7 ms·

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_

by 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 :)
        lsh123 5y ago
        Thanks, sorry I should have used different wording. I agree that the president has the power to classify/declassify anything. My example was that the president on the last day in the office followed the procedure to declassify documents highly important for him instead of taking photos on the phone and posting on Twitter ;)
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      This is specifically the thing that I tend to find so exhausting about these discussions. People get so bent out of shape about their perception the rules are violated when they don't even put the time in to know what the rules are.
      - lsh123 5y ago
        So I believe this is the latest and greatest rules on the subject: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 Reading section 3.1, Secretary of State has the power to declassify only the information that originally was classified inside that office. In my example above with a CIA briefing, only the CIA itself or the DNI can declassify it (ignoring automatic declassification because of time). And I’ll reiterate - I am sure there is a form 1234 one needs to fill in to actually declassify something.
        lsh123 5y ago
        BTW, I read the whole EO and it is surprisingly well written and makes a lot of sense for an official government rule book.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        I see nothing in there specifically binding an acting Secretary of State, and since none have been prosecuted, I infer there is nothing to prosecute. You have to also factor in the National Security Act of 1947, which this EO does not supercede. At the level of Cabinet, mishandling of classified information is a political question, not a legal one. ETA: Forgot to mention, you also have to consider the actual statue, 8 U.S. Code § 798. That statute makes clear that exempt from the list of unauthorized persons are people cabinet members authorize. It seems self-evident that secretary Clinton authorized secretary Clinton (and her IT staff) to handle classified information. If one turns one's head and squints, I suppose the secretary could have been held accountable if classified information was leaked from the server to an unauthorized recipient. It didn't happen, so no way to know what the consequences might have been had it occurred.
- 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.

by lsh123 5y ago

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 :)
      - lsh123 5y ago
        Thanks, sorry I should have used different wording. I agree that the president has the power to classify/declassify anything. My example was that the president on the last day in the office followed the procedure to declassify documents highly important for him instead of taking photos on the phone and posting on Twitter ;)
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    This is specifically the thing that I tend to find so exhausting about these discussions. People get so bent out of shape about their perception the rules are violated when they don't even put the time in to know what the rules are.
    - lsh123 5y ago
      So I believe this is the latest and greatest rules on the subject: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526 Reading section 3.1, Secretary of State has the power to declassify only the information that originally was classified inside that office. In my example above with a CIA briefing, only the CIA itself or the DNI can declassify it (ignoring automatic declassification because of time). And I’ll reiterate - I am sure there is a form 1234 one needs to fill in to actually declassify something.
      - lsh123 5y ago
        BTW, I read the whole EO and it is surprisingly well written and makes a lot of sense for an official government rule book.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        I see nothing in there specifically binding an acting Secretary of State, and since none have been prosecuted, I infer there is nothing to prosecute. You have to also factor in the National Security Act of 1947, which this EO does not supercede. At the level of Cabinet, mishandling of classified information is a political question, not a legal one. ETA: Forgot to mention, you also have to consider the actual statue, 8 U.S. Code § 798. That statute makes clear that exempt from the list of unauthorized persons are people cabinet members authorize. It seems self-evident that secretary Clinton authorized secretary Clinton (and her IT staff) to handle classified information. If one turns one's head and squints, I suppose the secretary could have been held accountable if classified information was leaked from the server to an unauthorized recipient. It didn't happen, so no way to know what the consequences might have been had it occurred.
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.