Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court filing: State Dept. will not attempt to search Hillary’s server

Court filing: State Dept. will not attempt to search Hillary’s server

“not currently working with DOJ, the FBI, or other government agencies to search former Secretary Clinton’s private email server…”

We noted in a post yesterday that the federal court, in the Judicial Watch FOIA case involving records relating to Huma Abedin’s outside employment. had ordered to Department of State to make a supplemental filing today as to efforts to search the server turned over by Hillary to the Department of Justice.

The State Department just filed an August 14, 2015 Status Report (full embed at bottom of post), in which it states that it is not even attempting to search the server.

The reason is that the server is not under State Dept. control, and it does not feel legally obligated to try to search a server in the possession of another agency.

In addition, the State Dept. says that is it relying on Hillary’s declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents which are or potentially are federal records already have been produced by Hillary’s attorneys. This makes Hillary’s sworn declaration all the more central.

As we documented last night, there are gaps in the explanation given by Hillary and her attorney’s as to the server, including searches.

James F. Peterson, a Senior Attorney at Judicial Watch,* provided the following statement:

“The State Department again has ignored a court order to provide any additional details about the missing emails of Secretary Clinton and her staff. Additional court-ordered steps to discover this information plainly are now required.”

(added) Tom Fitton, the President of Judicial Watch, has issued the following statement:

“The State Department filing is woefully deficient, misleading, and contemptuous of the court’s orders for complete disclosure about Mrs. Clinton’s email system. Now we know that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have joined hands in this email scandal. The State Department relies on the half-baked, vague declaration by Hillary Clinton and a misleading letter by her lawyer to try to avoid its obligations to produce records under the Freedom of Information Act. It is now clear that Mrs. Clinton is withholding servers and emails from the FBI and Justice Department, and Judge Sullivan is being misled to conclude otherwise. We will seek appropriate relief from the court.”

[* – Note, Peterson and Judicial Watch have represented Legal Insurrection in FOIA matters including as to David Gregory and the Virginia State Bar.]

Here are the relevant excerpts from the State Department’s court filing today:

In a Minute Order entered on August 13, 2015, the Court directed the State Department to indicate in this status report “the extent to which [it] is working with other government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, to search Mrs. Clinton’s private email server for information relevant to this lawsuit.”

It is the State Department’s understanding that on August 12, 2015 the Department of Justice (DOJ) took custody of former Secretary Clinton’s private email server for storage in a secure manner in connection with the classification of some of the 55,000 pages. See Kendall letter at 1-2, attached as Exhibit E to Def.’s Status Report (ECF No. 24). The Department is not currently working with DOJ, the FBI, or other government agencies to search former Secretary Clinton’s private email server for information responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request for the following reasons. First, FOIA does not require an agency to search for and produce records that are not in its possession and control. See Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150-51, 155 (1980); National Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Department lacks such possession and control over former Secretary Clinton’s server.

Second, FOIA requires an agency to conduct a search “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2007). As the Court is aware, in December 2014, former Secretary Clinton provided to the State Department 55,000 pages of her emails from her clintonemail.com account that were or potentially were federal records. At the Court’s request, former Secretary Clinton has declared under penalty of perjury that these materials constitute all of her emails on clintonemail.com that were or potentially were federal records. Accordingly, the Department reasonably believes that further searches of the original repository of these materials will not result in additional responsive materials.

In related news, the FBI is commencing an effort to recover data from the server, though that begs the question as to whether there are other devices and locations in which the data was stored after the server was wiped clean in 2013 and stored by a Colorado company at a New Jersey storage location.

Additionally, the stakes are raised because the Colorado company did not have security clearance to possess classified information.

————————

Judicial Watch Foia Case Huma Abedin – Defendant’s August 14, 2015 Status Report

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Teflon Donna.

Need to look through all emails in the State Department for emails from and to Hillary. Then find those that were forwarded by her to others and those broadcasted to her and others. Lastly check to see if these emails were turned over by Clinton.

