Going back to the IG leak about the 1300+ emails, Clinton’s camp seems to be arguing that there was an interagency dispute about whether or not the material should’ve been classified. We’ll have to see if that’s a legit defense in the eyes of the law, but either way, she doesn’t seem to be interested in erring on the side of caution when it inconveniences her.
Oh, to be king.
Hey, man! Gotta get them emails through the intertubes! All them classification banners were clogging things up!
I could only imagine. “What are you having for lunch today?” “I cannot disclose that, as it deals with the plans, capabilities, and intentions of the cafeteria.”
Timex
4625
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the specific case we’re talking about here, which I believe was originally reported by Politico (I believe I linked to the article earlier in this thread), but in that case she specifically told aides to remove the classification markers from the materials and send them unclass. So yeah, we kind of do know that it was classified to begin with. It was.
And instructing her aides to do it, even if they ended up NOT doing it, would still be a case of her breaking the law I believe.
magnet
4626
I am familiar. Her email read: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
That’s it. Nobody has made clear what “identifying heading” meant, or whether the document (a set of talking points, actually) was even classified.
And instructing her aides to do it, even if they ended up NOT doing it, would still be a case of her breaking the law I believe.
Which law?
Timex
4627
I am familiar. Her email read: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
That’s it. Nobody has made clear what “identifying heading” meant, or whether the document (a set of talking points, actually) was even classified.
The identifying heading is the security classification heading. She’s telling them that if they aren’t able to get the secure fax to work, to remove the classification heading and send it over unclassified channels.
That’s totally illegal. You aren’t allowed to remove the classification header from classified documents. Doing so doesn’t make them unclassified.
Which law?
I’d have to go digging to find out the specific piece of federal code which details it, but whenever you get approval to handle classified documents you sign stuff saying that if you break certain rules, you can be penalized under a specific federal code. And telling subordinates to remove classification markings definitely violates those rules.
18 USC § 1924, among other which apply less clearly.
Menzo
4629
So just saying words can break a law? You don’t have to actually do anything?
Feels like a free speech issue.
Menzo
4630
But if nobody actually ever did that, no law is broken. Telling someone to do something, which they then don’t actually do, breaks which law, exactly?
Easy examples: war crimes, conspiracy to commit X, and RICO. You don’t have to actually be the person committing the act, you can be the person giving the order and get in trouble.
You aren’t prosecuted for speaking. You’re prosecuted for communicating sensitive information to someone unauthorized to receive it. It’s pretty clearly not a free speech issue if I print out the names of every CIA asset overseas and leave it on the DC metro, but it’s exactly the same crime whether I do that or say it to a Russian spy.
If, at this point, you don’t think that exactly this has happened, you aren’t well-informed enough for this to be an interesting conversation for me.
Menzo
4633
Yes, you CAN get in trouble if there is a law against it. Is there a law about that in this specific case?
Menzo
4634
LOL, well, don’t go away mad, I guess.
But if Clinton told someone to remove the headers and send a document, but the documents were never sent, what law is broken?
Edit: Let’s imagine this totally plausible scenario. You don’t know it didn’t happen, I don’t know it didn’t happen, but it could have happened:
Clinton sends an email saying strip the headers off that document and fax it. We know that exists. Later that day she bumps into the staffer and asks if he faxed the documents. Not yet? Well don’t, because I thought better of stripping the headers off. OK boss, no problem. Nothing gets sent. No laws are broken, right?
None of us know, yet, that this isn’t what happened.
In that case, I think you’re right—no law has been broken. I don’t see the odds of that case being very good, though.
If this were about Joe Schmo the midlevel CIA analyst, who had been caught with documents not specifically marked as classified, but known to contain material that was or had been recently classified, in the personal email account whose mailserver is running on the old PC in his upstairs bathroom, there would be no debate whatsoever. Joe Schmo would definitely be out of a job and probably facing charges.
I suspect that the FBI is taking their time in recommending an indictment because they want to present an airtight case, not because they don’t think they have enough to indict on now. Clinton is part of the political elite, was until recently a high-level member of the current administration, is currently a presidential candidate, and has faced politically-motivated witch hunts before. I’m not in law enforcement or intelligence, but if I’m the director of the FBI, and a case like this crosses my desk, I tell the guys working on it to be super-duper sure, because it’s probably my job if they end up being wrong.
Not quite sure that applies to faxes and emails to/from/for people with classified access. Are there some precedents to show that it does apply?
Timex
4637
If this were about Joe Schmo the midlevel CIA analyst, who had been caught with documents not specifically marked as classified, but known to contain material that was or had been recently classified, in the personal email account whose mailserver is running on the old PC in his upstairs bathroom, there would be no debate whatsoever. Joe Schmo would definitely be out of a job and probably facing charges.
Honestly, just having the stuff which weren’t marked as classified, he probably wouldn’t be facing charges. He may lose his job, but even that would be iffy if it were accidental.
However, intentionally circumventing the classification process, as seems to be the case with that email from Clinton, is absolutely illegal and you would definitely be prosecuted for it.
Then, everything else aside, there seems to have been a decent amount of classified material on her home server, which was definitely open to outside attack, and which as a result could have put the nation’s security at risk. But this is potentially moot if it really turns out that she specifically told her aides to circumvent classification markings.
wahoo
4638
I am not following close enough to have an informed opinion on this piece.
I think the evidenc dis pretty clear that Hillary ran a private server to avoid scrutiny and FOIAs. This is an ongoing problem with public servants. Whether she is charged with crimes is yet to be determined, but the best cAse for defenders is that she deliberately too actions to hide her correspondence from reporters in defiance of transparency rules.
Haven’t been following closely, but can you post a link indicating the evidence of her motivation for having her own email server?
Timex
4640
See, from my perspective, I don’t really want to get into the arguments about Hillary’s motivations… Such arguments end up being far too subjective, and never really go anywhere.
But the thing where she specifically told aides to commit an illegal act is serious business. There’s really no subjectivity involved. And that’s what I think it’s gonna ultimately burn her on.
What’s funny is that I was asked yesterday, “Ok, so suppose that after Clinton gets nominated, she is THEN indicted, while running against either Trump or Cruz… who do you vote for?”
And my answer was, “Ok… with Trump, no brainer. I vote for indicted Hillary.”
“With Cruz?.. I dunno. Eh. I guess indicted Hillary again.”
I mean, I’m pretty moderate, but seriously, how fucked up a candidate do you have to be for me to vote for a candidate from the other party, WHO HAS BEEN INDICTED FOR A FELONY, over my own party’s candidate?
And the answer is that you have to be the most fucked up candidate ever.
As best I can tell, she wasn’t circumventing the classification process, it was the sending process she was trying to work around (probably because it was broken and not serving the actual needs).
Secretary Clinton wasn’t the first Secretary of State to use a Private email server. Additionally, the only article I could find of yours back a few pages was Thiessen’s article, and that was an opinion piece, not an actual article (and as I recall, his opinion pieces tend towards the partisan).
