Hillary Clinton has insisted throughout the ongoing email scandal on two points repeated as a virtual mantra: there was no classified material sent on her unsecured personal email system and she was in total compliance with the law. I have questioned both points and noted that she is really saying that no “marked” classified material was sent (a less than compelling argument) and she is speaking of federal criminal laws as opposed to the clear official policy not to use such personal servers. It appears clear that some of this material was indeed classified and, as I discussed this week on NPR, the policy against doing what she did was clear and strong at the time of her tenure at State. Now, United States District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has weighed in with comments this week that Clinton clearly did violate State Department policy and that violation caused much of the difficulty in retrieving her communications while in office.
What is now clear is that Clinton used her personal server exclusively (something that is extremely rare) and that she conducted official business of State over the unsecured system (including the transmission of material now deemed 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. As Secretary, Clinton received the highest level of intelligence and there is always a concern that second generation discussions will be influenced or reveal such information. That is why State Department people are asked to conduct official business on the secure system. 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.
The policy referenced by the Court was evident in a communication that out under Clinton’s name to all State Department employees that warned them to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” There is also a 2005 department manual covering the transmitting of information that is “sensitive but unclassified.” The manual said that department-related email should go through servers authorized by the department.
In the latest hearing on the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Judge Sullivan noted “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy.” The Court noted that the failure to comply with clear policies had complicated the State Department’s ability to respond to requests for records. He further ordered the server (which was only recently turned over by Clinton after months of refusal) to be examined for any response emails. That server was reportedly wiped clean before it was turned over by Clinton staff members though it may be possible for some of the material to be retrieved.
The Justice Department and State Department have been opposing all efforts to secure the information. Justice Department lawyer Peter Wechsler argued that the open records law normally doesn’t allow for searches of government officials’ private accounts, but Judge Sullivan said that this was a different situation because “there was a violation of government policy” and “We’re not talking about a search of anyone’s random email.”
In the FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch is seeking records about the employment arrangements of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who served Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department but later moved to a part-time position while also doing private consulting work.
A tense moment arose when Wechsler said he did not know whether the FBI was actually in possession of Clinton’s server or thumb drives. “You’re a Justice Department attorney?….You can’t tell me? . . . I need to get an answer . . . We’re tiptoeing on the head of a pin because there’s only one government.”
“It depends what your meaning of is, is” said w/ an arrogant smirk.
“You mean did I wipe the server w/ a cloth?” said contemptuously w/ that phony laugh.
Bill Clinton was a good politician. His wife is incompetent as a politician and bureaucrat. She must, and will be stopped from getting into the WH again.
It is interesting seeing the usual suspects say their usually inane comments supporting their woman. Then, there are the new trolls, some from the Clinton Foundation, some I surmise from a failed blog.
“The rules for the Sec. of State may be – and probably are — different from the rules for those who work at lower levels in the State Dept.”
Well I don’t know about that. If Clinton routinely used her private email for matters deemed sensitive, she should be treated like any other employee there. Which is why I don’t have a problem referring to her as an employee.
She is claiming that when it came to sensitive matters, she didn’t use a server at all. She relied on hard copy.
It will be somewhat humorous if the current group of government bureaucrats at State is able to go through the number of documents supplied to them and claim there is no threat to national security in the documents. It’s entirely possible that is the case, but it will also be the first time such a group would have been able to bring themselves to do it.
No one worried about the 2 million emails that went missing from Karl Rove’s White House. Sorry, I mean Dick Cheney’s White House. Err, um, George Bush’s White House. Or the voting records that went missing in Ohio after the 2004 election.
Either you are the same person who posted this drivel several days ago, or you both have the same talking points (probably with power point slides) since you are almost word for word the same.
I’ll ask again. If you have some citation and a link to support your claim….please do post it.