Need to change policies so that both sent and received emails are recorded for posterity.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to ConradCA. | August 14, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    Lastly check to see if these emails were turned over by Clinton.

    They did that last year.

    Secretary of State John Kerry indicated that he thought they now had all her e-mail – meaning that they went back and forth. Although they are hard to collect and most were deleted, they eventually were not finding any that she hadn’t sent.

    What they got were any e-mails that the State Department might possibly have copies of.

    It’s all the e-mails that were not sent to or from a state.gov address where the problem is.

Sammy Finkelman | August 14, 2015 at 4:03 pm

This is the old server, not the one Hillary Clinton and her lawyers extracted e-mails from in 2014.

The Wall Street Journal editorial was unclear as to whether the handing over the server was voluntary or in response to a subpoena, but ABC news has reported it was voluntary. Or at least Platte Rover Networks didn’t get a subpoena.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-hands-private-email-server-justice-department/story?id=33069662

Subpoenas are usually pretty broad. Voluntary agreements, not so much.

I wonder if the DOJ person who agreed to this even understood what he was getting.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | August 14, 2015 at 4:05 pm

It would appear by that statement that the :::cough::::cough:::: state department has an extinction wish – to put itself out of existence…..

Sammy Finkelman | August 14, 2015 at 4:40 pm

Another point to contemplate:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-ship-takes-on-water-1439507369

And so it remains a possibility the feds took Mrs. Clinton’s server as a means of safeguarding it from other prying hands—the courts, inspectors general, Congress—until this election is over.

If the FBI now goes quiet, and other agencies start using the FBI probe as an excuse to stop any further action on Clinton emails, that will be the tipoff.

At what point can we refer to sHrillary as “the felon Democrat candidate”? In my mind we’re there, even though she has not yet been convicted.

And, it seems Obama is complicit in sHrillary’s e-mail crimes, as he had to have known she was not using a secure government e-mail address.

Sammy Finkelman | August 14, 2015 at 5:14 pm

Her attorneys also only reviewed email from and to the [email protected] account.

http://democrats.benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_03_27_Kendall_to_TG_re_Response_to_March_4_Subpoena.pdf

Page 2.

Her lawyer says that a month after she left the department Gawker published that address (that was the Guccifer leak) and she changed her e-mail address. He says that [email protected] did not exist until March, 2013.

There is an issue of whether that statement is correct.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/clintons-secret-email-accounts/

Factcheck says that when they printed out the e-mails, the new and current e-mail address was used, but you can see when e-mail is quoted in a message that her e-mail address at the time was the older one. And they duplicated it.

I think also that it has been public knowledge for more than four months that there were two servers, an old one and a new one, but I can’t find a citation right now. But I know I didn’t learn that this week.

I believe a credible platform to run against hillary is one that PROMISES to get to the bottom of all the clinton and obama scandals including anything that the criminal holder had a hand in and then go after the fast & furious crowd. Move on to the IRS and Benghazi not to overlook the cronyism from the Great stimulus act of 2008. A pol could promise swift and terrible justice towards any and all caught in this cesspool.Never in my lifetime have I seen such corruption in office as I have seen under these two crooks.

Sammy Finkelman | August 14, 2015 at 7:15 pm

And, it seems Obama is complicit in sHrillary’s e-mail crimes, as he had to have known she was not using a secure government e-mail address.

No, because while some people in the White House knew that she had a [email protected] address, they didn’t know that she did NOT have a state,goc address.

She fooled them.

Under the rules then in place, she could use a private e-mail address to transact government business, but when she did that she was supposed to cc: to a government address.

And, as she herself said, that’s what she did:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/11/a-line-edit-of-hillary-clintons-disastrous-email-press-conference/

Now, there are different rules governing the White House than there are governing the rest of the executive branch, and in order to address the requirements I was under, I did exactly what I have said. I emailed two people, and I not only knew, I expected that then to be captured in the State Department or any other government agency that I was emailing to at a .gov account.

