State Department: 'Of Course' Hillary's Classified Email Spillage is 'Very Serious'

Guy Benson
|
Posted: Feb 11, 2016 8:45 AM
State Department: 'Of Course' Hillary's Classified Email Spillage is 'Very Serious'

A follow-up to Katie's post, which detailed Fox News' latest report on how Hillary Clinton's impropernational security-compromising email scheme led to expanding concentric circles of intelligence "spillage." In case you missed it, here are the details:

At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News. The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others. A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server. The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence.

Intelligence officials familiar with the recently-confirmed FBI criminal investigation into the matter say the secrets that Clinton knowingly put at risk were some of the most sensitive in existence. Her presidential campaign has cynically insisted that this top secret (and above) intelligence be made public, to "prove" that it's no big deal. Looking past the fact that this isn't how the law works, Team Hillary knows full well that their bad-faith request cannot be fulfilled, as the State Department has concluded that 29 emails are too secret to release even with significant redactions. This determination confirmed urgent concerns raised by the intelligence community Inspector General, which prompted the initial FBI probe. Pressed by Fox's Catherine Herridge yesterday, a State Department spokesman acknowledged that new details about the extent of the classified email spillage are "of course" quite serious:


He noted that the department is currently focused on complying with a court order to publicly release the final round of Hillary Clinton's (non-deleted) emails. This week, a federal judge rebuffed the State Department's request to push back the deadline significantly:

A federal judge has rejected the State Department’s request for a month-long delay in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit over Hillary Clinton’s emails. While the agency was supposed to have completed its review of Clinton’s private emails by the end of January, State Department officials attempted to push the deadline back to Feb. 29 due to an “error” that caused the agency to overlook more than 7,000 pages of records. But Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court told the State Department Tuesday he was reluctant to allow the agency to stall the release of the final batch of Clinton emails until the end of the month. He instead asked the State Department to publish what they could by Feb. 18 at the latest...The State Department’s attempt to stretch the production schedule in the Clinton email case would put the last document dump after the first round of Democratic primaries and prohibit the media from circulating in-depth stories about the emails until the “Super Tuesday” nominating contests were well underway on March 1.

This last batch of emails is expected to include some of the most complex and sensitive materials to date, meaning that the list of 'too secret to release' messages is likely to grow.  Former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey has made the case that based on evidence already in the public realm, Mrs. Clinton should face an indictment.  That decision will ultimately lie with Democratic donor and current Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  Lynch reports directly to President Obama, who is supporting Clinton's presidential bid, according to Obama's former top spokesman.  I'll leave you with this timely reminder from New Hampshire's Democratic voters: