The e-mail scandal involving former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has continued to unfold, as we have been discussing. The number of classified emails have now grown to 1340. While the vast majority have low level classification, a few contained information classified at the secret level. This is not the first such allegation of someone stripping classification headers in scandal. The mishandling of classified information is a crime and the level of gross negligence in the use of the private server by Clinton is staggering. However, there has long been a good-faith debate over whether Clinton is being given a pass on a criminal investigation by the Obama Administration or whether her actions (while negligent) were not criminal in nature. A recent story could change that debate considerably if critics are proven correct. One of the emails released recently reportedly shows Clinton instructing an aide to strip off classification markings from a document and to send by unsecure means. Such an act could be charged as a criminal offense under federal classification laws. However, it is not clear that any email was sent and the Clinton staff could claim that she was referring to clearly unclassified material contained in a document. There has been a suggestion that the material in question were “talking points” that were meant to be public or were clearly unclassified. [Update: Clinton says that the email was never sent and that she trusted her aide to make the right choices on what could be sent.]
The 2011 email could add significant pressure for the Obama Administration, even though the House Select Committee on Benghazi said that it is not investigating Clinton’s potential mishandling of classified data through her private, home-based email server.
The email from Jacob Sullivan tells Clinton that “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds by ordering “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” To remove classification headings from a classified document is usually treated as a very serious matter, though the level of the classification is not known.
Here is one of the pertinent provisions:
such as 18 USC 793:
d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
It is important to note that we do not know if the document was in fact classified or, if so, at what level. We also do not know if the aide followed the instructions, stripped the headers, and sent the information on the unprotected server. The concern raised about the transmission and reference to the headers would support the view of some classification level. Notably, this law covers any information “relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
At a minimum, the instructions raise a serious question of judgment in overriding such concerns about unsecure transmissions and circumventing protections for sensitive material. Having worked since the Reagan Administration with classified information, I remained floored by all of these allegations from the exclusive use of an unsecure personal server to this latest controversy of stripping headings and overriding security objections. I remain confused as to why this is even necessary for a high-ranking official who has a host of security officers who can supply classified material in proper form and under proper controls. I can understand (even if I strongly disagree with) the effect to retain control over communications by relying exclusively on a private server. However, stripping headers of classification markings (assuming that is what happened) would appear a case where simple convenience trumped national security protections for these officials.
Again, however, we will still need to see the classification level of the information to judge the gravity of the act. Telephone books can be classified as “confidential” even though information within the documents are public. What is surprising however is that such a high-ranking officials would send an email to strip markings rather than instruct aides to find an unclassified source.
What is equally perplexing is the expression of shock by Clinton that an aide was using a private email account despite her virtual exclusive use of a personal unsecure server. In another involving Jacob Sullivan, Clinton sends an email dated Feb. 27, 2011, expressing surprise that a State Department staffer was using a personal email account. The diplomatic officer named John Godfrey wrote a detailed summary of information about Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi that was forwarded to Clinton. Clinton responds by asking for whom Godfrey works. “Us,” Sullivan writes back. Clinton replies: “Is he in NEA [Near Eastern Affairs] currently? Or was he in Embassy? I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”
In addition to the Sullivan emails, there is a rising controversy over a Sidney Blumenthal email that many believe was derived from classified sources, including the highly sensitive intelligence generated from the National Security Agency. At the time, Blumenthal held no government position even though he was actively advising Clinton on a host of issues.
Isaac “The solution can be found in Americans stopping thinking that they and their system is somehow sacred and better than anything else, to be found anywhere. ”
I wouldn’t have believed it possible but you are right. There are still people who feel/think the USA is the greatest country on earth, the freest country on earth. It absolutely astounds me how divorced so many Americans are from reality.
My own mother is a prime example. She voted for Obama twice and is GLAD. It’s embarrassing to admit that I’m in the same gene pool. The ironic (or maybe not so ironic) thing is that she has a VERY high IQ. It was tested once when she was working at the University of Michigan and the one who saw the results said “I hope you’re doing something with this IQ!”. She does NOTHING with it. She gets all her ‘education’ from main stream television and never, ever picks up a book (in years) or gets any information online. She believes everything she sees on TV. It’s really pathetic. I’ve tried to wake her up but she gets highly insulted. How dare ANYONE question her intelligence! My mother hates me and I don’t really care. 🙂
Thanks for letting me vent. a
isaac,
Progressives built this Frankenstein of a government and you should rightly be afraid that it will turn on you. It’s laughable really that you don’t like what it has become when in the same breath you fear the GOP will undue the “progress” made. 😉 When you point fingers at only one political party you demonstrate just how uninformed you are at how a constitutionally-limited government is SUPPOSED to work. I’m not even certain you are aware how a progressive government is created, I believe Jonathan Gruber had something to say about that.
Paul
Like I said, it is the American illusion of higher standards, not the actuality of higher standards. Your placing Canada at a lower standard illustrates my point, the reality of the situation, that you live in an illusory world, and the problem. When Americans confront their perspectives as they are, illusions and not realities, then, perhaps things will change.
Olly
“When you elect people…” You fail to understand that we/you don’t elect anyone. We are presented with options that are already in the pockets of the special interests. Ignoring their oath of office is way, way, way down on the list of travesties being committed. At the top is the fact that when the NRA says jump, every representative says how high, regardless of oaths and the demands of their constituents. The same is true with the rest of the oligarchs.
