December: President Obama nominates Hillary Clinton for secretary of state.
Jan. 13: Reports say the clintonemail.com domain was established.
Jan. 21: Senate confirms Clinton as secretary of state.
March 18: Clinton will later name this as the date she began using a private server for government business.
Sept. 11: Islamic extremists launch the terrorist attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
October: Clinton convenes Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate State Dept. actions surrounding Benghazi.
After the ARB and Congress call for Benghazi-related documents, top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are allegedly present at a document sorting session in the basement of the State Dept., according to Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, who later told me he witnessed the operation. No law enforcement body contacted or interviewed Maxwell.
Nov. 7: Judicial Watch files Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request with State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information.
December: I (then at CBS News) file a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Dept. for Benghazi-related emails and other information. A response is due within about 30 days under the law. However, it is not provided.
Dec. 10, 2012: Clinton cancels a trip due North Africa and the mideast to "illness" and a "bug." State Dept. does not disclose she has fallen and received a head injury.
Dec. 13, 2012: State Dept. discloses that Clinton had "fallen" while suffering from a stomach virus sometime the previous week and gotten a "concussion" that was "not severe." Bill Clinton would later say that her injury "required six months of very serious work to get over."
Clinton postpones imminent Congressional testimony which had been scheduled.
Dec. 18-19: Clinton writes Congress promising to implement ARB recommendations and ARB officials provide briefing on their findings.
Judicial Watch files another FOI request with State Dept.
Dec. 30: State Dept. discloses discovery of "blood clot" in Clinton's head from the concussion.
Jan. 7: Clinton returns to work after her concussion.
Jan. 23: Clinton testifies to Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee where she utters her infamous “What difference, at this point, does it make?” comment.
Feb. 1: Clinton leaves State Dept.
Feb. 25: Judicial Watch files two lawsuits against State Dept. for failing to lawfully respond to FOI requests.
March 22: "Guccifer" hacks Clinton's emails via Clinton aide's account. This showed that Clinton had received sensitive, confidential information on what was later revealed to be the private server she improperly used for government business.
August: Congress subpoenas Benghazi documents.
Nov. 26: State Dept. tells me (then at CBS News) that it has posted all documents responsive to my Benghazi FOI request from Dec. 2012. This was later proven untrue since Clinton had withheld many documents, and also the State Dept. provided additional responsive documents to me in April of 2016, three and a half years late.
May 5: Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is named head of the House Benghazi Committee to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks.
May 8: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, formally announces formation of House Benghazi Committee.
June 13: Judicial Watch files a FOI request with State Dept. seeking Benghazi information and Clinton notes.
August: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that, for the first time, show her use of a private email account.
Sept. 4: Judicial Watch sues State Dept. for failure to respond to a June 13, 2014 FOI request seeking Benghazi records and Clinton notes.
Sept. 17: House Benghazi Committee holds its first public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.
October: State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three predecessors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts.
Nov. 18: House Benghazi Committee makes additional request for Clinton emails from State Dept.
Nov. 26: President Obama signs into law an updated Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government address.
December: House Benghazi Committee sends request to the White House for documents and communications pertaining to Benghazi.
Dec. 5: Clinton privately turns over copies of 30,490 “work-related” emails to the State Dept. totaling 55,000 printed pages. No date has been provided as to when she deleted her “private” emails, but it is presumed to be around this time frame.
Dec. 10: House Benghazi Committee holds second public hearing. Topic: implementation of ARB recommendations.
Jan. 27: House Benghazi Committee holds third public hearing. Topic: federal agencies’ poor response to document requests and subpoenas.
February: White House and House Benghazi Committee meet to discuss Dec. 2014 document request. White House eventually produces 266 pages.
Feb. 13: State Dept. produces 300 emails to and from Clinton, but no other documents responsive to the House Benghazi Committee's broader Nov. 18, 2014 request for all emails to and from Clinton and her senior staff.
Late Feb.: In discussions, the State Dept. informs the House Benghazi Committee that Clinton did not have a government email address, and that it had never had possession of her emails until her attorney first turned them over—in paper form—to the State Dept. in Dec. 2014.
March 2: New York Times reports Clinton may have violated federal regulations by using personal email account email@example.com for public business as secretary of state.
March 4: Associated Press reports that Clinton’s personal email address traces to private email server at her Chappaqua, New York home registered under pseudonym.
House Benghazi Committee privately issues two subpoena: one for emails from Clinton’s personal account, the other for documents it requested in Nov. 2014 (but did not receive) relating to 10 senior State Dept. officials.
Clinton does not disclose the subpoena but tweets, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
March 10: Clinton answers questions about her email practices for the first time. She tells reporters:
It was more convenient to use the private server.
“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two.”
Last year, she deleted nearly 31,000+ emails that were “private.”
She will not turn over her personal email server.
She “fully complied” with the law.
She has turned over to the State Dept. 55,000 pages of work-related emails.
There were 62,320 emails in her account: 30,490 were public business; 31,830 were private.
March 11: Associated Press sues State Dept. for Clinton emails and documents not provided under FOI request.
April 12: Clinton announces she’s running for president.
April 15: Nearly two years after Congress first issues subpoena for ARB documents, the State Dept. produces 1,700+ pages.
April 23: State Dept. produces an additional 2,500 pages of ARB documents.
House Benghazi Committee writes Clinton’s personal attorney to reiterate its “request for her to turn over the server to a neutral, third party, such as an inspector general.”
