
FBI Statement on Clinton Email System - whatok
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
======
wilkystyle
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person
who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary,
those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
But that is not what we are deciding now."

In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you
can, too."

~~~
egl2015
<humor>Why so much hatin' here? I thought the HN crowd would love someone who
had their own email server.</humor>

~~~
weberc2
Hillary probably lost HN support when it became apparent that her security
policy was "Oh shit, we're under attack. Shut it off and hope they don't try
again tomorrow." ;)

------
tanderson92
> 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.

(emphasis mine)

This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point, that
none of the e-mails were classified _at the time they were sent_. Director
Comey even goes so far as to use the same language the Clintons have been
employing. Will we see a walk-back of that line in light of this?

~~~
nanny
>This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point

Straight from her website:

>Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in
Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/1...](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-
facts/)

~~~
gfodor
Still there. I guess we are through the looking glass where a documented lie
(on your own website) about how you handled classified information doesn't
disqualify you from running for president.

~~~
mcphage
> I guess we are through the looking glass where a documented lie (on your own
> website) about how you handled classified information doesn't disqualify you
> from running for president.

I mean, if she were running against someone who didn't lie constantly, maybe
it would? But she's not, so here we are.

------
pgrote
ThinkProgress posted an article attempting to explan why the bar is high in
prosecuting:

[http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-...](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-
clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/)

"Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this
provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme
Court decision interprets the phrase “relating to the national defense” to
require “‘intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is
to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any
foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
That’s a high bar — there’s no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to
believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be
obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to
the United States."

~~~
jusben1369
It feels like this was the bar:

"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."

Interestingly, those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor"
frequently. It'll be interesting to see if the more fringe elements pick up on
"indications of disloyalty to the US" as the reason why they think this should
be prosecuted.

~~~
aggieben
I am strongly interesting in seeing her prosecuted less because of my
political feelings, but more because I _know_ without a shadow of a doubt that
if I, as a person who once had to handle classified information, had done what
she had done, I would have been promptly fired and prosecuted to the full
extent of the law (and probably then some).

This gets at the root of the kind of unrest that has led to Trump: there is
one set of rules for the elites, and another for the rest of us. There is
nothing more un-American.

P.S. - this is certainly not to say that Trump is or would be any better: he
totally isn't. But this kind of phenomenon is partially to blame for the anger
that has led to his candidacy.

~~~
jusben1369
The thing is, these are like conspiracy theories. Any rebuttal is proof you
are hiding something!

The Director of the FBI lays out very clearly what he found, why he won't
prosecute, and that this was impartial. But you dismiss all that and say it's
because she's an elite. I understand if you believe that - but it's apparent
you have already made up your mind and that his response would just confirm
one of your two conclusions. She should be prosecuted or she should be
prosecuted but she won't because she's an elite.

~~~
revelation
Eh, the director of the FBI doesn't prosecute, _prosecutors_ do that. The job
of the FBI is to collect and collate the evidence.

Prosecutors in fact explicitly ask police and others they rely on to _not_
substitute their own judgement for what merits prosecution and what not.

~~~
jusben1369
Great catch. I should have said "why he isn't recommending prosecution"

------
sbuttgereit
From the U.S. Code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f):

 _(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of
any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross
negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been
illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and
fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction
to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both._

EDIT: IANAL & this might not be the correct code, though I believe it is.

~~~
jonwachob91
No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all.

 _(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the
national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to
be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign
nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information
concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station,
submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard,
canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless,
or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other
place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress
of construction by the United States or under the control of the United
States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel,
aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of
research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United
States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of
the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any
prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war
or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army,
Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as
to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to
the national defense;_

~~~
sbuttgereit
Gross negligence doesn't require intent. My original quote was, in fact, one
of the parts of the law that mattered, but there was another: 18 U.S.C. §
1924.

In July of 2015, the DoJ pursued another case, bearing similarity to
Clinton's, against Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy Reservist.

 _Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval
personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura
later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed
a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home.
Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s
home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital
and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura
intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel._

In this case there was also a finding of no intent, and yet they pursued the
case. And there were conseqences:

 _U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to
two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media
containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender
any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a
clearance._

Really the main difference is that my original posting was for a felony charge
and 1924 is a misdemeanor.

For reference: DoJ Announcement [https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-
releases/2015/folsom-na...](https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-
releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-
unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials)

The Charges [https://www.justice.gov/usao-
edca/file/641316/download](https://www.justice.gov/usao-
edca/file/641316/download)

------
mindcrime
So basically "the evidence says she broke the law, and we recommend no charges
be filed". That makes perfect sense.

~~~
kordless
Seems a good strategy. Given she wins, they can ask for things they want for
themselves.