When you have an imbecile in the Supreme Court that actually links the first amendment with the rights of individuals and special interests to purchase government, then you have something upon which to focus.
issacbasonkavichi – I know you’re from Canada and should be held to a lower standard, however, it takes 5 justices to make verdict in the SC. Only one has to write the majority decision and one the minority decision.
I’m waiting for “Prof” Turley to weigh in on Calgary Ted’s eligibility but I don’t think the grifter complex pays great for those types of stories
Dieter Heymann, No my pretty, I was thinking of the Wizard of Oz.
“The American system of governing itself has festered into an oligarchical monster that only performs well in creating the illusion of democracy, free choice, and all the so called liberties.”
Absolutely correct. You shouldn’t be outraged by it though. When you elect people that will ignore their oath of office in order to “accomplish” things then this is what you get. In our current system, if you win the upcoming Powerball your “vote” might just get you a seat at the trough, ahhh, table.
BFM, Don’t forget fat Sandy Berger stealing embarrassing classified docs from the National Archives.
Thanks, Nick. And we have just mentioned the stars. There are many lower level people who have had there careers ruined or faced criminal charges by this administration for mishandling classified material.
Olly
The solution can be found in Americans stopping thinking that they and their system is somehow sacred and better than anything else, to be found anywhere. The American system of governing itself has festered into an oligarchical monster that only performs well in creating the illusion of democracy, free choice, and all the so called liberties.
Most, if not all, political systems in the free world are influenced by those few with the money to spend. This is true of Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and the rest. However, the main difference to be found is that the electing of representatives in these countries is done primarily without private funding. In the US the electing is done almost entirely by private funding.
The influence of a specific part of the complex fabric of any society cannot be held back by a purely democratic numbers formula. A vote from Joe and Jill Public is not the same as a vote from a Bill Gates. However, if there was ever a balance in the US it has long since disappeared. The Prime Minister of Great Britain’s election machine is paid for by the government as is those of his or her adversaries. The Canadian system marries private funding, at an extremely low level, with government funds based on votes achieved by the candidates in previous elections. In other words, if the people understand the candidate and agree, then the candidate receives the funds based on the level of that understanding and agreement.
The US is the strongest country in the world. However, its political system is the most corrupt and stands in the way of almost everything great an American refers to when he or she speaks of pride.
FogDog: There is a DSM-5 book out. Yes they went from Roman Numerals to the American numeral 5. There is a catagory in that Diagnostical and Statistical Manual 5 on the issue. A “nit picker” is not in the psychotic realm of mental illness. It is merely a disorder which is on the fringe of being treated. Not with drugs. At the mental hospital where I worked the nit pickers were actually employees not patients. They were tasked with deciding where to place the beds when the floors were mopped. And where to put them back when the moppers were done. It went from that to filling the toilet paper rollers in the bathrooms. Some of these employees had actually been inmates of the asylum. When they graduated they were hired and given jobs. We have yet to actually see a Hillary email which breached national security, other than the one about the bad meals at the Saudi Embassy. No one knows about the email from her office about Obama and the waitress. Oopps. That is confidential.
“There are a lot more worthwhile problems out there and there are no GOP contenders that wouldn’t set America back twenty years.”
I’m with you isaac, 20 years is not nearly far enough. Both major political parties have been destroying this republic for far longer than that. This bureaucratic state needs to be unwound to at least the War on Poverty era and then begin again. Of course that would make the progressives from both parties revolt as they will have to develop a new strategy to transform this nation into the socialist utopia they fought so hard to create.
Paul
“thesciencegeek – the entire GOP is interested in this.”
The entire GOP is only interested in tearing down what Democrats and Obama have accomplished and taking the public’s focus off of their sorry state of affairs. I can’t believe you actually posted that opening.
am I wrong?
Win the battle and lose the war. Is there a DSM-IV code for nit picker? 😉
Paul, GOP is interested in the Jezebel behavior of a Hillary she-devil occupying the White House for 4 years?
It is an interesting reflection on the state of politics today that even in a blog where many people remain anonymous that they won’t bother voicing their opinion on the following question:
“I’m curious to know which candidate everyone believes would be the most trusted to actually respect the separation of powers and hold EVERYONE subordinate to the rule of law; regardless of political party.”
Hey Geek what we don’t feel too strongly about is you boosting your own website here every day with mee-too’er spams.
Here’s Obama’s use of national security laws: to suppress dissent.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/
Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
“Nothing to see here folks, just move along.”
You wish. Former CIA director Deutch took a conviction for putting classified documents on his unsecured home computer. Gen Patraeus took a conviction for giving classified documents to his friend.
There are two scandals here. The first is that she was reckless with classified information. The second is that she has been treated so favorably by this administration.
I suspect that most people don’t feel too strongly about this
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
thesciencegeek – the entire GOP is interested in this.
Olly, I am a Carson fan too. Paul is the only “insider” I feel is worth trusting. I’m always amazed that he doesn’t get more support by both camps since he seems like the youth respond to him, he has a foreign policy that should make the left happy and has libertarian leaning to satisfy the right. But maybe that’s the point. Things are too extreme for a non polarizing candidate. But like I’ve stated before, the be lazy here’s a hand out liberal message will win over self responsibility and risk to fail message.