5 ms·

Do you have any links that document what she did that is worse than this NSA employee's behavior? My understanding is that she didn't use her personal email fo

by ozten 5y ago

Do you have any links that document what she did that is worse than this NSA employee's behavior? My understanding is that she didn't use her personal email for classified information and continued to use a government provided system for that class of information.

lsh123 5y ago
I am the author of the flagged post with a link to Wikipedia article on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Classified_information_in_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...): “The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret;" more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.” EDIT: compare with: “If convicted, Unkenholz faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each of the 13 counts of willful transmission of NDI and for each of the 13 counts of willful retention of NDI.”
- ozten 5y ago
  Thank you!
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  - lsh123 5y ago
    “… 13 counts of willful retention of NDI” I highly doubt that anybody will buy “other people did this in the past too” as a defense argument. Though I am sure lawyers will try.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      - lsh123 5y ago
        I have no direct experience with classified information process in US government. But I highly doubt that anyone can un-classify something without paperwork trail. Imagine a situation when CIA sends top secret briefing to the Secretary of State based on sensitive information from a spy. Declassification of this briefing might result in spy being executed. Thus, I highly doubt that the Secretary of State can declassify this briefing just by herself. Edit: even the president can’t just declassify docs and had to consult with FBI (and accept their redactions): https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-doj-declassify-russia-probe-documents-460511 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-doj-declassif...
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        You'll have to point to the regulation that declares that the Secretary of State cannot. Wanton burning of intelligence assets is generally backstopped by the President firing an incompetent Secretary of State, not the law. For offices below the Secretary of State, there are laws.
        lsh123 5y ago
        Ops, I pressed the wrong reply and replied to you in another thread —- sorry!
        jancsika 5y ago
        You started: > I have no direct experience with classified information process in US government. You then have an edit where you make a broad claim about the power of the president to declassify documents. However, the article you linked doesn't make any claim about limits on the Office of the President to declassify documents. It only describes the standard process Trump was following to declassify those documents. You should take some time to look into this issue more deeply, as there is a lot written about the power of the president to declassify documents. (Unless of course you are attempting to anger the internet into revealing its answers by making bold assertions, in which case well played, my friend :)
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    Even if they get to set classification, they DIDNT do it. And using the wrong storage/servers (non governmental?!) should not be excused for any State employee. Leadership has a responsibility just as much as a new hire. Everyone is responsible for security
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      It is not a security issue. The state.gov email server, which is meant for unclassified communication, was hacked during this time, while the clintonemail.com server was not. It is a document retention issue. If none of the Secretaries were trying to circumvent the retention rules and were emailing or CCing state.gov addresses on most of their emails anyway, the issue becomes fairly small. That is why none of them were prosecuted.
      - throwoutway 5y ago
        You’re comparing unrelated things: An unclassified server was hacked. That’s a security issue on unclassified data An unclassified, non-State server was used with classified data. That’s a security issue on classified data. You can pretend it’s only a document retention issue, but it’s both
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        It would also be a security issue if only the state.gov server were used with classified data, which is what would have happened if clintonemail.com weren't used, putting it on both state.gov and clintonemail.com servers. The fact that political officials occasionally use improper channels is something that always happens. Clintonemail.com didn't change that. The fact that it is a security issue doesn't make it prosecutable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    >The lapse was considered so minor, partly because Secretary of State has final say on classification level anyway This seems a very similar argument to one suggesting that a supreme court justice can never be charged with a crime.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      If multiple Supreme Court justices do exactly the same particular thing that you think is a crime, but none of them are prosecuted, it is very likely that you were incorrect in thinking that what they did was a crime. Ignoring a police order to disperse is a crime, but a police chief who directed the officer to make that order can generally ignore that order unless they are acting maliciously.
tomohawk 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view, as well as from a classification point of view. A review of emails found classified information there. She was required to take document management and classified information classes when she became Sec State.
- trelane 5y ago
  I wish the government folks would actually follow the rules for once. R & D seem to both be terrible, and it only seems to matter when the other side does it. Frickin' US politics.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    This absolutely happens in other (non US) jurisdictions. For example the one I'm in. The standard process is that some executive or minister does something untoward and everyone else who works in govt gets sent on mandatory training. It doesn't change the behavior of those who think they are above the rules.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    It's the whole legal/court system... If a couple of politicians got imprisoned for that (like a normal employee probably would get), the rest would be a lot more careful around sensitive data. But sonce the law treats the rich and influential differently than the "normal people", we have situations like this one now.
- mpyne 5y ago
  > She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view Yes, this is not permitted, even if in practice it's not a grave crime (because if it is a grave crime you'd have to lock up 95% of government employees). At least in Dept of State it looks like the IT staff retain emails as records. In the Navy even that doesn't happen, and Navy workers are expected to instead manually export all emails that might be "records" into a whole separate system. > A review of emails found classified information there. This is true, but I would like to note that any agency can classify information, whether you knew it was classified or not, and this covered much (I won't claim all) of Clinton's activity. E.g. a Washington Post article gets sent to her about outcry in Pakistan due to a U.S. drone strike in the area. Huge diplomatic incident. "How should we handle this boss?". The problem is that the drone strike came from a covert activity run by a different agency. Since it's covert, it's also classified. Now Clinton is "engaged in classified correspondence". It doesn't help that it's already in the public sphere and that she is literally talking about this issue with Pakistani diplomats who are definitely not cleared to receive U.S. classified info. Nope, in the same way government workers were told to be careful not to comment on news media about Snowden leaks, Clinton is technically guilty of sharing classified info over unclassified (and personal!) email. I don't know whether the present case is like Clinton's (i.e. mixed in with what you might call innocuous) or actual witting sharing of classified info. I'd probably still bet on the latter.