April: White House produces 266 pages of documents including emails to and from National Security Staff. House Benghazi Committee sends White House another letter reiterating and refining its Dec. 2014 request for additional documents.
April 30: House Benghazi Committee announces the State Dept. has provided 4,000 more pages of documents, for the first time related to the ARB’s work.
Judicial Watch announces a lawsuit to release documents regarding Clinton’s use of iPhone or iPad for official business.
May 5-6, 2015: Judicial Watch files seven new FOI lawsuits related to Clinton’s use of private email server, seeking emails of her top aide Huma Abedin and records about Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation.
May 8: House Benghazi Committee releases interim report:
It has received 20,000+ pages of new emails and documents from State Dept. for the first time including emails to or from Clinton.
It has held 24+ classified and unclassified briefings with the Administration and Executive Branch agencies.
May 22: State Dept. releases 296 Benghazi-related emails from Clinton’s private email account.
Week of June 16: House Benghazi Committee deposes Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal behind closed doors in a deposition nearly nine hours long.
June 22: House Benghazi Committee releases 60 emails sent to Clinton by Blumenthal, including some regarding Libya.
June 25: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with some subpoenaed Benghazi-related emails that that Clinton had not turned over previously.
July 7: House Benghazi Committee releases news of Clinton subpoena (from last March) for the first time.
July 23: The New York Times reports that two Inspectors General have asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Clinton mishandled sensitive government information.
July 28: Clinton revises her statement regarding classified email to say she is confident she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time.
July 31: The federal judge in a Judicial Watch FOI suit, Emmet Sullivan, orders State Dept. to request that Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business.
Aug. 5: State Dept. sends letter to Clinton including Judge Sullivan’s order.
Aug. 6: Cheryl Mills' attorney tells Judicial Watch it has instructed Mills to “delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession” after her anticipated production of records on Aug. 10. Judicial Watch files an emergency request to block the destruction.
Aug. 11: Inspector General report to the Senate contradicts Clinton claims; some Clinton emails, says the IG, contained information that was classified at the time.
FBI takes custody of Clinton server and thumb drives.
Aug. 12: Clinton campaign strikes back as her poll numbers falter, including using the Media Matters blog to print her talking points attacking news reports on NBC and Fox. The blog uses other left-wing Astroturf outlets such as "Vox" as supposed support for its claims.
Aug. 15: In a campaign appearance at the Iowa State Fair, Clinton revises her statement about classified email a second time, stating that she never sent or received any that were "marked" classified.
Aug. 19: Clinton's personal lawyer tells a Senate committee that all data, including emails, was erased from her server prior to it being turned over to the FBI.
Clinton tells reporters the investigation surrounding her server “has nothing to do with me.” She contradicts the Inspector General by reiterating that she never sent or received classified material.
Aug. 20: State Dept. tells Judge Sullivan Clinton did not use State Dept. issued or secure Blackberry device; Blackberries used by Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin were likely destroyed.
Aug. 27: Appearing to read from notes, Clinton told an Iowa audience that using a personal email server "...clearly wasn't the best choice..I take responsibility..." She repeated her modified statement, “I never sent nor received any e-mail that was marked classified. [emphasis added]”
Aug. 31: State Dept. publicly releases 7,000 pages of Clinton emails. Among other revelations, they show that Freedom of Information (FOI) law was violated since responsive emails had not been provided earlier under various FOI requests. Documents can be found by visiting the State Dept. FOI page and searching "Hillary Clinton."
Sept. 3: Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills testifies to House Benghazi Committee behind closed doors.
Former Clinton campaign staffer and State Dept. official Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton's personal server, tells Congress he will plead the Fifth Amendment and refuse the Congressional subpoena to testify.
Sept. 4: Former top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan testifies to House Benghazi Committee behind closed doors.
Sept. 8: A day after saying she had nothing to apologize for, Clinton says she's "sorry" in an interview with ABC News.
Sept. 10: Pagliano takes the Fifth in a private meeting before the House Benghazi Committee.
Sept. 25: AP reports Obama administration has found work emails between Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus that she did not turn over. The dates call into question Clinton's claim that she turned over all work related emails from her home system.
The State Dept. says it's sending the House Benghazi Committee 925 more Clinton Benghazi and/or Libya-related emails that were not previously turned over.
October: Previously withheld Clinton emails reveal Clinton told daughter Chelsea almost immediately that terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, yet told the public they were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video.
Oct. 22: Clinton testifies before House Benghazi Committee for approximately 11 hours.
Oct. 23: Wikileaks emails indicate Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with a small group in New York including top Justice Department official Peter Kadzik.
Nov. 30: State Dept. releases 8,000 more Clinton emails; some of the emails received "classified" markings.
Jan. 15: The Inspector General for the intelligence community Charles McCullough tells members of Congress that several dozen additional classified emails have been identified in Clinton's stash, including some with a higher classification than top secret, regarding highly sensitive programs.
April: The State Dept. provides a partial response to the Benghazi FOI request I filed in 2012 (that was due within about 30 days). It primarily consists of condolence letters sent to the U.S. from other countries.
May: FBI interviews Clinton aide Cheryl Mills around this time, according to reports. Mills reportedly leaves interview abruptly when certain questions are asked, but then returns and finishes the interview.
