On June 29, 2015, OIG and ICIG sent you a follow-up memorandum providing additional
information supporting our concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails (see
Attachment D). Since then, ICIG has received confirmation from IC FOIA officials that several of these emails contained classified IC information, though they were not marked as classified. [. . .] [My emphasis]
So IC is not happy with State's decisions on classification, in the past and now. And the IC IG, representing the IC, is in a dispute with State on how to handle this disagreement. The IGs wrote:
Recommendation #3
Final determinations of classification decisions are made by senior personnel within the Department's FOIA office, assisted by subject matter experts in relevant bureaus and in the Office of the Legal Adviser, after referral of other agency equities have been made to the appropriate agencies and their comments received. These individuals have the experience and expertise necessary to carry out this responsibility correctly.
The thrust of this is IC saying leave classification decisions to us State, we're the pros. Well State wasn't having it. They responded on July 14, and expressly referenced the 4 e-mails with classified info claim:
Regarding the third recommendation, four of the documents were identified for review by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which is the bureau with relevant subject matter expertise; two of the documents were substantively duplicates of each other. NEA consulted with the Office of the Legal Adviser regarding FOIA exemptions that were potentially available, including exemptions
l (§ l.4(d) of E.O. 13526) & 5. NEA decided, consistent with the Attorney General's 2009 FOIA guidance, to redact certain limited information under exemption 5 which reflected deliberations among policy officials. Two other documents were proposed for possible upgrade which involved equities of other agencies. In one document, the Department of Defense decided not to seek a classification upgrade. The other document, which contained an FBI equity, could have been redacted under either exemption 1, pursuant to§ 1.4 (d) ofE.O. 13526, or exemption 7, as law enforcement information. [My emphasis]
Well IC did not take kindly to its "recommendations" being rejected.The IGs blasted back:
Recommendation 3: The State Department FOIA Office should seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified
materials.
Management Response: The June 25 response states that final determinations of classification decisions are made by senior personnel within the Department’s FOIA office, assisted by subject matter experts in relevant bureaus and in the Office of the Legal Adviser, after referral of other agency equities have been made to the appropriate agencies and their comments received.
The July 14 response refers specifically to four emails that were identified for additional consultations regarding a proposed “B1” (Classified Information) FOIA exemption being changed to a “B5” (Privileged Communications) FOIA exemption during the State Department Legal Office’s review. The July 14 response states the following:
Four of the emails were identified for review by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), which is the Bureau with relevant subject matter expertise; two of the documents were substantively duplicates of each other. NEA consulted with the Office of the Legal Adviser regarding FOIA exemptions that were potentially available, including B1 (§ 1.4 (d) of E.O. 13526) and B5. NEA decided, consistent with the Attorney General’s 2009 FOIA guidance, to redact certain limited information under exemption B5 which reflected deliberations among policy officials. Two other documents were proposed for possible upgrade which involved equities of other agencies. In one document, the Department of Defense decided not to seek a classification upgrade. The other document, which contained an FBI equity, could have been redacted under exemption 1, pursuant
to § 1.4 (d) of E.O. 13526, or exemption 7, as law enforcement information.
OIG and ICIG Reply: OIG and ICIG consider this recommendation to be unresolved. OIG and ICIG are assessing the information provided in the July 14 response and will further advise the Department after the assessment is completed. Consulting with State Department experts may be sufficient to protect classified State Department equities. However, the information may also be classified due to intelligence equities. OIG and ICIG reiterate the need to seek classification expertise from the interagency to act as a final arbiter if there is a question regarding potentially classified materials.[My emphasis].
Well, the IC finished its "assessment" of State's refusal to abide by their "recommendations." A "counterintelligence" referral was made, knowing of course Trey Gowdy would leak it. But the leak got out of hand, and the New York Times bungled the story. As a result the IGs had to come out and say there was no criminal referral by the IC IG.
But they weren't dropping their hammer against State. Thus the allegation of "classified info" was restated - to keep the pressure on State.
And Hillary Clinton is caught in the cross fire. That's the real story here.