Despite the determination of investigators at the State Department and intelligence agencies that Hillary Clinton did use her personal email system to handle confirmed classified information (and potentially compromised “hundreds of classified emails”), Clinton dismissed such allegations and assured the public that it is “pretty clear” that there was no classified information on her personal email system — a system that she used rather than the secure State Department system.
Clinton portrayed the recent bombshell report of the allegations of the Inspector General as simply some bureaucratic infighting: “What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released.” (Notably, the State Department itself confirmed specific classified emails on the system).
I think that it is much more than that, though the Obama Administration has been quick to downplay any suggestion of a criminal investigation and has stressed that the letter from the Inspector General was not technically a criminal referral.
Again, Clinton is stressing that she did not send or receive any material marked classified. I have previously discussed why that explanation is less than compelling, particularly for anyone who has handled sensitive or classified material. As I discussed earlier, virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course. 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 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. You do not generate material as the Secretary of State and assume that it is unclassified. You are supposed to assume and treat it as presumptively classified. Otherwise, there would be massive exposure of classified material and willful blindness as to the implications of the actions of persons disregarding precautions. 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.
Clinton portrayed the dispute as entirely removed from her controversial decision to use a personal server — a move that gave her total control of the server and ultimately allowed her staff to delete thousands of emails before turning over emails to the State Department: “They can fight over it or argue over it. That’s up to them. I can tell you what the facts are.”
Clinton continues to struggle with her spin that she wanted to use her own server to avoid multiple devices (which has been widely ridiculed) as well as her insistence that she never received a subpoena. Her repeatedly claim that she was never subject to a subpoena has been described as false by media like CNN after it was disclosed that she had indeed been given a subpoena for the emails.
I would be surprised if the Administration opened a criminal investigation into the matter given the treatment of other high-ranking officials in such cases by the Justice Department in the past. However, to kill any investigation after this letter would be viewed as unusual and biased by many in the intelligence area. First and foremost, Clinton may have to yield to long-standing demands for access to this server. For the moment, she is clearly maintaining the original position that there was no problem so long as her communications were not marked as classified at the time — a rather preposterous suggestion since no one sits next to a Secretary of State and stamps every line as classified in communications. The use of private server obviously placed these communications at greater risk of interception, which is the whole reason we have spent hundreds of millions on the secure system for communications. I do not see how Clinton will be able to maintain her conduct as justified or responsible in the face of the overwhelming view of experts as well as prior internal memoranda on the subject.
It is so childish to dismiss this issue because someone else may have done it without prosecution. That attitude is precisely how we lose the rule of law. There is no reasonable argument to justify her private server IF you have any interest in preserving the rule of law. Everyone here giving the “yeah but” defense for Clinton has clearly abandoned objectivity and would have no standing should this same issue arise with an individual they don’t support.
Dear Chelsia: The bathrooms at the embassy we visited were disgusting. Do NOT go out with that guy again. Tell the folks back home that I miss ya all. These are private matters so I am sending on my own email account. Except my impression of that certain embassy that I visited might be a matter of public concern. It depends on how many members of the public go there to pee.
Hillary.
Her defense that the email was classified later is nonsense. It boils down to “I put classified info in an email, but did not mark it as classified. So somebody had to mark it as classified at a later time when I finally complied with the other law I was ignoring.”
@Robert: “Her defense that the email was classified later is nonsense. It boils down to “I put classified info in an email, but did not mark it as classified. So somebody had to mark it as classified at a later time when I finally complied with the other law I was ignoring.””
That is an excellent point not previously mentioned. If the email mentions classified information then it makes not a bit of difference whether the email itself was or is classified.
This is one of those issues that is quite indefensible. We will have our disagreements over ideology but this cuts to the core of everything that is wrong with our current government. The people we elect MUST be held to a higher standard than everyone else. We fail in our duty as citizens if we are simply satisfied by the ends of government and overlook the means. The means are the people’s only defense against tyranny and if we turn a blind eye and accept a government that operates above the law then we lose any reasonable expectation for a just government.
stevegroen
“Two comments: Slick Billary. If she’s elected, we’ll see the majority of her tenure being wasted on a war with Congress.”
Irrespective of any ‘scandal’ if Hillary or another Democrat is elected President, they will be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. The Republicans have done this for the entirety of Obama’s term regardless of the issues, to the detriment of the American people. This is their way, hold a gun to the head of America and blame it on the Democrats. The spooky thing is it seems to work for too many Americans. They hear this crap often enough so they believe it.
The issue here is not a make or break deal for a President. This and worse have been done consistently on both sides.
It does make a lot of people happy, those that would vote for Trump, Christie, Rubio, Bush, etc, etc.
Thank you for the Politifact article since as it clearly states, she did NOT violate any laws that applied at the time when she was in office. The only part that may cause a problem is the classified part, but Turley saying that ALL her e-mails are considered secret is absurd. The critics will have a point when they can show that what she did was not done by her predecesors, or show a violation of law. This is simply trying to get Clinton by any means necessary, no matter the facts. I guess we will have to spend another $60 million to “investigate” her if she wins. Just as the Whitewater BS was for the GOP as a means to get Bill. I guess that was money well spent to find out about a blow job in the White House, even though it had nothing at all to do with Whitewater. So too this will be the hook to spend more millions to get Clintons again for something, anything! Just as the Benghazi thing is, even though the GOP itself found no wrong doing, but that is irrelevant. They need a scandal, any thing that they can call one.