May 25: A report from the Inspector General for the State Department finds Clinton personally violated federal records law, that there were attempts to hack into her system, that some Clinton aides also used personal email accounts exclusively for government business and did not fully cooperate with the IG investigation and that Clinton failed to turn over all of the emails she was required to turn over to investigators.
June 27: Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton secretly meet at a Phoenix airport, just days ahead of Hillary's interview with the FBI. Hillary Clinton says the meeting was "a short, chance meeting" and "purely social."
July 1: Amid controversy over Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton, she publicly agrees to accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes on the Hillary Clinton email case.
July 2: Hillary Clinton is questioned at FBI headquarters for 3-1/2 hours.
July 5: FBI Director James Comey recommends no charges in Clinton's email case. Though he says there was "extreme carelessness" and the agency found evidence of possible violations of law on Clinton's part, it concludes no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case because theres no clear evidence of intent.
Aug. 28: It's revealed that Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, has been allegedly sending sexual text messages from home including, allegedly, to an underage girl. He had previously lost his Congressional seat in in 2011 and his race for New York City Mayor in 2013 due to a similar scandals. Abedin announces her separation from Weiner.
October: Wikileaks begins posting a series of emails from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The emails show a great deal of consternation among Clinton officials over her email situation and over possible ethics conflicts inside The Clinton Foundation.
Oct. 28: FBI Director Comey sends Congress a letter indicating that new emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton investigation may have been found on a computer shared between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin.
Oct. 30: Sources tell reporters that roughly 650,000 emails on Weiner's computer must be examined for possible links to the Clinton email case. FBI sources tell officials and reporters there is an active investigation into The Clinton Foundation.
Nov. 6: FBI Director Comey notified Congress that the agency has completed its review of the 650,000 emails from the Weiner computer, examining all of the ones to or from Hillary Clinton, and the decision not to prosecute stands.
David McConville says
Whois, the site where you can find the owners and date of inception as well as renewal date, says that Clintonemail.com was purchesed January 13, 2009, the very day Hillary was nominated for the position by Obama.
It is slated for renewal January 2017.
Let's work towards it not being necessary for renewal.
James Groome says
Recalling quite a few significant breaches in the past 6 years, after publicly hearing of the personal server, I did a quick cursory search and it was quite clear that once the FBI got a hold of the server it was not going to be at all happy with what their research teams uncovered. They are APOLITICAL and worried utmost about NATIONAL SECURITY.
It is my opinion that they are abhorred at what they are finding...
Do the research and make your own conclusion... check the number, severity, and frequency of governmental server breaches before and after Hillary Clinton "Established" her clintonemail external server...
Benjamin Ghazi says
It is slated for renewal January 2017.
Let’s work towards it not being necessary for renewal.
Oh, you silly. What will the newly-inaugurated President Clinton need with a private State Dept server?
David McConville says
Hopefully, we will never hear from her again.
The woman is pathological, certifiable, and immeasurably less than her morally bankrupt husband.
David McConville says
And NOW... Gone!
Wow! I have been following The attack in Benghazi since the night it happened. I had become so frustrated with the lies and cover ups I could not listen anymore. I pray this investigation not only nails Hilary, but Obama, Jared, and all the rest of the liars on the White House staff. Thank you Sharyl.
D.K Williams says
I could not listen to all of Comey's baloney either.
Very helpful timeline. Thank you.
James Marstaller says
And when did she say in the context of not sending/receiving classified information: "And I certainly KNOW what classified (information) is."?
“We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us”
Well Done Sharyl!!!!!
D F says
The definitive Obama timeline can be found here:
What I don't get about all this is that people kept corresponding to her at what was obviously a private email address. How do you not notice that you are sending something to a .com rather than .gov address - particularly if you happen to work for .gov? Wouldn't most people wonder at least a little about the security of a .com account? Seems to me that there is culpability for potential security breaches across multiple departments and branches of this administration.
Thanks for the timeline - it helps to see the progression of events much more clearly.
I have been wondering the same thing.
Many (most?) government data breaches are caused by someone clicking on a phishing email without bothering to check if it is from a legitimate address. The government does not always hire the brightest people. Multiple cyber security classes later, they still click the same phishing emails, putting the rest of the country at risk.
Evee Froebig says
Excellent point! Everyone who communicated with Hillary via her private email is culpable as well.
David McConville says
I would really like to know more about how emails where routed. Did she have a state department email. Were all member of the government using her private address? (congress, state department, president....)?
Federal workers are coming forward, that have clearance and handle classified material. All of them them say the same thing "Going off the grid like this, would mean prison." Different segments of data traffic, like from a router to the server could have easily been harvested by who ever. The server being in a secure location, and emails not marked classified, are really meaningless. At this point the US government does not know who has collected national security information, from a rogue SOS.
David McConville says
Whois, the website that tells you everything about Domains, says that Network solutions opened the account for Hillary on13 January, 2009,,,the day she was appointed.
patricia wade says
Sheryl, when the Clintons turned over the server(s) to Platte River Networks in 2013, can Platte River verify that data was on the server? If so, why was the server wiped clean when the FBI picked it up from Platte River last week? Who removed the data?
Great read. I remember when the 911 attack in Benghazi happened. Two days later the Independent ran and article on one witness accounts of exactly what happen. Right down to who ran away. Which was true. Meanwhile the US was selling something completely different.