by ozten 5y ago

lsh123 5y ago

I am the author of the flagged post with a link to Wikipedia article on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Classified_information_in_emails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve...): “The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret;" more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.” EDIT: compare with: “If convicted, Unkenholz faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each of the 13 counts of willful transmission of NDI and for each of the 13 counts of willful retention of NDI.”

ozten 5y ago
Thank you!
lern_too_spel 5y ago
- lsh123 5y ago
  “… 13 counts of willful retention of NDI” I highly doubt that anybody will buy “other people did this in the past too” as a defense argument. Though I am sure lawyers will try.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    - lsh123 5y ago
      I have no direct experience with classified information process in US government. But I highly doubt that anyone can un-classify something without paperwork trail. Imagine a situation when CIA sends top secret briefing to the Secretary of State based on sensitive information from a spy. Declassification of this briefing might result in spy being executed. Thus, I highly doubt that the Secretary of State can declassify this briefing just by herself. Edit: even the president can’t just declassify docs and had to consult with FBI (and accept their redactions): https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-doj-declassify-russia-probe-documents-460511 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/trump-doj-declassif...
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        You'll have to point to the regulation that declares that the Secretary of State cannot. Wanton burning of intelligence assets is generally backstopped by the President firing an incompetent Secretary of State, not the law. For offices below the Secretary of State, there are laws.
        lsh123 5y ago
        Ops, I pressed the wrong reply and replied to you in another thread —- sorry!
      - jancsika 5y ago
        You started: > I have no direct experience with classified information process in US government. You then have an edit where you make a broad claim about the power of the president to declassify documents. However, the article you linked doesn't make any claim about limits on the Office of the President to declassify documents. It only describes the standard process Trump was following to declassify those documents. You should take some time to look into this issue more deeply, as there is a lot written about the power of the president to declassify documents. (Unless of course you are attempting to anger the internet into revealing its answers by making bold assertions, in which case well played, my friend :)
- throwoutway 5y ago
  Even if they get to set classification, they DIDNT do it. And using the wrong storage/servers (non governmental?!) should not be excused for any State employee. Leadership has a responsibility just as much as a new hire. Everyone is responsible for security
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    It is not a security issue. The state.gov email server, which is meant for unclassified communication, was hacked during this time, while the clintonemail.com server was not. It is a document retention issue. If none of the Secretaries were trying to circumvent the retention rules and were emailing or CCing state.gov addresses on most of their emails anyway, the issue becomes fairly small. That is why none of them were prosecuted.
    - throwoutway 5y ago
      You’re comparing unrelated things: An unclassified server was hacked. That’s a security issue on unclassified data An unclassified, non-State server was used with classified data. That’s a security issue on classified data. You can pretend it’s only a document retention issue, but it’s both
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        It would also be a security issue if only the state.gov server were used with classified data, which is what would have happened if clintonemail.com weren't used, putting it on both state.gov and clintonemail.com servers. The fact that political officials occasionally use improper channels is something that always happens. Clintonemail.com didn't change that. The fact that it is a security issue doesn't make it prosecutable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  >The lapse was considered so minor, partly because Secretary of State has final say on classification level anyway This seems a very similar argument to one suggesting that a supreme court justice can never be charged with a crime.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    If multiple Supreme Court justices do exactly the same particular thing that you think is a crime, but none of them are prosecuted, it is very likely that you were incorrect in thinking that what they did was a crime. Ignoring a police order to disperse is a crime, but a police chief who directed the officer to make that order can generally ignore that order unless they are acting maliciously.

tomohawk 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controve... She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view, as well as from a classification point of view. A review of emails found classified information there. She was required to take document management and classified information classes when she became Sec State.

trelane 5y ago
I wish the government folks would actually follow the rules for once. R & D seem to both be terrible, and it only seems to matter when the other side does it. Frickin' US politics.
- earleybird 5y ago
  This absolutely happens in other (non US) jurisdictions. For example the one I'm in. The standard process is that some executive or minister does something untoward and everyone else who works in govt gets sent on mandatory training. It doesn't change the behavior of those who think they are above the rules.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  It's the whole legal/court system... If a couple of politicians got imprisoned for that (like a normal employee probably would get), the rest would be a lot more careful around sensitive data. But sonce the law treats the rich and influential differently than the "normal people", we have situations like this one now.
mpyne 5y ago
> She used her personal email for official communication quite a bit. This is illegal from a public records point of view Yes, this is not permitted, even if in practice it's not a grave crime (because if it is a grave crime you'd have to lock up 95% of government employees). At least in Dept of State it looks like the IT staff retain emails as records. In the Navy even that doesn't happen, and Navy workers are expected to instead manually export all emails that might be "records" into a whole separate system. > A review of emails found classified information there. This is true, but I would like to note that any agency can classify information, whether you knew it was classified or not, and this covered much (I won't claim all) of Clinton's activity. E.g. a Washington Post article gets sent to her about outcry in Pakistan due to a U.S. drone strike in the area. Huge diplomatic incident. "How should we handle this boss?". The problem is that the drone strike came from a covert activity run by a different agency. Since it's covert, it's also classified. Now Clinton is "engaged in classified correspondence". It doesn't help that it's already in the public sphere and that she is literally talking about this issue with Pakistani diplomats who are definitely not cleared to receive U.S. classified info. Nope, in the same way government workers were told to be careful not to comment on news media about Snowden leaks, Clinton is technically guilty of sharing classified info over unclassified (and personal!) email. I don't know whether the present case is like Clinton's (i.e. mixed in with what you might call innocuous) or actual witting sharing of classified info. I'd probably still bet on the latter.