We have previously discussed the series of scandals in Washington where powerful individuals have been spared serious sanctions for acts where ordinary people have faced long and unrelenting prosecution. (here) It is part of America’s Animal Farm system where some individuals are more equal than others. That concern is even greater this week with the combination of the disclosure that Hillary Clinton did use a personal email system for classified communications and most media outlets appear to be ignoring the obvious import of that fact.
From the outset of this scandal, I have noted that the suggestion that such a system could be used without risking the release of classified information is facially absurd. I have had a TS/SCI clearance since Reagan due to my national security work and have lived under the restrictions imposed on email and other systems. The system is so stringent that just last month I had to personally deliver a routine motion in a national security case that was clearly unclassified because there was a concern about sending it by email for a review of the security officer. It dealt with changing a scheduling date. Violations of such rules are treated harshly and can easily result in criminal prosecution.
For the Secretary of State, a great percentage of material passing through her office is treated as presumptively classified. The idea of using a personal email system for such a high official in such a highly classified office is otherworldly. Moreover, few people buy the argument that this was not done to control information but to avoid carrying multiple phones, as suggested by Clinton. This would seem one area where the Clintons (often criticized for making their own rules) would seem bound to follow security protocols. Clinton insisted that no material was classified and that this was not an effort on her part to insulate her communications from outside review.
Now the State Department has marked at least a couple dozen emails as classified. We will likely never know how many of the thousands of deleted emails were classified and possibly subject to foreign surveillance. A State Department official has admitted that 25 emails were deemed classified. This would seem to contradict Clinton’s assurance to the public that she “did not email any classified material to anyone” on her personal account and “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
The best defense is that this material was not technically classified at the time that it was sent. Thus it was not “classified” information. The problem is that it was not reviewed and classified because it was kept out of the State Department system. Moreover, most high-level communications are treated as classified and only individually marked as classified when there is a request for disclosure. For example, there is not a person standing next to the President with a classification stamp in the Oval Office. However, those communications are deemed as presumptively classified and are not disclosed absent review. Under the same logic, the President could use a personal email system because his text messages by definition are not marked as classified. This is the whole reason that Clinton and others were told to use the protected email system run by the State Department. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure such systems.
The State Department appears intent to avoid a conflict with Clinton over this circumvention of their secure system. Indeed, there appears to be a general and concerted effort to avoid the obvious in this scandal: clearly some of this material was classified and Clinton intentionally used a system to be under her control and not the government. I view that as quite serious — as I do the relative avoidance of the implications by many in the media. At best this shows appalling judgment while at worse it shows a knowing risk or exposure of presumptively classified material to foreign interception. The public can judge for itself if Clinton is being truthful in saying that she never sought to create a system that would be under her control and simply did not want to carry two phones or devices. That is a political question. The active circumvention of a secure system and possible exposure of classified information is a legal question . . . and a rather important one.
@Karen S
~~ Yes, any and all systems can be hacked and I have a letter from OPM to prove it. Now I have free fraud protection at the governments expense. I was a CFE and a white-hat hacker. Needed warrants for my job, however there are plenty of black-hat hackers, who would do it for fun.
We all know the real reason Clinton had a personal server. The Rose Lawfirm incident made her very aware, that everything she writes, can bite her in her big burdonkey. That’s why the government issues Blackberry’s, because those are the hardest to hack.
I apologize to Doglover for the typo. Gotta love iPhones.
Shouldn’t Wikileaks have a copy? Just asking. Or should we ask the Chinese?
It’s The COVER-UP, $tyoopid! NixOn her.
Hillary might want to play music at DEM convention “Helen of Troy”. Every breath you take. If she’s lesbo, then I got different sound tracks in mind.
Guys, if you want Clinton to stop acting above the law then start applying the law to her.
She wouldn’t behave this way if she was certain she would not get away with it.
If we hold our politicians to a higher standard, then they will behave better.
Hank:
“I’m not condoning what she did, but you cannot assume her home server was anything but top-tier. Otherwise, what was the point?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/security-of-hillary-clintons-private-e-mail-server-comes-under-scrutiny/2015/03/10/fcccfb78-c737-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html
“The private e-mail server used by Hillary Rodham Clinton all but certainly lacked the level of security employed by the government and could have been breached fairly easily by determined foreign intelligence services, national security and cyber experts said.
The office said “there is no evidence there was ever a breach” of the server.
Some experts said it’s impossible to know for certain whether that’s the case. Clinton, according to at least one forensic account, was using a standard commercial server running on Microsoft software that, like any widely available software, has been found to have vulnerabilities.
“If all that she had was standard technology . . . it would be merely a speed bump for a sophisticated adversary to gain access to everything there,” said Richard C. Schaeffer Jr., a former director of information assurance at the National Security Agency.”
1. Your assumption is not based on any facts. It just appears to be an assumption that Clinton would not do anything wrong and she’s rich and can afford an expensive system.
2. Clinton did not have the right to unilaterally decide to use her own private email server and just skip government security protocol. No State Department official has that right. That’s why they prosecute you for security breaches.