Ken Sears says
I offer an analogy. Remember when Michael Jackson freaked out the world by dangling his baby over the balcony? Anybody today objecting to the sheer fact of Hillary Clinton's flouting every standard of security protocol just so she could maintain her privileged Clinton Secrecy and pre-empt the transparency that might prove inconvenient to her presidential campaign (look how well that's gone)--I repeat, anyone objecting on that fundamental basis (let alone what concrete criminal violations may be involved) is like somebody screaming at Jackson to "pull the baby back in from the balcony, you fool!" While those who are spouting vapid justifications of Clinton's behavior based on specious digressions ("she didn't know what would be classified or not; she turned over the documents...that she considered relevant; Jeb Bush had a private server...")--I repeat, those spouting such cynical and specious digressions are like people looking at Jackson-the-baby-dangler and sneering dismissively, "Oh come on, what's the big deal? He didn't drop the baby...."
Robin Huffman says
Clinton did not have the legal right to only turn over emails she deemed "relevant". Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, ordered State Dept. to request that Clinton and top aides Cheryl Mills and Human Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary Clinton’s email server to conduct government business. This was before Clinton’s personal lawyer tells a Senate committee that all data, including emails, was erased from her server prior to it being turned over to the FBI. Months later AP reports Obama administration has found work emails between Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus that she did not turn over. The dates call into question Clinton’s claim that she turned over all work related emails from her home system. Your exuses are as "relevant" as Clinton's picking and choosing what emails she thought were "relevant".
Scott Moore says
Fascinating information. Thanks Sharyl !
Paul from Texas says
It was also very suspicious that Obama and Hillary held the Benghazi funeral ceremony for those killed so soon after it happened, and the news media hardly covered it.
What the media keeps glancing off of but hasn't bothered to "follow the money" in this national security failure, is the involvement of Patrick Kennedy. The State Department has been carrying the water for Clinton and defending her at every turn for a reason. What is the Kennedy/Clinton nexus and where does it lead? His name only pops up superficially in the media and then evaporates. From the initial Benghazi decisions before the attack through Clinton's private email server and everything in between, he is a player in all this. But nothing in the media sticks. He's a ghost. A Keyser Soze. His name melts as soon as it's printed.
Bill from Texas says
Possibly a new entry for your time line:
"September 5th, 2015 - The Washington Post Reports that Bryan Pagliano will plead the 5th amendment when asked to testify about the email server. Mr. Paglaino's lawyer is Mark MacDougal (no relation to Jim MacDougal), a lawyer who specializes in white collar criminal defense. He is also a member of "Super lawyers". Per the Super Lawyers web site the top 2.5% of lawyers achieve this status."
Interested to know: How does a state dept staffer pay for this lawyer?
Max Deals says
Good question. I have not heard of any legal defense fund being setup. The obvious place to start looking is the Clinton Foundation. The CF, CGI and who knows how many other slush funds the Clinton's have a hand in need a full Audit.
Dr Arms says
Why doesn't the Benghazi Committee offer full immunity to all these staffers in return for their testimony about email communications that occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi attack? This would eliminate all this pleading the 5th Amendment, right?
Danny P. Radcliff says
Here is a quote from the NY Times: "A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said."
Who sent the classified email to Clinton, and how exactly? There is an air gap between classified networks and the NIPRNET (unclassified gov internet) and the .com internet. You simply can't send an email (unclassified or classified) from the higher to the lower. It is also against the law to deliberately transmit classified information in an unscure manner. So WHO sent the email? Was it marked classified?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not sticking up for the Clintons. She clearly violated numerous laws, federal statutes, Executive Orders, and State Department regulations, etc--to that, there is no doubt. What is in doubt is the veracity of this so-called investigation. One, it is a day late and a dollar short. Two, it is as if the people doing the investigation have no clue what they are investigating. They aren't asking the right questions of the right people, and when they finally get around to it, they appear to be toothless. I don't trust elected official to try to actually get to the bottom of this. I think it is all just for show.
Clinton keep saying she had authorization to have a private server and use her personal .com email for conducting State Department business. Why hasn't anyone ask who gave her the okay? Who said it was alright to do that? I don't believe anyone in the federal government would sign on the bottom line to giver her that approval. She just did it, and everyone looked the other way.
Every government machine that received a email from her "Clinton.com" email address should be confiscated and inspected. That is standard protocol for cleaning up after "spillage". Why isn't that happening now?
No, our government thinks we are all stupid. It thinks it can put on a little show, and it will all go away. Maybe this will sink Clinton's presidential hopes, maybe not, but the government will still be full of like-minded, corrupt politicians who, first and foremost, protect the big-government entity that allows them to exist.
Doesn't do any good to keep our email address private if you are going to post our names.
Sheryl this time line is great! Even tho I have tried to keep up with the Bengazi story, due to liberal press coverage bending way over backward to protect Hillary, and liberals like Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc this whole thing has become so muddied up and those who haven't really studied it or understood it with an open mind, believe the liberal lies.
You have some readers here that are asking some questions I've never heard of or thought of before. My question has always been that hillary and the whitehouse have never apologized to the families, the poor guy that got jailed, or the rest of us for flat out lying that night and about that night and have never owned up to the fact that their lies average been proven. Talk about Teflon--- Clinton, whitehouse, IRS, and everyone has lied about so many things and then absolutely refuse to tell the actual story, or even what excuse they had for lying about it all. Keep on them Sharyl. We citizens need all the help we can get to even get partial truths that are uncovered.
