*

Stand up because that the facts!

Our only agenda is come publish the reality so you deserve to be an informed participant in democracy.We need your help.

You are watching: How many classified emails were on hillary clinton’s server

More Info


Archived fact-check: Clinton"s insurance claim she never ever received nor sent out material significant classified

Editor"s note:This is an archived version of a fact-check that has actually been re-rated due to new information. View the brand-new fact-check here.

Says she "never obtained nor sent any material the was marked classified" ~ above her private email server while she was secretary that state.

— Hillary Clinton top top Sunday, July 3rd, 2016 in one interview ~ above "Meet the Press"

Fact-checking Clinton"s claim she "never obtained nor sent any material the was significant classified"

By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, July 3rd, 2016 at 7:27 p.m.

About this statement:

Published: Sunday, July 3rd, 2016 in ~ 7:27 p.m.

Researched by: Lauren Carroll

Edited by: Aaron Sharockman

Subjects: Ethics, international Policy

(After this fact-check published, FBI manager James Comey released details the the FBI's investigation right into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server. This insurance claim will stay rated fifty percent True, due to the fact that we basic our rulingson once a statement was made and on the information easily accessible at that time. Butthe FBI investigation plainly undercuts Clinton’s defense if she provides a comparable claim again. You can read much more about the result of the FBI examination here.)

FBI agents questioned Hillary Clinton July 2, possibly signaling the the nearly year-long investigation into her email practices is nearing that finish, claimed Meet the Press hold Chuck Todd.

FBI investigators are analyzing whether Clinton, when serving together secretary that state, or members of she team criminally mishandled classified information by exclusively using a personal email deal with hosted ~ above a personal server situated in her new York home. Following the FBI interview, Todd inquiry Clinton exactly how her practices did not violate federal law.

"Let me repeat what I have repeated for numerous months now," Clinton responded. "I never received no one sent any material the was marked classified."

Clinton has actually indeed repetitive this talking point for numerous months now. In the past, we avoided rating this insurance claim on the Truth-O-Meter due to the fact that of the absence of details publicly available. Us nowfeel comfortable concluding that Clinton’s phrasing is perhaps misleading come viewers and voters,and fails to account for numerous unanswered questions. (Our colleagues at the Washington short article Fact Checker got to a comparable conclusion.)

"On the one hand, I believe that sentence is most likely accurate," said Danielle Brian, executive, management director that the task on government Oversight. "But I also believe that it is so very closely crafted as to avoid a much more important question, i m sorry is whether over there was info in her email that should have been marked classified."

Classified after ~ the fact

As a preface, we previously rated False Clinton’s case that she email practices were "allowed." that fact-check focused on documents preservation and State department protocol; this fact-check (and the FBI investigation) is about classification and also national security.

After the email issue surfaced in march 2015, Clinton handed over around 30,000 work-related emails come the State Department because that public release.

The State room redacted around 2,000 emails before releasing them, saying they save on computer classified information — consisting of some that have actually been withheld entirely due to the fact that they save "top secret" information.

Clinton’s defense obscures this element because it focuses on a different point — that Clinton sent or received material she knew to be classified because it was marked. No one of the emails the State room redacted, or any kind of other emails made public, contained group markings at the time they were sent, government officials said.

The opportunity remains, however, the that she sent out or received classified info that was inappropriately left unlabeled — or that Clinton, as head of the department, fail to recognize and attend to information the should have been classified.

Further, since Clinton offered a exclusive server, us only have actually Clinton’s word that she turned end all relevant email. It’s possible there space emails v classified information on them that she deleted or go not rotate over.

Classification confusion

Federal agencies can classify information after the fact, because that example, if an international instance changes in such a means that would affect the sensitivity of the information.

We know that public representative did that in the instance of emails top top Clinton’s exclusive server. However we execute not yet know if any of those emails consisted of classified details when they an initial landed in Clinton’s server. It’s possible that emails that were not marked classified had classified information.