There is also the simple idea of the double standard those with power compared to those without. This isn’t going away. Almost everyone understands email, how it is used, and how it can be accidentally misused to send something that shouldn’t have been sent to addressees that shouldn’t have received it. Lots and lots of people use email at work and have to follow their employer’s rules regarding sending, receiving, and retaining. And all of them are wondering why she doesn’t have to follow simple procedures in as important an agency as State, when every one else has to do.
Then the next question asked is, if you will do this as Secretary of State, what will you do as President?
“Whatever you think about her email server the facts are on her side.”
This statement seems completely oblivious to the concept of presumptive classification.
Here is an example of the governments position on presumptive classification in another case:
““Because the Accused were detained and interrogated in the CIA program, they were exposed to classified sources, methods and activities. Due to their exposure to classified information, the Accused are in a position to reveal this information publicly through their statements. Consequently any and all statements by the Accused are presumptively classified until a classification review can be completed.””
It seems to me that if the government were to press action against Clinton on the basis of presumptive classification, the concept would cut decisively against her.
Would this administration make that choice? Who knows. But this is not good news for Clinton.
Anything any candidate does can be used against them, no matter what it is. Most of what the government does should be public information.
Rat trap with cheese video. Music, “I’m on top of the world” and “This is the end my friend, my only friend”.
“Whatever you think about her email server the facts are on her side.”
What “facts”?
You have to begin with the fact she used a private email server which immediately removes trust, responsibility and judgment out of the equation. Everything after that decision MUST be considered untrustworthy, irresponsible and without sound judgment. She does not warrant the benefit of the doubt. Until the Watergate tapes came out the facts were on Nixon’s side. The difference between those tapes and Clinton’s emails is the server(s) in question and the emails that have passed through it have not been turned over to an independent investigator. The server facts are on her side only because she has retained control of the servers.
Let’s be honest. Hillary could ritualisticly slaughter a puppy on national tv and many democrats would still support her. As long as she didn’t have a confederate flag behind her at least.
A Democrat administration will never throw the leading Democratic Presidential contender under the bus. If there is an investigation, Hillary will be cleared of any possible charges. That’s the way the game is played inside the Beltway. Hillary (and Bill) are truly above the law.
Two comments: Slick Billary. If she’s elected, we’ll see the majority of her tenure being wasted on a war with Congress.
How is Hillary supposed to know what “presumptively classified” means? Does it depend on the meaning of the word “is”?
Groen
Whatever you think about her email server the facts are on her side.
I think, no I KNOW that exclusive use of her personal email server to conduct official State Department business is illegal. She did not ONCE use the official government channels or follow the Federal Records acts..
she skirted the rules governing federal records management, Cox said.
A federal record is any documentary material, regardless of physical form, made or received by a government agency, according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees federal recordkeeping. Records are preserved as evidence of the agencies’ activities, decisions and procedures. Each agency is responsible for maintaining its records in accordance with regulations.
It would have been a violation of the NARA’s rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively, Metcalfe said. The code requires federal agencies to make and preserve records that duly document agency activity, so that they are readily available when needed — such as for FOIA requests or congressional inquiries. Using personal email exclusively is contrary to proper record preservation. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/
Actually the detail in the story is that the info was not classified originally but later was changed. That makes a difference. Whatever you think about her email server the facts are on her side.
It is too bad that politics get in the way of truth and logic
I agree entirely with Turley virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course.
This is why you conduct official Government business through official channels and not on your facebook or twitter feed. There is no way to KNOW that she didn’t send classified information because she did NOT follow the rules. The rules don’t apply to her I suppose.
Even in my little not government classified job, my emails were subject to being archived and stored in a remote server. EVERY ONE of the business emails that I sent to clients or providers and received were captured.
In addition, my personal email account could be subject to scrutiny at any time and I could be fired, lose my licenses, be heavily fined and even see some jail time if I did use personal email for business purposes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2013/03/01/stockbroker-fined-and-suspended-for-sending-business-emails-from-personal-account/
I was also forbidden to participate in any online boards, blogs, chat rooms etc that had to to with my business…..so that I would not be soliciting business, giving advice, pumping and dumping stocks or a multitude of other infractions. Again, big penalties and even jail time.
Clinton was using a personal email account and personal server, with NO off site back up AND with NO oversight of the emails being sent. She was conducting business that was exponentially more sensitive and dangerous than that of us measly little brokers and financial types.
YET…..she gets a pass.
One rule for the elites. Another for the peons.
“Frost: Why didn’t you burn the tapes?
Nixon: Now as a matter of fact, curiously enough, I did not only consider, but I even suggested and, I believe, directed that [White House Chief of Staff] Mr. [H.R. “Bob”] Haldeman take the taping system out–not take it out, but go through the tapes and, as I put it to him, to make the search that would be necessary to retain all those that had historical value and to destroy those that had no historical values–those that involved the family, those that involved political or other friends and so forth and so on, those that really shouldn’t be in the public domain.”
http://millercenter.org/presidentialclassroom/exhibits/why-didnt-nixon-burn-the-tapes
Are we to seriously “trust” the statements of a government official who broke the public trust in the first place by having a private server handling all her email correspondence? One would have to be a complete partisan hack to defend this practice because there would be no such tolerance given for the other major political party. This is indefensible regardless of party and regardless of the content of the emails.
Interesting post. I agree with your last sentence
“I do not see how Clinton will be able to maintain her conduct as justified or responsible in the face of the overwhelming view of experts as well as prior internal memoranda on the subject.”
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org