Craig Hayden says
Wow! This story is getting interesting. Danny Radcliff’s analysis seems to be on target and he’s asking exactly the right questions. I went back and reviewed the timeline for Watergate (1972 thru 1974) and it’s remarkably similar. Watergate started with a botched break-in at the Watergate office building, and slowly transitioned to a cover-up of the White House involvement with the break-in and eventually to a cover-up of the other illegal activities at the Nixon White House. It culminated in President Nixon’s resignation over the missing 18 ½ minutes of White House tapes that Nixon had recorded. Hillary Clinton’s problem seems to have started with an intention to cover-up her activities at the State Department. It appears that she set-up her private email server so she could control what information would be made public – in other words, to cover-up her activities at the State Department. Instead of 18 ½ minutes of missing recordings, we have 30,000 missing emails. Saying she miss-handled classified information is fine (she clearly did), but it will soon seem like it’s “whipping a dead horse” or that the opposition is “piling-on”. The answer will be found in the 30,000 missing emails (Hillary’s 18 ½ minutes). Hopefully her server has not been wiped and these missing emails can be recovered. I believe there is a way of recovering all her emails (including the 30,000 that are missing), without having access to her personal server. Assuming there isn’t a major conspiracy involving many others in our government, and that those with whom she communicated were also using private servers, virtually all emails she received would have followed government procedures and would have been made on .gov secure servers. Likewise, virtually all business oriented emails she sent from her private server would have been sent to a .gov secure server. If you want to recover the missing emails, subpoena the .gov servers with which she communicated, and extract all that were either sent to her or that were sent by her. They may not exist on her server any longer, but they should still exist on these .gov servers. By separate email, I will send you a more detailed explanation of how we can reconstruct the government business content of her private server. This story will dwarf Watergate when it’s fully revealed, and the sooner the better.
Danny Radcliff says
I think it's very clear by now that Clinton didn't just "mishandle classified." Mishandling classified is accidentally bringing a classified document that didn't have a cover sheet on it home with a stack of work papers. Mishandling is not storing or marking classified properly.
When you tell a subordinate to strip off headings/markings of a classified FAX and send it unsecure--that's a deliberate and criminal compromise.
Now we are told not only did she "mishandle" SECRET and TOP SECRET/SI/TK--she stored and transmitted SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM (SAP) material on her unclassified, unsecure home-grown server and private email account. Those of us who work with that material are frankly flabbergasted. HOW IS SHE NOT IN JAIL? Recently a young AF captain typed just the three-letter identifier of a SAP program on a slide he was preparing on a machine cleared for Secret. That's spillage. When it was discovered, all machines and servers that that electronic document transited or was stored on were wiped. He lost his SAP clearance and so did two other contractors who merely didn't catch the mistake. That's how serious the government normally takes the handling of classified documents.
There was no trial. No rebuttal. Just an investigation to determine the extent of the spillage, and punishment. How does that woman still have a clearance?
Now, Clinton on the campaign trail continues to hide behind the carefully worded phrase, "I never sent marked classified information" and she has recently added "most information is overly classified anyway."
Classified is classified, whether marked or not. If I see information released by the media, that I know is classified, I have to treat it as such--even though it has no markings and has been released to the public.
Information is classified based on security classification guides. Those guides have charts that you follow along and look to see if the document you are creating meets the criteria and dictates how it should be marked. Once the originator of a document marks it--that's it. You don't get to say, well that's not classified, I'll just pull the marking and send anyway. Only very high-level people within an organization can declassify or downgrade markings.
Most information people work with is derived material. Meaning the originator marked each paragraph of their document, then I pull bits and pieces of that to create my document. I have to mark my document at the highest level of the information I derived from the original document. I don't get to make judgment calls on what the classification should be. Only the originator or the specially trained high-level person can make that call.
If this administration does not strip her of her clearance at a minimum, or charge and convict her for the crimes she has clearly committed--then there is definitely no real law or justice in this country--especially for the political class.
Danny Radcliff says
Clinton just doesn't care to even try to know and/or understand the rules for handling classified. Case in point:
“How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about,” she said.--Clinton
Well. Hillary if you'd bother to read just a little about how to deal with classified material you'd know that public release of classified data does not declassify the information.
Leaks occur (which I'm SURE you are aware, being you and people like you cause them), but when classified info is leaked to the press, people with a clearance should all know you have to deal with that info as if it were marked--that means you can't forward the article without marking it and sending in on a secure system. That's classified 101.
Nicely done, Ms. Attkisson. Thank you for providing this - we'll be waiting a long time for the mainstream media to provide anything similar.
One question - the entry for October 2014 says, "State Dept. sends letters to Clinton and her three successors as secretary of state seeking work emails related to personal accounts."
Pretty sure you mean "predecessors as secretary of state"?
I just posted your timeline to Reddit in answer to a question from someone who asked, "I've been out of the loop, do you have a link to a thread or discussion about those emails?":
Godspeed in your continued work to inform the American people.
Danny P. Radcliff says
Now, add that an email has been found that was marked CONFIDINTAL at the time it was was sent to her by people within the State Department.
1st--HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? Does the State Department actually conduct official, classified business on a system CONNECTED to the internet? The DoD has separate systems, depending on the classification level. Anything above unclassified must be handled on one of the other systems. For instance, an email marked CONFIDINTAL would have to be written and emailed on SIPRNET (a closed system cleared for sensitive, confidential, and secret information), and only to other SIPRNET connected machines. It is impossible, without taking extraordinary steps involving special equipment, to send an email from SIPRNET to an unclassified machine connected to the internet or even NIPRNET (which is the government version of the internet). Why isn't someone asking how this occurred? Why isn't the FBI swooping in to confiscate the offending machine in the State Department that was used to send a classified document to Clinton via her unsecure server? How about the idiot who sent the email? He should be in BIG trouble.
