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.
http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10
Atlas mugged: How a libertarian experiment in Chile fell apart.
“”A con of this magnitude could only have existed in the libertarian community because [Johnson] used their paranoia and distrust of the government to say, ‘Put everything in a trust, I won’t tell anybody who you are, don’t let anyone find out you’re investing, and I prefer you use precious metal or Bitcoins so it can’t be traced,'” Kirley said. “It really worked out well, whether it was intentional or just the perfect storm.””
AlterNet’s headline stated that this was “good news for Bernie Sanders”. I can’t see that this level of opposition, the highest level of opposition in the Gallup poll, as good news for Sanders.
OK, I found this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
The headline of the actual gallup article reads, “In US, Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing.”
That’s quite a bit different from the gist of the Huffpo article.
“As the 2016 presidential election field takes shape, more than nine in 10 Americans say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is Catholic, a woman, black, Hispanic or Jewish. Less than half of Americans would vote for a candidate who is a socialist.”
But Mike A is right that the least popular candidate, a socialist, managed to get support of 47%, and that voters under 30 were more likely to do so.
Broken down by political party, 59% of Democrats would vote for a socialist (which points to a real flaw in the party), while 26% of Republicans would do so (because they clearly don’t understand what self identifying as a Republican means.) 49% of Independents would vote socialist, which makes sense because they lean Democratic, but I did not see a Libertarian figure.
So, wow, 47% of people in the US must lack both an education in both history and global current events if they think that voting for a socialist would be a good idea here in the US.
I blame our public school system.
Mike…..I’ve been unsuccessful in attempts to post links. This is my “low-tech”presentation of the raw Gallup polling data, mostly listed in order of candidates that those polled would NOT consider voting for:
A Woman. 8%
S Black . 8%
h
Hispanic 7%
Jewish 7%
Mormon 18%
Gay 24%
Evangelical Christian 25%
Muslim 38%
Atheist 40%
Socialist 50%
Oh God. We’re 50/50 on voting for socialists, now? It must be our rotten economy. People just want free stuff, like Greece did.
Does anyone have a link to the poll, so I can depress myself? Or did I miss it upstream?
Why do people think we can repeat the socialism experiment and get a different result?
Tom Nash:
You need to read the actual poll results instead of the “Story Highlights,” which contains a typo. The poll shows that 47% of voters would support an otherwise qualified socialist and 58% would consider a qualified atheist.But 50% would not vote for a socialist.
I wonder if the voters would be in favor of an Eighth Day Dog Adventist.
Lisa Nichols…..I agree with your comparison of Trump to politicians who ran their cities into the ground. And they may have worked as hard at that as Trump did screwing his creditors.
@Tom Nash “I would recommend that you take a look at the multiple bankruptcies of Trump’s businesses.”
~~ How many cities or states run by liberals, have filed bankruptcy? Next will be Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore. This country is close to it. Look at Greece and Italy. At least Trump believes in good ole fashioned innovation and hard work.
Jen Bush is last on my list. Liberals want to convince Conservatives that Bush will be the only candidate to beat Hillary, but we all know they did the same with John McCain.
Off topic but we got an email to my half blind guy pal from Betty Lou Thema Liz that she and HumpinDog did get married in Cuba and are now in Ecuador. She did not say that they tied the knot but did say that they are on honeymoon. We will now begin the ordeal to get their different sex different creature marriage recognized in NC.
This is much Ado about Nothing. Beat up on Hillary. This is the worst you have on her. Go back to your Choice Not an Echo apCray.
Mike Appleton……you need to re-read that Gallup poll. It showed that 47% of the electorate would NOT even consider voting for a socialist. It also showed that 57% would not consider voting for an athiest.
These were the two highest rankings I saw in the category of “biases AGAINST”.
Mike Appleton,
“Jeb Bush, who will be the Republican candidate. Barring unforeseen circumstances, this will be a Clinton-Bush contest, and Clinton will win.”
I hope you’re wrong because I dislike and distrust the man, but I have already gotten a polling phone call wondering who I’d vote for if it was between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton (and that was before either one of them had officially announced they’d be running!). Gak. I said neither and the guy manning the phone laughed.
I fear your prediction about Clinton could be right, too. Gotta get that first woman in the White House, never mind her principles. Sheesh. I’m cynical enough to believe there’s some funny business behind the scenes that will set up these two regardless of what the American people actually want. (Remember the crap both the DNC and the RNC pulled on the delegates last time around?)
Lisa, I would like to see JT as AG,
Lisa Nichols……I would recommend that you take a look at the multiple bankruptcies of Trump’s businesses.
DS,
Nixon’s faux pas lasted only 18 minutes. This is the Nixon data retention protocol with a double-digit exponent. But this is dwarfed by the SCOTUS’s inability to read the English language and simply follow directions – read the words and decide if actions comport with the literal law.
The People are the new sovereign, not the SCOTUS. Flawed legislation must be rejected and returned to the legislative branch for modification or termination. The People rule through their representatives in the Congress. The SCOTUS has no authority to dictate or legislate. The Obamacare/Homosexual Marriage decisions demonstrate an egregious, cavalier and “ends justify the means,” SCOTUS government seizure protocol.
I say Jonathan Turley should run for president. Even though he’s a liberal, he is loyal to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and hates lawlessness. I’d vote for him because he had a conscience.
Trump would be an option because he would run this country like a well oiled machine. Walker would be great too.
Prozac and Silly Tea,
Sorry. It’s not fair to pick on unarmed opponents. I apologize.
What is another harmful effect of Liberal policies? Enacting policy that prohibits police departments from contacting ICE. These sanctuary cities act as further attractants to criminal illegal immigrants.
This beautiful young woman was shot and died in her father’s arms when a 5-times-deported illegal alien shot her for no reason. He did not follow our gun laws. SF PD had him in custody, but was not allowed to hand him over to ICE. Because that would apparently have been rude. And it would have been catch-and-release anyway because of our porous border.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/03/man-arrested-in-connection-with-san-francisco-killing-had-been-deported-several/
In all faireness, I have to add that ICE’s holier-than-thou tone falls on deaf ears. They have also been found guilty of directing their border patrol agents to look the other way from border crossers.
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/border-patrol-agent-testifies-senate-committee-indicated-6-10-aliens-cross-border
“While testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Border Patrol agent Chris Cabrera indicated that nearly 6 out of 10 illegal aliens cross into the United States without being apprehended. Cabrera is an agent at the Rio Grande Valley Sector in Texas and is the vice president of National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Local 3307, a union for border agents.
Cabrera went on to testify that that his fellow agents “face retribution” from their superiors for reporting illegal alien groups larger than 20.
“Agents who repeatedly report groups larger than 20 face retribution. Management will either take them out of the field and assign them to processing detainees at the station or assign them to a fixed position in low volume areas as punishment,” Cabrera told lawmakers. “Needless to say Agents got the message and now stay below this 20 person threshold no matter the actual size of the group.”
Cabrera also noted that the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is manipulating statistics and misleading the American people about security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
“I want to address whether or not the border is secure. If you ask this question of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or senior management at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), they will tell you the border is secure,” the Border Patrol agent told lawmakers. “They may even point to statistics and metrics showing that the Border Patrol is 75 percent effective in apprehending illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.”
However, he also said, “I want to be crystal clear – the border is not secure,” later adding, “How can this enormous gap exist between what the DHS tells you here in Washington and what our Agents know to be the truth in the field? Frankly, it is how you manipulate the statistics.””
Darren – I hate this double standard. It’s our fault, not the government’s, because we are so jaded we just shrug our shoulders. We’ve become enablers.