Crickets……..
the judge would refer to the Sec. of State as an “employee,”
What is strange about that? She IS an employee. An employee of the Federal Government and by default an employee of the people of the United States. As such she is accountable to us, the people whose taxes pay her wages and provide for all of her benefits.
When you get down to it, every single government office consists of employees and that extends to the President of the United States who is paid by OUR tax dollars and is ultimately an employee of the People of the United States.
We have the right to fire, or terminate from their position, any employee who is not doing their job 🙂
No one worried about the 2 million emails that went missing from Karl Rove’s White House. Sorry, I mean Dick Cheney’s White House. Err, um, George Bush’s White House. Or the voting records that went missing in Ohio after the 2004 election. Or the 60 embassy deaths that happened on Bush’s watch. Or the torture, mayhem and destruction otherwise brought on by that administration. And Yes, the rules changed but Condi and Colin both did the very same thing. Nothing to see there. Any of it! Move on!
But I will add that What troubles me most about Hillary Clinton is that she takes bad advice from people. Knowing the level of scrutiny coming her way, how did her advisers let her head down this road. It’s the same as her 2008 campaign. Bad advice all around.
But really, Donald Trump? What an idiotic know-nothing windbag. His father gave him $200 Million and he managed to turn the triple into a home run on a walk. Big deal. And how the hell do you bankrupt four casinos? The cash machines of the world. We don’t need another Republican jerk driving our economy into the ground.
She can only be in compliance with the law if she is the one who defines the law. She thinks she is (by divine right). Indeed if she does it, then it must be legal. The judge in the above case, however, begs to differ (and Tricky Dick had his fingers crossed behind his back so it doesn’t count).
stevej110:
I heard Jonathan Alter on TV this evening say that it was strange (not sure that was his word) that the judge would refer to the Sec. of State as an “employee,” when it is the Sec. of State that sets the policy for the State Department.
The rules for the Sec. of State may be – and probably are — different from the rules for those who work at lower levels in the State Dept. And I would think the Secretary of State would have the widest latitude to make decisions about classification .
Anna – you might want to hold your fire on who does classifications. It appears that specialized teams decide how classified or secret or Top Secret or Ultra Secret something is. It is NOT the Secretary of State.
Paul C. Schulte
You ask: “Why should Hillary’s lawyers sort her emails when they do not have security clearances?”
If it was not classified at the time the lawyer read it, I guess there was no prohibition against his seeing it.
This will all be ruled on at some point, so maybe — just maybe — it would be wise to hold your fire till you know what the facts are.
P.S. There clearly and historically has been disagreement among government agencies about what should or does not need to be classified as “secret.”
Anna – all of her material is automatically classified. They do not hold the clearance for classified. And when they found the two marked Top Secret, the forced the law firm to put is a SCIF. There is no reason to hold fire when she is guilty as hell.
Isn’t he referring to Clinton when he says employee. Although it is kind of odd, or should I say sloppy, that the judge makes such a statement without referring to a specific section of the manual he is referencing.
Paul C. Schulte:
The judge did NOT say Hillary had “violated” government policy; he said, “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”
There’s a difference.
Anna – Hillary must be paying you a lot to write this stuff. The judge did NOT say Hillary had “violated” government policy; he said, “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”
To me they are the same thing. If a student came to me with your excuse, I would double their punishment.
Anna wrote: “The judge did NOT say Hillary had “violated” government policy; he said, “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy. There’s a difference.”
What is the difference? If you don’t follow government policy, then you have violated government policy. How would there be any difference?
I provided you with both the law Clinton violated, as well as the policy that Clinton herself established. You choose to ignore both the law and the policy when you keep asking for people to give it to you. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you because you just ignore what is presented.
Whether Clinton is charged and adjudicated guilty is an entirely different matter. She knows that. Clinton has many friends in powerful places. Unfortunately, prosecutions make enemies and many people find it better if they do not become her enemy over using personal email for government business.