~~~
mindcrime
Yeah, I think you nailed it. It's just a little sad to be reminded, once
again, how our legal system is hardly "blind" and unbiased. If you're a
regular Joe (or Aaron Swartz, or Weev, etc.) you get the book thrown at you
and the keys to the jail buried somewhere... if your name is Clinton and you
happen to be Secretary of State and candidate for President, you get a wink
and nudge and another opening for more "smokey back room" deals.

Of course, this story isn't completely over yet, and the Justice Department
_could_ still choose to file charges. But still... I think we can largely see
the writing on the wall here.

~~~
ZoF
>Justice Department could still choose to file charges.

Not a shadow of a chance

------
chris11
Out of curiosity, do people think that Comey made this recommendation based on
politics?

This report definitely proves that this scandal is serious. But I can't really
think of any reason that I would find this report to be more credible from
someone else.

I'd expect that if this was a political investigation, that the recommendation
would fall along party lines. But Comey is a Republican. I've heard that there
is some personal animosity between the Clintons and Comey. And Comey has a
reputation of being highly principled.
[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-
should...](http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should-be-
terrified-that-jim-comey-is-investigating-her-email-crimes/) (I don't normally
read the blaze, but it does show what right-wing conservatives thought about
Comey.)

I definitely see how it could appear that Clinton was treated differently than
other people, Comey admits that people would face administrative consequences
for her actions and explains that away by saying the investigation was
criminal and not administrative. But I think that Comey would have delivered a
recommendation to prosecute if he believed that was the best decision.

~~~
mordocai
My guess is it was as a political decision but not in the way you discuss.

I would guess Comey knows that Clinton, due to being Clinton, would not be
successfully prosecuted, so decided not to recommend prosecution and waste
further resources on it.

~~~
Upvoter33
yes, because repubs have been really good at avoiding waste in the prosecution
of HRC...

~~~
mordocai
Yes, many politicians in general like to waste government resources on all
kinds of things(republicans, democrats, and third parties).

That doesn't have any relevancy to whether or not Cromey specifically is doing
it to avoid waste.

------
skyheim
"...a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore
markings indicating the presence of classified information." How, as a U.S.
Federal employee, does someone (Hillary, an aide, an admin, etc...) see
classified markings on an unclassified system and not get goosebumps in terror
let alone consult proper authorities in or outside chain of command escapes
me.

------
jswny
It seems to me like Comey is basically saying that the FBI does not believe
that there is enough evidence to suggest that Clinton's intent was to violate
the law. Therefore, regardless of the effects of her actions which might have
had consequences in a different context, the evidence is not substantial
enough to prosecute her.

~~~
jessriedel
You don't need intent. From the press release [emphasis mine]:

> Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information
> was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation
> of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information
> _either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way_ , or a second statute
> making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from
> appropriate systems or storage facilities.

~~~
noobermin
Given the small number of emails, I'd assume they reckoned it to be negligent
but not grossly negligent.

~~~
frankydp
Keeping mind that HRC's attorneys screened the original emails collection for
examination by the FBI. Seems she might need some better attorneys if they let
130 get through that screen.

~~~
noobermin
The entire thing seems fishy, sure, but playing devil's advocate, you'd wonder
if they wouldn't screen out all the confidential emails. Of course, Comey
_did_ say even with the filtering, he did not see _intentional_ obfuscation.

The only thing in question now is how the public will view this, and I'm
pretty sure the only people who will be convinced are Hillary supporters.

------
sverige
Did anyone really believe that the laws governing the handling of classified
material applied to HRC? There was zero chance of an indictment. Snowden
should be so lucky.

------
equivocates
TL;DR: She was careless, not criminal.

~~~
DKnoll3
I hope you never have to experience a loss because of carelessness.

~~~
malz
I certainly have. Who has experienced a loss due to HRC's email policy? I'm
just curious. I mean, Benghazi had clear losses, but no firm cause that
pointed to her negligence. Then we have emails with clear negligence but no
obvious adverse consequence. Guess we luck out either way.

------
dlandis
> "There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence,
> especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context
> of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the
> past."

That is arguably the most important part of the statement -- since it is the
explanation for why they recommend no charges. But it is also unfortunately
the most vague and weasely.

It basically says there are "considerations" around intent, context, and
similar cases -- but it doesn't say what those "considerations" are. Text book
example of weasel words.

------
marcusgarvey
>there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very
sensitive, highly classified information.

>Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information
was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of
a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information
either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way

What is the difference between "extremely careless", which he says she was,
and "grossly negligent", which he implies she wasn't?