To make matters more complicated, there’s part disagreement between the State Department and the intelligence ar over what was or should have been treated together classified. Federal government agencies routinely disagree end what must be divide or not, and transparency proponents say the government regularly over-classifies. These room real concerns with the category system, and also we’ve written at length around them in ahead articles, here and here.

"The decision to mark a record is more art than science and leads to governmental in-fighting on even if it is something need to be divide or not," claimed Gary Bass, Bauman foundation executive director and also former manager of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

Some emails turned end by Clinton and made windy actually display Clinton’s team talking about how castle can’t email each other classified details over the exclusive server and also instead have to move the conversation come a much more appropriate venue. Clinton has actually said she viewed classified information in hard copy in she office. If she to be traveling, she supplied other secure channels.

"The truth that no emails on her an individual server were significant as classified suggests that she typically was doing her classified company on the secure federal government servers dedicated to that purpose," stated Liza Goitein, co-director of the Brennan center for Justice’s Liberty and National defense Program, in a prior interview through audioeditorfree.com.

Clinton’s details phrasing — the she never ever sent or received material "marked classified" — is likely a crucial point because that investigators, together it’s appropriate to the concern of Clinton’s intent and whether she knowingly mishandled material.

In the sense, Steven Aftergood, director of the job on government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, stated Clinton’s case might no be misleading.

But it’s additionally true, Aftergood said, "that explain alone does not answer all feasible questions around the matter."

Our ruling

Clinton said, "I never received no one sent any type of material that was marked classified."

One the the principles of audioeditorfree.com is not just to judge the truth behind a claim, but to investigate whether a statement pipeline a specific impression that might be misleading.

Clinton is concentrating on a technical facet of the government chain the classification, that information had within her private email server wasn’t "marked" classified.There is no proof Clinton knowingly sent or received classified information.

But the government category system is complicated, and also Clinton falls short to identify that classified information could have relocated through her email server there is no a proper label. Part of the problem is Clinton's exclusive server itself,because just she and her team understand what remained in the emails she deleted.

See more: How Many Years Is 40 Light Years ? How Long Would It Take To Walk A Light

We rate her claim fifty percent True.

Sources

NBC, "Hillary Clinton's very first Interview after FBI Meeting," July 2, 2016

U.S. Code, 18 USC ar 1924 unauthorized removal and also retention of classified records or material, Jan. 3, 2012

audioeditorfree.com, "Four pressing questions about Hillary Clinton’s State room email," July 29, 2015

audioeditorfree.com, "Hillary Clinton's emails: share or not?" Sept. 10, 2015

audioeditorfree.com, "What us know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails," might 12, 2016

audioeditorfree.com, "Fact-checking Hillary Clinton's case that her email methods were 'allowed,’" may 31, 2016

AP, "More Clinton emails released, consisting of some she deleted," June 22, 2016

Washington Post, "Clinton’s claims around receiving or sending out ‘classified material’ top top her exclusive e-mail system," Aug. 27, 2015

Washington Post, "How walk ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s server?" Feb. 4, 2016

Washington Post, "Officials: Scant proof that Clinton had actually malicious intent in taking care of of emails," might 5, 2016

Washington Post, "New evaluation shows 160 emails absent from Clinton’s disclosure to State," June 29, 2016

Washington Post, "FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for much more than 3 hrs in email probe," July 2, 2016

New York Times, "Unclassified Clinton Emails might Have after-effects for a vital Deputy," Feb. 26, 2016

New York Times, "Last Batch the Hillary Clinton’s Emails Is Released," Feb. 29, 2016

New York Times, "Use that Unclassified Email solution Not limited to Clinton," may 10, 2016

New York Times, "F.B.I. Interviews Hillary Clinton Over private Email Server," July 2, 2016

Email interview, Clinton spokesman josh Schwerin, July 3, 2016

Email interview, Bauman structure executive director Gary Bass, July 3, 2016

Email interview, Steven Aftergood, director of the project on federal government Secrecy at FAS, July 3, 2016

Phone interview, danielle Brian, executive director of the task on federal government Oversight, July 3, 2016