2nd, Clinton has been caught in yet another lie. She DID receive marked, classified emails via her private server--contrary to her previous, car fully worded declarations that no such thing EVER occurred. Now, while catching Clinton in a lie is not necessarily big news, this lie, however, is pretty big. This puts in question every comment she has ever made concerning the use of her server for both private and State Department work.
Finally, did she immediately report the spillage (i.e. hey IT/security guy--I got a classified email sent to me). The immediate reporting of such an incident is MANDATORY. Her training, which ALL government employees must receive annually, would dictate she disconnect her machine and report the spillage immediately. No if, ands or buts about it. So--DID SHE? Not reporting it would be grounds for having her clearance taken away. It happens all the time. There are literally hundreds of people in the government who have their clearances revoked for much less every single day. both the person who sent the email and the person who didn't follow proper protocols should be under review for having their clearances revoked.
It's one thing to give elected officials a certain amount of leeway on things of this nature--after all they work for the people not the government. But Clinton was an appointee and a government employee as Secretary of State. There are rules and laws that apply--is she really going to get a pass just because she is a Clinton and an Obama appointee? We ruined the careers of General officers for similar offences--and rightfully so. Time to do the right thing here.
Danny P. Radcliff says
Well, now it is revealed there were TOP SECRET emails. OMG! If I was to do something like that, I'd be lucky if all that happened was I got fired. There are substantial penalties prescribed by law to include revocation of clearance, dismissal, fines and even jail time.
I've asked the question before and it is STILL relevant. How did the emails get there? That is by far the biggest question. Someone had to go to great lengths to move that material from a classified system to an unclassified on in order to email it to Clinton. This could not have just been a SNAFU. It HAD to be deliberate.
Once Clinton got the email (marked or not)--she was obligated to recognize it was sensitive, and report it. BY LAW.
Good grief. We use tax law to bring down organized crime leaders, because it's something to hang them on. We now have something to bring Clinton down--SHE CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW. Just pulling her clearance would be grounds to disqualify her from being the President. If you aren't "clearable" how can you be the President?
Ms. Atkinson. You are a journalist. By all accounts an investigative journalist. Do your job. Check out what I have written and see prove to yourself it's all accurate. Force the administration to do what it is required to do.
WF Allis says
Just for giggles, lets find out how many on Hillary's staff have any kind of security clearance. How many in her "inner circle" even qualify for any kind of clearance?
Sharyl, as the Clinton's slither from rock to rock, keep turning them over. Good work!
Mark b says
If Clinton only wanted to use one device and then claimed she didn't receive or send any emails that were marked classified, did she not once receive or send a classified email in all her time as SoS? How could this be that no one has questioned her about this obvious lie? Typical Clinton bs . Either she has another device hidden away somewhere to send classified emails or she sent them on her blackberry and is lying that she didn't. It would be incredulous that a SoS would never have received or sent one in the time in office
Sharyl, you need to add 12/6 - Hillary appears on Stephanopolous (sp.) and claims she did not tell the parents of the men killed in Libya that the whole situation was caused by a video. These grieving loved ones must have gotten confused in the fog of war, our former S of S claims.
Now we play the substitution game. If a Republican had made such outrageous claims--outrageous because there is video of her days later referring to the video--would the interviewer meekly change the topic like Stephie did? Or, would he smell blood in the water and have queued up video of her making reference to the video?
I really don't know how anyone with a conscience could ever vote for such a brazen liar. But I just answered my own question. If this liar manages to win the election, God help this country. I'd have reason for optimism except for the fact that the current occupant of the White House was elected not once, but twice.
James Groome says
Would any reporter correct a republican if the stated religion when asked a question not of a religious nature was different than that which the candidate publicly acclaimed to adhere?
Stephy asked Obama a question Obama answers "My Muslim religion will not allow" Stephy serves to "correct" the record with don't you mean your Christian religion?
charles wittenmyer says
i am having a hard time (impossible) finding your show.HELP!
Not sure where you are but there is a list of stations under "about at FullMeasure.news If all else fails, you can watch replays and segments anytime at FullMeasure.news and watch it live at 9:30a EST Sundays. Thank you
Rebecca Hardcastle Wright says
Have you considered dipping your journalistic toe into reporting the UFO-ET cover-up?
Like 911, Hillary's emails--secrecy and cover-up are the source of confusion and thereby control of information on UFO-ET.
My field is Exoconsciousness. How we connect and participate in the field of consciousness. Once we grasp how we have connected to fields of information via architectured programming -- and thereby release those programs--we begin to see other options available to receive and decipher information.
My guess is the era of media programming is waning. Like a fabric stretched, opening spaces between threads. See through.
And as AI, social and historical programming wanes, we humans may find another path to knowledge within the field of consciousness.
Thank you for your TEDX on astroturfing.
I live in DC if you would like to discuss UFO ET research. Rebecca
"Truth" is hard to come by these days when everything is agenda driven.
Very few individuals, like Sharyl, are willing to go the "extra mile" to do the research necessary to reach a proper conclusion.
Big Brother has an agenda and it doesn't bode well for any of us.
