The Alphabet Soup of Classified Information

SPECAT
SIOP
SCI
NOFORN

Those are just a few of the many acronyms used in the world of classified information.  With the disclosure that an attorney for the National Security Council directed the removal of the transcript of the phone call between Donald Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky from where it was being stored to a "code word" server, a primer on classification might be handy.

The U.S. uses three basic levels of classification of information.

Top Secret - The highest level of classification.
Secret - The next highest level of classification.
Confidential - The lowest level of classification.

Code word refers to a specific program or subprogram within what is known as Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).  It is possible that something that is classified Secret could be SCI and/or have a code word.

The memorandum (which was not a true transcript) that the White House released of the aforementioned phone conversation was marked "SECRET/ORCON/NOFORN.

Secret is obvious.  ORCON is an acronym indicating that the originator of the document retains control over dissemination and/or release of the document.  NOFORN is an acronym that indicates the information cannot be disseminated to non-US citizens, without regard to their security clearance.

* * *

Does there have to be a quid pro quo for the "ask" made by Donald Trump in that phone call to rise to the level of an impeachable offense?  I do not believe so.  Ultimately it is the House of Representatives who make that call.  If they vote to impeach, it is the job of the U.S. Senate to conduct the trial.

Is it a crime to solicit help from a foreign government in an election?  Title 52 U.S. Code Section 30121(a) says it is:

(a) Prohibition  It shall be unlawful for—

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—

(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

When I was first trained on the proper handling of classified information, my trainer made it very clear that storage systems for classified information were not to be used for storage of unclassified information, with a few exceptions.  But if the transcript of the phone call was classified but not assigned a code word, it would be unusual but probably not a violation to use such a system to store it.

A number of questions need to be answered.  Did Donald Trump violate 52 USC Section 30121(a)?  It seems to me that it needs to be investigated.

Did Donald Trump violate 18 USC Section 2074?  Depends on how you interpret the section of the code.

"Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both."

Would using a Sharpie to alter a National Weather Service map to make a false claim that Alabama was in the path of a hurricane qualify as a violation of that code section?  You tell me.

I could cite other examples where it appears that Mr. Trump has violated the letter of the law.  Do those rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

The Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board made its position clear on impeachment back in 1998 when they published a piece by George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley.  He's a bit more forgiving when it comes to what Trump has allegedly done.

There will always be the issue of partisanship whenever the subject of impeachment arises.  The Los Angeles Times pointed this out brilliantly by comparing the statements of a number of members of the House and Senate, during the era of Clinton's impeachment and now.  My favorite was the one involving #MoscowMitch.

Then: “Our nation is indeed at a crossroads. Will we pursue the search for truth, or will we dodge, weave and evade the truth? I am of course referring to the investigation into serious allegations of illegal conduct by the president of the United States — that the president has engaged in a persistent pattern and practice of obstruction of justice. The allegations are grave, the investigation is legitimate, and ascertaining the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unqualified, unevasive truth is absolutely critical.”

– Feb. 12, 1998, floor statement

Now: “Instead of working together across party lines on legislation to help American families and strengthen our nation, they will descend even deeper into their obsession with relitigating 2016. This rush to judgment comes just a few hours after President Trump offered to release the details of his phone conversation with President Zelensky. It comes despite the fact that committee-level proceedings are already underway to address the whistleblower allegation through a fair, bipartisan and regular process. It simply confirms that House Democrats’ priority is not making life better for the American people but their nearly 3-year-old fixation on impeachment.”

– Sept. 24 statement

Labor Day Monday Musings

This weekend has featured a Category 5 hurricane named Dorian bringing "catastrophic destruction" to the Bahamas.  It is headed for the U.S. East Coast.  Yet another mass shooting in Texas, this time in the Midland/Odessa area.  The death toll rose from 7 to 8 with nearly two dozen wounded.

Donald Trump was supposed to be in Poland for an event recognizing the start of World War II, but he canceled his trip to "monitor" Hurricane Dorian.  Apparently he feels the best place to do that is on the golf course.

This man is the living embodiment of the Peter principle.

He said he'd never heard of a Category 5 hurricane even though three of them prior to Dorian have happened since his inauguration.  This past May he visited Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and said he had seen the damage caused by a Cat 5 hurricane.  Now just weeks later he's never heard of one?

He said Dorian was going to make landfall in Alabama, which is ridiculous.  He's clueless.

* * *

With all of Trump's flaws, I'm not quite sure how to take this meme.

If Hurricane Dorian were to make a direct hit on Mar-a-Lago and level it, I wouldn't shed a single tear for Trump's loss.  But people live in that area.  I don't want them to suffer just to inflict loss on Trump.

* * *

Then there was the tragedy involving a dive boat near Santa Cruz Island here in CA.  4 known dead, 30 people missing after a fire burned the boat Conception down to the waterline.  There are reports that the passengers were trapped below deck without an escape hatch, but those reports are as yet unconfirmed.

How could that happen?

* * *

Two weeks from tomorrow, on 9/17, Trump will be in Beverly Hills for a fundraiser.  One where the top ticket price is $100,000.  Assuming the event is for his presidential campaign fund itself and not for some PAC, the contributions will eventually become a matter of public record.

So why the kerfuffle over the requests of actors Eric McCormack and Debra Messing to make public the names of the attendees?  Because they called upon the Hollywood Reporter to do that after that publication put out a story on the event?  Or because it is an attempt to identify conservatives who may have connections to the entertainment industry?

Hey, @THR, kindly report on everyone attending this event, so the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t wanna work with. Thx. https://t.co/7W3xPG3bI2

— Eric McCormack (@EricMcCormack) August 30, 2019

I cannot find a record of it but I do recall that back in the 1980s timeframe, Ed Asner (whose star was much brighter at the time) said he would not work with any Republican.  He was accused by actress Morgan Brittany of refusing to speak to her after he learned she wasn't a "...typical Hollywood liberal..."

I have no problem with identifying who donates to a campaign.  Transparency is paramount.  Should that information be used to "blacklist" the donors?  If I learn a business is supporting a candidate that I find loathsome, I have the right to refuse to patronize that business.

Actor John O'Hurley had a strong reaction to the calls from McCormack and Messing for a list of the donors.  "It underscores the fact that we aren't receptive to diversity of thought, which is the exact opposite of what you feel the liberal way would be. I find that obscene."

But refusing to work with someone who doesn't share our political views seems like it is a different question.  What do you think?

* * *

5 drinkers.

6 hours.

86 shots of soju.

Those numbers are truly frightening. 

During my 12 month tour of duty in South Korea I saw many of my fellow airmen with what we called the "Soju Stare" in the morning after a night of imbibing the potent liquor.  It is not to be trifled with.  I cannot imagine five people drinking that much of it in such a relatively short period of time without serious harm coming to them.

* * *