3. She has refused to allow either her server or security protocols to be examined, so all we have is the word of someone who stands to lose
4. She knowingly broke State security protocol and should be subject to the law just the same as everybody else. Cops are subject to the law, and so are politicians.
5. She deleted thousands of emails instead of allowing State to review them and determine if they agreed with her assessment that they were none of State’s business
6. Cybe security experts agree that her system was very vulnerable to attack
7. Cyberattacks against government systems are immaterial. It’s not Clinton’s right or her job to circumvent the government system with her own, which by all accounts was even more vulnerable to attack.
“Getting a hummer from a clerk”
Ah, some people can make infidelity, textbook sexual harassment, and general sleaziness sound so innocent. Well done sir.
Nick – I am amused by the lawyer speak answers – “There is no evidence” not “I didn’t do it.”
Hank – “I’m not condoning what she did, but you cannot assume her home server was anything but top-tier. “. I don’t know how you can assume anything. Her server has either been destroyed or is locked up somewhere. My guess, we will never know what level of security it had. How can you assume only the best? I assume nothing which leaves open the possibility that her server was not secure.
Why do we let the Repo and Demo parties dictate what our choices are. There are many other political parties. It is long past time we tell the RepoDemo (or DemoRepo) party to take a hike, they both have Fkd up our government pretty bad with invasions of foreign lands, bailing out rich bankers, giving money to their favorite business in exchange for kickbacks. Time for a change, tell the DemoRepo to get lost.
Ill-fitting, not ill-fitted.
I wonder how people feel who have already been prosecuted for far more minor security violations. Are they content that Hillary Clinton is above the law that ended their own careers and imposed criminal prosecution?
Hillary needs to be sporting an orange jumpsuit. How bad could it be? It’ll cover her cankles and couldn’t be any worse than her current neon-colored and ill-fitted pantsuits.
Lisa:
“Pales in comparison to Mrs. Clintons having almost a dozen emails sent from her non authorized private server, and which are now marked as “classified”.”
Those are just the emails that Clinton decided State would be allowed to review. Think of the many thousands of emails she deleted without review.
Not only is State supposed to have access to all emails in live time by using the State server, there is supposed to be an exit interview where she lists which emails she thinks are private, and which should be archived, and a State representative is supposed to review them all and determine if he agrees or not. Then she is supposed to sign a form indicating that all communications have been turned over.
But she just acted like the law and rules just do not apply to her.
And according to polls, they don’t.
LOL!! Isaac is a Clintonista. Perfect, just freakin’ perfect. I did not see that coming. A person who claims to hate the duopoly pushes the most duopoly candidate ever. And, that BDS is festering. Hopefully a cure in our lifetime.
POGO….I think The Manchurian Candidate (1962?) was taken out of circulation for years. The JFK assassination the following year made distributors reluctant to sell it to TV or for second runs in theaters.
Isaac:
“So, the emails are there to be scrutinized by the proper authorities. If she made a mistake it is no different than ANY politician’s mistakes, except of course the little cowboy and his handlers who slaughtered hundreds, and hundreds of innocents with their ‘faux pas’ called Iraq.”
I honestly do not understand this rush to excuse unlawful behavior by Hillary Clinton. As Professor Turley remarked above, the strict protocol on email communications are well known in DC, and breaking them has severe consequences. Why should Hillary be held to a different standard? She’s been in government for decades. Not knowing does not hold water.
And when she came under scrutiny, she deleted the emails.
Why do you allow this to happen by excusing it? If we’re going to use the yeah but look at the sins of a completely other person excuse, we might as well abandon the entire criminal justice system.
I just want the law to apply equally to everyone. Why is that such a high bar?
There is a privately filed RICO suit based on these allegations. I believe a conservative activist from Florida is backing it.
@Dogliver
~~ A few years back, I made a very vague reference on my Facebook about a non-security incident that was in public. A management level meeting was conducted and although not happy with me, I would not lose my job or nor be prosecuted for it. They continued to monitor my on-line activities, especially on my Facebook. My job was no where near the importance of the Secretary of State, yet my very vague reference about me saying “red box” in reference to a civilian on Facebook was an almost career ending incident. Pales in comparison to Mrs. Clintons having almost a dozen emails sent from her non authorized private server, and which are now marked as “classified”. We’ve had employees fired over past due debts, yet she gets a pass! It’s total hypocrisy.
Since there are photos of Clinton carrying 2 phones, we can dismiss as absurd her excuse of not wanting to carry more than one phone.
Queen Clinton acts above the law because she is. Her adoring constituents and even the State Department itself do not apply the law equally to her. She would obey the law if she was subject to it.
I cannot fathom why we, as a people, permit the growth of a ruling government class. Or why anyone would vote for a person with such a well documented history of lying and unethical behavior. She even went so far as to attack the character of women Bill sexually harassed, knowing all the time their stories were true. As a woman, that is so offensive to me.
And I’ve seen a clip of her at one of her speeches where she disdainfully brushed aside a reporter’s request to ask her a question, saying she would consider it and get back to him.
We kicked a king out of our government for a reason.