Global warming, plastic money, NSA, IRS, etc.... It's all about your money becoming their money.
Check out Martin Armstrong's story with Princeton Economics, and see how the government
and NY Banks put the screws to him.
My question is, during the Benghazi trials Hillary said that we (the white house) knew prior to the attacks that the embassy would never be rebuilt, why isn't that being addressed by the media? The white house used Ambassador Steven's then threw him away just like a bag of trash. That's why she didn't respond to the Ambassador's emails or his call for help, I think that aspect of the whole thing smells to high heaven.
Danny Radcliff says
We now have a new release of emails from the State Department. In that release is, what I and most in the government who are trained in handling classified documents is a SMOKING GUN.
They now have an email showing Clinton ordering one of her top aids to retype a CONFIDENTIAL document, strip the marking and transmit it via an unsecure line, because the FAX machine wasn't working.
Good grief--any government employee would immediately lose their clearance, probably be fired, and possibly brought up on charges for doing that. What exactly is it going to take to get Clinton to brought to justice and made to answer for her crimes?
Gen Petraeus was convicted for a much lesser crime. He simply had classified at his home. Clinton has now been caught with not only hundreds of classified documents on her personal server, but now ordering her aid to commit a crime--not to mention her lying before Congress on this, over and over and over.
Is the Progressive, Democratic elite in this country really above the law?
I have said over and over again, you can't get classified information on an unclassified system WITHOUT committing a crime. It does not happen by accident. Some one has to put it there. She ordered her aid to do JUST EXACTLY THAT.
Now you have definitive proof. What are you, as a journalist going to do about it?
Danny Radcliff says
I don't get why Sheryl is not going after Clinton on this. She claims to be a fearless investigative reporter--yet when given a smoking gun--she covers minutia rather than going in for the kill.
Maybe she doesn't believe what I am telling her. Here is another ex-military guy who clearly gets it: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/hillarys_email_its_a_felony.html
CRIMES have been committed. Hello?
Danny Radcliff says
I all but wrote this article for you a month ago. You could have led the way on this:
Oh well, so much for investigative reporting.
DAN III says
Guess what folks ? As of today, 20 JAN 16, Clinton is free as the proverbial bird. Why haven't the Congress charged her with contempt and have her sitting in Leavenworth ?
Answer: She is above the law. Same as obama and other .gov officials. Why ? Because they ARE the law.
This country is in deep dung.
Don L says
If her lawyer turned her e-mails over, isn't there several questions of criminality by his having classified documents in his possession, likewise, her giving such to an unapproved source?
Don L, I don't know if your question was ever answered, but that question has bothered me from the beginning. How is it possibly okay for some external attorney to hold an obviously thumb drive in his unclassified hands for any reason? And by the way, why did he get to keep a thumb drive, which could be easily, and electronically, researched by the State Dept, and they got 55,000 written pages to review??? Smells like coverup to me... The State dept never should have agreed to such a painstaking process, when they, and the entire country, knew an atty had a searchable database!!
n leitloff says
Thank you for these critical timelines. There are people like myself who are "not so astute", but have self taught PHD's in dot connecting. Just one tiny obstruction that stands out. The lawyers are nothing more than willfull complicite dolts to Hillary's obstruction of justice. Whatever they did, it is her and only her responsibility of their actions.
Timeline: when did they receive the servers? when was the subpeona served on State or Hillary herself? when did lawyers delete the first tens of thousand emails? December 5ish. All acts done at very close times. That is Prima Facie evidence of destruction of evidence.
What are the laws of removal of Federal records?
I can take my clipped toenail and ask more relevant questions than what Comey offered up. There is a massive cover up that entails many important Congressmen and Generals who most likely are Republican. Hillary worked her Bubba DNA all over our government workplace like a pesticide spray plane. Her every awakening day as Secretary of State was to make no enemies, and message the movers and shakers for the day she is sworn in as Commander in Chief. Bubba handled the money, as he will handle our budget. He was Mr. tax them silly, and ship our manufacturing overseas. I can balance your negative credit card balance by raiding your neighbors paychecks. I think Trump is a disaster and a Pink Flamingo "egg man". I will trust our othed branch of government to control and keep his mouth taped, hands tied, and legs shackled. She will go uncontrolled, have us in more wars, and we will be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and eating meccaroni.
Gerry Rudmin says
How is it possible that she will become President of the United States? Dear Lord, please help us!
John Allmon says
I believe that Clinton, Inc. set up the Clintonemail.com account on the day she was nominated for SoS simply to provide an easy mechanism for the surreptitious co-mingling of official US government business and Clinton Crime Family Foundation (CCFF) grifting operations.
There apparently were two servers set up, one at the house in Chappaqua and another at the CCFF. It will be interesting to see what the FBI has discovered.
The national security issues being raised are grave. The idea that China, Russia, and Iran all have copies of the servers are bad enough. To find that there is information on those servers that is classified up to SAR is a stunning violation, even for a Clinton (remember Bill and the missile guidance systems being sold to China?).
It is my opinion that this whole enterprise was established to allow the selling of access to the highest levels of the Obama regime, and possible selling access to many of our most closely guarded information. This is what the RICO law was enacted to pursue, correct?
Danny Radcliff says
It was also set up to protect herself from FOIA requests. At least she thinks it does. Technically any official business is subject to FOIA even if on personal account, blackberry, server, etc even social media. If a military member relates government information on their social media account (even unclassified and non-sensitive), it could be required to be turned over in the event of a FOIA request. That's the law.
