

[TipTok]

33. People with an understanding of the system know that....

... but most folks will just accept that nugget of 'knowledge' and move on.

Which is exactly what Clinton's camp is hoping for.

[peacebird]

36. I had clearances for too long to accept this parsing...

It seems to me she is hiding something when she won't simply say "sent & rcvd no classified info'

[TipTok]

37. She knows exactly what she did...

She is just banking on the ignorance of the general populace and the fervor of those who think she 'deserves' it to push past this as they have through so many other issues.

This one just seems to have stuck more than the others.

[SoapBox]

21. What ever it was...

Pukes, Baggers and FuksFakeNews would hammer stories about this to the Low Information types.

True or not...this is why she would not win in a GE.

[Ironing Man]

25. help...

could someone explain to me why Clinton would use a private email account rather than a government account?

i don't have a dog in this fight, i'm British, i'm just completely mystified as to why it would even occur to anyone to do it...

thanks.

[Bernin]

29. If I had to guess.

I would say it was to hide the collusion of her state dept. policy and donations to the Clinton Foundation.

[TipTok]

34. Adds another layer of insulation to protect her from Freedom of Information Act requests...

It is much easier to gain access to govt emails (which are part of the public records) than it is for a private and 'personal' server.

[Ironing Man]

39. cheers both...

right, so its nothing attractive or convenient, its just about the covering of tracks in sordid little deals.

thanks.

[Gothmog]

26. NBC News Rebuts Right-Wing Media Claim That Clinton Emails Reveal Names Of Undercover Operatives

The rest of the article cited in the OP refutes the claims above http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/04/nbc-news-rebuts-right-wing-media-claim-that-cli/208369

NBC News: "Contrary To" Schindler's Report, Three U.S. Officials Who Reviewed Emails Say No Email "Directly Revealed The Identity Of An Undercover Intelligence Operative." NBC News reported that "contrary to" Schindler's reporting, the emails in question do not "directly reveal" the identity of any undercover intelligence operative, but rather include "veiled references" that were later retroactively classified, according to three "U.S. officials who have reviewed them." Clinton herself reportedly "made no comment" in response to any of those emails, one of which reportedly originated with the CIA. From the February 4 article:

A handful of emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton's personal server while she was secretary of state contained references to undercover CIA officers -- including one who was killed by a suicide attack in Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed them.

But contrary to some published reports, three officials said there was no email on Clinton's server that directly revealed the identity of an undercover intelligence operative. Rather, they said, State Department and other officials attempted to make veiled references to intelligence officers in the emails -- references that were deemed classified when the messages were being reviewed years later for public release.

In one case, an official said, an undercover CIA officer was referred to as a State Department official with the word "State," in quotes, as if to suggest the emailer knew the officer was not actually a diplomat. In another case, an email refers to "OGA" for "other government agency," a common reference to the CIA. Yet another now-classified email chain originated with a member of the CIA director's staff, leading some officials to question how Clinton could be blamed....

The 2012 email wasn't the only one referencing a CIA officer or program, officials said. The references were indirect, and Clinton made no comment about them, the officials said.

[Gothmog]

27. Here is more from Medial Matters on this article

The implication that Clinton did anything inappropriate is wrong http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/04/nbc-news-rebuts-right-wing-media-claim-that-cli/208369

Former Senior CIA Official: "Any Suggestion That This Email Contained Confirmation About The Person Or His Cover, Or Any Inappropriate Information, Is Flat Wrong." According to NBC News' sources, one of the emails in question alludes to the killing of a CIA officer, whose "association" with the agency was "widely reported in the news media" four days after his death. That email originated with the then-chief of staff to the Defense Department, was forwarded to senior State Department and Pentagon aides, and was then forwarded to Clinton. "There is no record of Clinton commenting," according to the article. According to the former DOD chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, who went on to serve as chief of staff to the director of the CIA, the "email was not classified when it was sent or forwarded, and 'did not reference the individual's name, employer, nor any identifying description or information.'" From the February 4 article:

The email message about the dead officer was created by a Defense Department official, Jeremy Bash, who at the time was chief of staff to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. It concerned Dario Lorenzetti, a Fort Worth native -- later revealed to be a CIA officer -- who died Oct. 13, 2012, when an Afghan intelligence operative detonated a suicide vest in a so-called "Green on Blue" attack. The email was sent on the day of the attack after Lorenzetti's death was confirmed.

Lorenzetti's association with the CIA was leaked by anonymous officials to reporters four days after his death and widely reported in the news media, though his CIA cover was not lifted until later. Some of his obituaries listed him as a State Department officer....

Bash, who was Panetta's chief of staff while Panetta was CIA director, sent the email to four people -- including George Little, a Pentagon spokesman who was a former CIA spokesman, and Philippe Reines, an aide to Secretary of State Clinton.

Bash ends the email by instructing Little, the former CIA spokesman, to "please lash up with (blank)" -- presumably either the spy agency or one of its employees.

Reines forwarded the email to Clinton State Dept. aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, who forwarded it to Clinton. There is no record of Clinton commenting.

Bash, in an interview, said the email was not classified when it was sent or forwarded, and "did not reference the individual's name, employer, nor any identifying description or information."

Once the CIA posthumously lifted Lorenzetti's cover, Bash added, "the original unclassified email could be read to confirm the general use of cover, prompting the redactions we now see. But any suggestion that this email contained confirmation about the person or his cover, or any inappropriate information, is flat wrong."