The Comey Comb Over and the Petraeus Parallel
FBI Director James Comey issued a press statement today that made it clear the FBI is not recommending that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be charged over her actions in the so-called email scandal. While saying that "...no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" he did call the handling of classified material by Secretary Clinton to be "extremely careless."
Predictably Democrats are focused on the fact there apparently will not be a prosecution while Republicans are claiming the system is rigged. Donald Trump tweeted “The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said the FBI's decision "...defies explanation."
So what's really going on here?
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Clearly there isn't a felony violation here. The statute requires that for a violation to occur the action must have been done knowingly and willfully. Based on the requirement for security briefings to be conducted prior to and while access to classified information has been granted, anything was done knowingly. But the intent to disclose classified information does not appear to be present.
However, the decision to transmit emails from a private email server, where proper protocols for protection of classified information aren't present seems to be at the very least a misdemeanor violation of the law.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."
So the FBI concluded that Secretary Clinton sent and received classified emails in spite of her claims she did not do so.
Troubling? Yes. Criminal? No. Indicative of transparency and honest? Hell no!
"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."
Secretary Clinton had claimed that all of her work-related emails had been turned over.
Another Clinton claim debunked.
I'm of the belief that her transgressions in handling classified material do indeed rise to the level of a misdemeanor violation of the law. That the decision of the FBI to not recommend prosecution is politically motivated. I can't prove either of those beliefs but they are my personal opinions.
In 1981 I was stationed on Guam in a unit that had several offices on base. In one of those, where classified messages had to be prepared for transmission on an irregular but not infrequent basis, the administrative specialist lost her security clearance. So until her tour was over and a replacement with the proper clearance was assigned there, whenever they needed a classified message typed up; I had to go prepare it. I mention this to illustrate the proper handling of classified materials.
We were using the them modern IBM Selectric typewriters with easily removable typewriter ribbons in plastic cases. They were the correcting Selectric so there was a black ink ribbon and a white correction ribbon. Prior to preparing a classified message, I had to remove both ribbons and replace them with the "classified" ribbons from the safe. Ordinary ribbons were tossed into the trash. Classified ribbons went into the burn bag for proper disposal. In those days we had to use carbon paper to prepare the required copies of messages, as we did not have a copier approved for making copies of classified materials. The carbon sheets had to be counted and logged into the burn bag, as did everything else we put in that bag. In point of fact, one day when I was doingoneof those messages, I tried to apply the proper "Secret" stamp on the message and the stamp pad was out of ink. After re-inking it, I made a test stamp on a blank piece of notebook paper. The security officer insisted I log that blank page and put it into the burn bag.
Or to make a long story short, you go overboard to protect classified materials. Even general officers knew and did this (I'll get to General Petraeus in a moment). Secretary Clinton and those with whom she exchanged these emails did not do so. The result of their reckless handling of such materials led to this portion of Director Comey's statement:
"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
Scary.
Let's review that Trump tweet.
"The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."
No Mister Trump, what General Petraeus did was not far less. It was much more.
Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information, improperly, to those individuals who did have the appropriate security clearance and need to know.
General Petraeus transmitted classified information, improperly, to a woman who might have had the appropriate level of clearance at the time, but did not meet the need to know basis test. Worse yet, the general gave this classified material to his extramarital lover. If anything, he got off easy, because an enlisted military member having an extramarital affair would have been punished for the affair itself.
So there is no parallel between the two breaches of the rules involving handling classified information.
What Secretary Clinton did was wrong. Anyone else would have been charged with a misdemeanor. But that doesn't change the fact that if the choice on the November presidential election ballot involves choosing between her and Donald Trump, I'll vote for Secretary Clinton. Not because I support her but because Donald J. Trump, in my mind, represents a clear and present danger to the future of the continued existence of the United States.
Predictably Democrats are focused on the fact there apparently will not be a prosecution while Republicans are claiming the system is rigged. Donald Trump tweeted “The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said the FBI's decision "...defies explanation."
So what's really going on here?
The Comey Comb Over
No, the Director of the FBI does not comb over a bald spot on his head, but his press release certainly covers any real exposure that Secretary Clinton had in this email situation. Let's parse some of what he said:"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
Clearly there isn't a felony violation here. The statute requires that for a violation to occur the action must have been done knowingly and willfully. Based on the requirement for security briefings to be conducted prior to and while access to classified information has been granted, anything was done knowingly. But the intent to disclose classified information does not appear to be present.
However, the decision to transmit emails from a private email server, where proper protocols for protection of classified information aren't present seems to be at the very least a misdemeanor violation of the law.
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."
So the FBI concluded that Secretary Clinton sent and received classified emails in spite of her claims she did not do so.
Troubling? Yes. Criminal? No. Indicative of transparency and honest? Hell no!
"The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond."
Secretary Clinton had claimed that all of her work-related emails had been turned over.
Another Clinton claim debunked.
I'm of the belief that her transgressions in handling classified material do indeed rise to the level of a misdemeanor violation of the law. That the decision of the FBI to not recommend prosecution is politically motivated. I can't prove either of those beliefs but they are my personal opinions.
Proper Handling of Classified Information
In the days when I was handling classified information, use of personal computers was in its infancy. Prior to 1985 the military units to which I was assigned didn't have computerized word processing machines, let alone PCs. But the basic principles for handling classified materials have not changed. Protect that which is classified.In 1981 I was stationed on Guam in a unit that had several offices on base. In one of those, where classified messages had to be prepared for transmission on an irregular but not infrequent basis, the administrative specialist lost her security clearance. So until her tour was over and a replacement with the proper clearance was assigned there, whenever they needed a classified message typed up; I had to go prepare it. I mention this to illustrate the proper handling of classified materials.
We were using the them modern IBM Selectric typewriters with easily removable typewriter ribbons in plastic cases. They were the correcting Selectric so there was a black ink ribbon and a white correction ribbon. Prior to preparing a classified message, I had to remove both ribbons and replace them with the "classified" ribbons from the safe. Ordinary ribbons were tossed into the trash. Classified ribbons went into the burn bag for proper disposal. In those days we had to use carbon paper to prepare the required copies of messages, as we did not have a copier approved for making copies of classified materials. The carbon sheets had to be counted and logged into the burn bag, as did everything else we put in that bag. In point of fact, one day when I was doingoneof those messages, I tried to apply the proper "Secret" stamp on the message and the stamp pad was out of ink. After re-inking it, I made a test stamp on a blank piece of notebook paper. The security officer insisted I log that blank page and put it into the burn bag.
Or to make a long story short, you go overboard to protect classified materials. Even general officers knew and did this (I'll get to General Petraeus in a moment). Secretary Clinton and those with whom she exchanged these emails did not do so. The result of their reckless handling of such materials led to this portion of Director Comey's statement:
"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
Scary.
The Petraeus Parallel
Let's review that Trump tweet.
"The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment."
No Mister Trump, what General Petraeus did was not far less. It was much more.
Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information, improperly, to those individuals who did have the appropriate security clearance and need to know.
General Petraeus transmitted classified information, improperly, to a woman who might have had the appropriate level of clearance at the time, but did not meet the need to know basis test. Worse yet, the general gave this classified material to his extramarital lover. If anything, he got off easy, because an enlisted military member having an extramarital affair would have been punished for the affair itself.
So there is no parallel between the two breaches of the rules involving handling classified information.
Conclusion
What Secretary Clinton did was wrong. Anyone else would have been charged with a misdemeanor. But that doesn't change the fact that if the choice on the November presidential election ballot involves choosing between her and Donald Trump, I'll vote for Secretary Clinton. Not because I support her but because Donald J. Trump, in my mind, represents a clear and present danger to the future of the continued existence of the United States.
posted by me at 12:19 PM
<< Home