At the FOIA hearing regarding Judicial Watch’s request for access to Hillary’s emails, the judge commented – as an aside, NOT as a finding or ruling – that the case would have been easier to deal with if she had followed government policy.
Specifically, the judge said: “we wouldn’t be here today if the employee had followed government policy.”
Firstly: : Hillary was not an employee; she was the one who determined policy for the State Dept. I assume a Sec. of State has wider leeway to decide for himself or herself what is or is not to be classified as “secret.”
(An awful lot of what get classified by our government is already publicly available or is CYA stuff – not really a state secret.)
Secondly: I don’t know if the judge even had in front of him the policy to which he was alluding. If he did, then it should be simple for Jonathan Turley to gain access to the transcript of the case, so far, and see if the policy the judge was referring to is described or not.
Anna – you are living in Cuckoo Land. The Secretary of State is an employee. She does not set policy on secret or classified documents. In fact, most people in the intelligence field have said that anything that goes to or from her email is consider classified unless classified something higher.
Jonathan Turley should be able to provide the location of the law or policy that he believes Hillary is in conflict with.
He is a lawyer and has access to law books and federal documents containing such information.
I am assuming he is not charging Hillary with being in violation of some law or policy that he has never read.
Meantime, all those here who would “punish” Hillary if given the chance should study up on the law or policy you believe she broke or ignored.
So far, despite the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars (and private money) on endless investigations, Hillary has not been found to have done anything illegal or unethical.
Not Whitewater (despite the most vigorous efforts of The New York Times staff).
Not the murder of Vince Foster.
Not the destruction of the White House or the robbery of White House furniture, or the trashing of Air Force One (even President George W. Bush publicly stated that none of that happened!).
And, not Benghazi (despite the best efforts of House Republicans, and the expenditure of a lot of our tax dollars).
Anna – you are working for Hillary! Say hi for me.
I suspect the case against Hillary Clinton is close to reaching the probable cause stage.
“In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department’s own “Classified” stamps now identify as so-called ‘foreign government information.’ The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be “presumed” classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House’s National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.”
He must be lying.
Anna – maybe this will help you and Hillary understand the peril she is in. The judge in the Judicial Watch FOIA case stated that she had violated State Dept. policy.
Paul C. Schulte
You write, “I think you could call the State Department and get the info.”
I think YOU should follow your own suggestion and know what the law or policy IS before you start accusing people of breaking a law or not being in compliance with some policy!
– – – – –
To answer your question, you wrote. “We already have a judge who has said she violated State Department procedure. ”
That’s NOT what the judge said.
“I don’t see anything there that forbids the use of a personal server.
Clearly much ado about nothing.
Everything’s fine.
Everything’s FINE!!!
LEAVE HILLARY ALOOOONE!!
davidm2575:
I don’t see anything there that forbids the use of a personal server.
Anna, if you can’t use your personal email for business, then you cannot use your own personal server! Furthermore, you apparently did not read the GPO.GOV link because if you use your own personal server then you cannot comply with the law that protects the governments rights to the information! FOIA requests cannot be honored if all her communications were on a personal server. Remember that she used ONLY her personal email server and personal email address for ALL government business. She never used a .gov address. Never. That is unacceptable!
david – according to the State Dept. she was never issued a .gov email address. That has got to be a tip-off to somebody. 😉
Olly:
It very much matters what the policy is and when it was adopted.
It does not matter what you think OUGHT to have been the policy; what matters is whether there was a policy in effect at that time.
P.S. “Accounts” and “servers” are two different things, and the words should not be used interchangeably since they define different things.
Anna – did Hillary send you over here? If so, welcome. You can stand in her stead. Riddle me this, Anna. Why should Hillary’s lawyers sort her emails when they do not have security clearances?
In other words Paul, you can’t comply with Anna’s request. Until you can do so your responses to her are vacuous.
stevej110 – I find it odd that someone could not find out for themselves. I am not going to take the time to do Anna’s homework for her. She will be a better person doing it herself.