------
bargl
Why is this dead? This is relevant information directly from the source. Isn't
this the kind of information that should be on the front page?

~~~
natmaster
One can only assume, but PG is a big supporter of Hillary, and so is @dang.

~~~
bargl
I like this post over the others because it is an "unbiased" source of
information about the case. In that it is a statement directly from the
investigation authority. Most news sources only provide sound bites from this
and include a spin. However, this statement can be read either way based on
how you feel.

In a conversation with my dad I stated that all emails were classified after
the fact, I now know better. I sent it to him for two reasons, 1) because he
never seeks out sources 2) because it shows that I was wrong, but includes the
full context for him. He will still think she is a criminal, and that the FBI
should prosecute but now he'll know why.

I wish there was a way to "antiflag" a post that's being moderated to death.

------
rdtsc
Saw this post being "flagged", wonder why...

~~~
beambot
@dang... what gives? This is definitely HN-worthy.

~~~
whatok
Looks like it got unflagged. Thanks to dang if he was the one who did it.

~~~
natmaster
Only cosmetic. It's nowhere on any actual page.

~~~
r721
"Most active current discussions" link is quite useful for finding big heated
(possibly flagged) discussions like this one:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/active](https://news.ycombinator.com/active)

------
Sakes
While I'm not happy about this outcome, at least it is consistent with the way
that I assume our government/legal system operates.

------
basseq
Of the 30,000 (plus more found by investigators), 8 email chains were Top
Secret, 37 secret, and ~2,000 confidential (a vast majority of those upgraded
after the fact). I'm actually surprised it's not _more_ , but that's still
~10% of the volume.*

(* It's hard to compare apples-to-apples with individual emails vs. threads.)

------
Jemaclus
I'm not too surprised in this outcome. It has nothing to do with Hillary being
rich and famous and everything to do with her being a Presidential candidate,
and the front-runner, to boot.

Imagine this scenario: The FBI indicts Hillary. The trial itself would derail
the election cycle, and there would be a fantastic chance that it costs
Hillary either the nomination or the general election. Then further imagine
that the FBI fails to convict her through a jury -- or even if they did
convict her, imagine one of the upper courts overturns on appeal. The FBI
would have accused (indicted) a front-runner presidential candidate and
destroyed her chance at winning... only to fail to convict.

That would not only unfairly destroy a found-not-guilty Clinton's presidential
ambitions, but it would obliterate any trust in the FBI to remain, at least to
the public eye, apolitical.

There's a reason the Attorney General passed the buck, and there's a reason
Director Comey declined to recommend charges, and it's this: this is not a
slam-dunk case. She may very well be guilty, but for Hillary Clinton, front-
runner for the national election for President, the standard of proof is so
high that there must be a 100% guarantee of conviction for the FBI to bring
forth charges.

Yes, if a normal person had done these things, they would be charged. But if a
normal person had allegedly done these things, been indicted by the FBI, and
then found innocent, the nation-wide and political trust in the FBI wouldn't
go completely down the drain. In all likelihood, a normal person would settle
out of court -- something that's not in Hillary's best interest. She needs to
be found not-guilty to be President, and settling out of court would look
guilty, so they'd go to trial -- again, there's a non-trivial chance that
she'd be found "not guilty" by the jury, and the FBI can't risk that in such a
high-profile case with such disastrous consequences.

So again, this isn't super surprising when you think about the consequences of
indicting Hillary but failing to secure a conviction. The risk to the American
legal system just isn't worth it over a couple of emails.

With that in mind, this isn't necessarily Comey declining to charge Clinton;
this is Comey passing the buck to the Senate.

Now, once she's a sitting President, the Senate can impeach her, and we're in
different territory. The Senate is _supposed_ to be political in ways that the
FBI is not.

TL;DR The problem isn't that she didn't commit enough of a crime to indict,
the problem is that it isn't a guaranteed SLAM DUNK case, and since that's
true, it's TOO RISKY to the election cycle and legal system to indict her.

~~~
amyjess
On top of that, here's an even worse nightmare scenario:

Clinton gets indicted, destroying her chances in the race, and Trump wins by a
landslide. Now, let's take a look at how Trump deals with his rivals. He
endorses political violence [0]. He wants to use libel laws to destroy
journalists who say bad things about him. Now imagine the lesson Trump would
learn from Clinton's indictment: the government can hand the presidency to one
candidate by using indictments to take out their only significant rival. Sure,
the timing of Clinton's presidential campaign and the email investigation was
mostly coincidence, but it won't be coincidence in 2020. Because President
Trump, using Clinton as precedent, would order an indictment of whoever the
Democrats run against him in 2020 and thus guarantee his re-election. And
then, in 2024, he'll use indictments to make sure his hand-picked successor
will become the next President of the United States.

You want to save the election system? Don't ever indict a major-party
candidate during general election season, especially not when the only
remaining candidate is as vindictive as Trump.

[0] [http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2016/3/12/11211898/do...](http://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence)

~~~
brbsix
I guess we had better immediately cease all legal action against Trump then.