Any FOIA requests that were made for information she was in control of during her stint as SoS, that were denied based on the information not being on a government owned/operated system was in itself a violation of statute and subject of fines, termination, and even confinement.
She literally does not have a legal leg to stand on. All it will take is for someone, anyone to call her out on her refusal to release records for FOIA requests, and she will go down. Someone in the media who was denied information back then should be raising Cain now. She can't hide behind having a private server/account.
I'm not suggesting anyone would get the information. One of the very few exceptions for the release of information is information being used in criminal prosecution. That is why people and organizations are always quick to claim there is an "on-going investigation." It protects the information from release.
The key here is to file a complaint and show harm so she will be forced to go to trial even if the FBI doesn't have the nads to go after her for the violations concerning classified information.
What puzzles me is that if the use of this email server was so egregious, then certainly internal compliance checks would have discovered inappropriate use and directed her to comply with FOIA regulations. So... it begs the question of whether or not anyone in the government found inappropriate use but was either muffled from calling it out or made an erroneous presumption that it was OK. THIS is what needs to be explained. Because Hillary is one person. What about other public servants who have private email servers?
Danny Radcliff says
There is no longer any doubt that Clinton had highly classified information on her unclassified, unsecure server--that is a fact.
Three main questions remain.
1. How did the information get there. Since there is a "air gap" between the classified systems and her unclassified system--some one had to go to extraordinary lengths to get the information moved there. LAWS WERE BROKEN. Clinton may be part of the protected elite, but the person(s) who did the deeds are not.
2. Who were the recipients of the emails containing the classified information? THIS IS KEY. Every recipient should be required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Every machine should be wiped. But, more importantly answering the question of who received the information will speak volumes as to the motivation for sending the information in the first place. If it turns out some of these recipients are non-U.S. and/or not necessarily friends of the U.S.--well that starts sounding like espionage and treason.
3. What did the recipients of the information do with it? Who did they send it to? What was their motive for having the information in the first place. These are serious questions that need to be answered. I've got a feeling the American public is NOT going to like the answers. Given Huma's family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, I suspect this is going to get ugly. Providing it doesn't all just get swept under the proverbial rug.
J W says
Key missing comments in the March 10, 2015 entry is Hillary's comments at the UN press conference:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."
Danny Radcliff says
Clinton's ongoing meme about how she has never transmitted classified information and all the information that is now being called classified was determined to be classified retroactively is deliberate slight of hand maneuver--or more correctly--a total lie.
Keep this in mind about classified information.
1. It's classified whether marked or not.
2. The originator of the material is responsible for determining it's classification by referring to the appropriate Security Classification Guide. Once marked, those marking should never be removed or altered without going back to the originator or an appropriate declassification official.
3. Classified material can only be stored and/or transmitted on a system commensurate with the classification level: SIPRNET--up to Secret, JWICS--up to TS/SCI. Special Access--Handle via special access channels only (HVSACO).
4. There is an air-gap between all those systems and the unclassified internet or government NIPRNET. Classified information doesn't just accidentally move from high to low--someone has to take great steps to make that happen, and it is illegal to do so.
5. It is the individual's responsibility to know what is classified and what is not and to know and follow the rules.
So, when information is moved from one of the classified systems, it's markings removed and then stored and/or transmitted on Clinton's home-grown server laws were broken, and she had to know it. Even if the marking were removed it was still classified and it was her responsibility to recognize that and to act appropriately.
So as they look at the hundreds of emails and find them full of unmarked but classified material it is a lie to say they are being classified retroactively. The security classification guide already exists. It says the information should be protected at a given level--that's the law. You don't get to say, "well they over classify stuff, this is fine to transmit" or "strip the markings and send unsecure" for expediency.
If somebody doesn't go to jail for this and she doesn't at least lose her clearance--it will prove to the world that there is no rule of law anymore for the political elite.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Robert in Texas says
There are 300,000,000 million US citizens- who had they done any of the things done by Hillary Clinton - would already be in federal prison. Nor would it have taken a team of FBI agents to investigate them; one would have been enough. That is the real story of the Clinton Email scandal.
another guy says
This would be more useful if it was all accurate. Marcel Lazar's ("Guccifer") claim of hacking the email server was never verified, and the FBI has stated more than once that there was no evidence to back it up. Now James Comey is on record under oath testifying that "Guccifer" admitted that he lied about it.
This timeline doesn't state that Lazar alleged he hacked it, it states he did, as a fact. Makes most of the rest of the language in this suspect and therefore useless as a credible source.
H Blake says
DOES THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY BLACKS, KNOW THAT THE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS MEETING WITH THE KKK AND STIRING THEM UP???? HILLARY IS IN ON IT ALSO. READ HER BOOK “HILLARY’S AMERICA”.
THE BLACK PEOPLE STAND TO BE HURT WORSE BY HILLARY.
RU Kidding says
So Were is the Washington Post now?!
This is WAY bigger than Watergate.
Sheryl is today's Woodward/Bernstein.
(but with Much better bigger balls and much better legs)
where exactly is the third state on this?
Diamond Joe says
Thank-you for your creating this. It's a fantastic resource to share because it just lays out the facts. Please update this to bring it current with the Stone Tear Reddit revelations and to fill in what we now know about the mobile device count and destruction. If you need an assistant to help keep it updated I volunteer to help.