------
rdtsc
There is probably a conflict of interest here. If Clinton becomes President,
won't anyone at the FBI involved in the investigation be subject to
retaliation. It would be in the best interest to try to not advise her
prosecution and instead suck up to the future President.

------
fulldecent
This is the statement of the FBI and I respect the finality of their
recommendation that comes with this letter and the authority of the person
making the recommendation.

If there is to be any debate against this outcome it shall be from a
successful attack on one of the premises:

* "... we cannot find a case that would support... " is a very strong statement. A single court proceeding meeting that criteria could invalidate Comey's recommendation. * Emails were deleted before State gave them to FBI. If a single email between Clinton and an aid related to "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" this could change the outcome. NSA and adversary's signal collections may have a copy of such an email. A leak may change Comey's decision. * FBI was not given full access to Clinton's emails (they were whitelist-filtered first) and Comey does not believe this counts as "[effort] to obstruct justice". Another case which found "efforts to obstruct justice" based on a similar action could invalidate his reasoning. * "But that is not what we are deciding now." If there is any case of DOJ prosecution resulting in "security or administrative sanctions" then it would invalidate Comey's stance that "no charges are appropriate in this case".

------
ihsw
> 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.

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid but he doesn't say the same thing about any of
the other emails. Is it plausible that this is intentional? That other emails
were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them?

------
elgabogringo
If this occurred under the Bush administration there would have been a special
prosecutor. In fact, there was a SP for a much more minor issue.

What we are witnessing is the dismantling of the rule of law. Obama has
politicized every branch of the executive.

~~~
jimbokun
This isn't even in the same ball park as the long list of war crimes committed
by the Bush administration, committed with the full cooperation of the Justice
department concocting tortured legal interpretations to condone them. Not
justifying what's happening here, but Bush administration is very bad
comparison if you are trying to show Obama breaking new ground in "dismantling
the rule of law".

~~~
elgabogringo
This is worse. This is a secretary of State hiding her correspondence from the
american public (eg. FOIA requests), letting it get stolen by foreign
governments, lying about it, colluding with an existing administration to
avoid prosecution while running for president.

Bush "war crimes" were not political in nature, were bipartisan (evidenced by
how little has changed under Barack Obama), are subject to FOIA, and did not
put state secrets at risk.

~~~
devinegan
Subject to FOIA? Not so fast...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy)

~~~
elgabogringo
Yes, so fast genius. Was there any war-crime suspected, accused, or even
hinted here? No.

The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources, including email
accounts, for political purposes. The Bush administration stated the RNC
accounts were used to prevent violation of this Act.[2][26]

------
Dolores12
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. (c)

------
Glyptodon
TLDR: "Gross Negligence, but no case." Yeah....

~~~
Bluestrike2
That's not at all what they said. They said "Clinton and her colleagues...were
extremely careless." Gross negligence is a term of art with a very particular
legal meaning, even if there's some vagaries in the case law. The two aren't
the same. Gross negligence can include extreme carelessness, but it's
generally accepted to go well beyond just that.

------
jff
Well, the post's been flagged--into the memory hole with it!

------
venomsnake
The piece is brilliant. He is giving ammunition for thousand kill shots while
recomending not procecuting her. Brilliant.

------
abhi3
Basically what FBI is saying is that she broke the law, compromised national
security, could have been hacked by foreign actors but we don't have enough
evidence that she did it intentionally so no charges!

 _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._

 _It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did
not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone
because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers
cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic
recovery._

 _There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of
very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the
Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.
These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those
matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. 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._

 _With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not
find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its
various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the
nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we
would be unlikely to see such direct evidence_

 _Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding
the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring such a case._

~~~
talmand
>> "could have been hacked by foreign actors"

I think we're past that at this point.

------
revelation
_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._

I don't think that's how this works. Information is born classified.

~~~
talmand
Someone has to decide to make the information classified, it doesn't do so on
its own. It's possible information can go through the chain all the way to the
President before it's marked classified.

~~~
snuxoll
Sure, but the SoS is a classifying authority, it's not like this is some grunt
in the army that doesn't have any ability to classify information. I'm not
going to insinuate that there's no possibility at least _some_ of this
information could have slipped under the radar and had no reason to be
classified at the time, but I'm not enough of a fool to believe that applies
to _every_ instance.