The text in boldface is the only part of the goobledegook here that matters.

What this means is that, in addition to e-mailing the White House, she e-mailed a copy to what the person in the White House would believe was her state.gov address.

The “two people” are 1) the person she was e-mailing, and 2) the person who owned the other address at state.gov she was cc:ing it to.

It was probably not used except for this purpose.

Nobody picked up on this.

“[T]he State Dept. says that is it relying on Hillary’s declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents which are or potentially are federal records already have been produced by Hillary’s attorneys.”

Well, it’s not like a Clinton ever lied under oath before, right?

If I got the job as Secretary of State, I would EXPECT that there would be a State Department-based email system. I would ask (like we all do when we get new jobs), “What’s my work email address?”

But America’s Lady Macbeth STARTED OUT ON DAY ONE saying, “I’ll set up my own in some outside source.”

She KNEW she was going to be running a devious office. She knew this from the first day.

“[T]he State Dept. says that is it relying on Hillary’s declaration under penalty of perjury that all documents which are or potentially are federal records already have been produced by Hillary’s attorneys.”

Should a peon like me be investigated by the authorities they’ll accept my sworn statement that I’m innocent and drop their investigation?

Obama has shown time and again a complete contempt for the rule of law. Now it seems that one government agency after another is adopting Obama’s contempt for the rule of law. This will only continue to become worse and worse and will not stop until people start going to jail.

1. The State Department is run by a Democrat. 2. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. 3. Next question?

On another comment thread Sammy Finkelman linked to comments Senator Moynihan made about security. He quoted the comments an Assistant Secretary of State who testified before his committee:

“Another reason that diplomatic transactions and internal deliberations do not end up on paper is because of the extreme sensitivity of the subject matter. What goes down on paper is more likely to come out in public, in inappropriate and
harmful ways, harmful to the national interest.2”

We know this is simply not true from a variety of sources, including published newspaper accounts of the thousands of pieces of message traffic Bradly Manning leaked to Wikileaks. Which included some very damaging and embarrassing state department cables. And some of the classified information Snowden stole and leaked to the press.

Such as this:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-11-18/news/44202075_1_hotel-room-diplomats-hotel-guest

“… The top secret programme automatically checked whether the e-mail address of a visitor on the hotel booking system matched with the address of his government and with this information the GCHQ could take the necessary steps to bug the concerned hotel room, to tap its telephones or to eavesdrop into the electronic data transfer, the news weekly said.

Reports on GCHQ’s snooping into the travel plans of diplomats and politicians are the latest revelations from a trove of documents on the extensive surveillance operations of American and British intelligence agencies that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden took with him when he fled the US at the end of May.

Der Spiegel said GCHQ has been using the search and analyse programme for more than three years to track diplomats and government officials among hotel guests…”

Not to get too detailed, but diplomatic information is highly valued simply because people try to learn what their plans, goals, and strategies are in negotiations or other interactions. Also, if the state department is coordinating in negotiations they would have to communicate back and forth with their foreign counterparts. They can’t do that and not put anything in writing, of course now all this is generally handled electronically.

It is why State Department personnel are supposed to use supposedly secure government systems. Even unclassified information is sometimes (perhaps more often than not) sensitive and marked FOUO; For Official Use Only.

It is simply not true that the Secretary of State has the authority to declassify information. That function belonged to the Director of Central Intelligence. The DCI decided what information was to be classified at what level. So the Secretary of State could not simply disregard those rules. Especially if her Department (the DoS’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research is part to the Intel Community) did not originate the information. If DoS got something from DoD, for instance, it was DoD’s call as how something was to be classified based upon the DCI’s guidance. State simply had no authority to treat something the DoD had classified TS codeword as anything less than that.

Also unless Clinton’s office and personal staff worked inside a SCIF there is no way there’d be a TS system in her office. Again, the DCI sets (or used to set; I don’t know how it works since they’ve reorganized the IC) requirements for safeguarding the different levels of classified. So there might have been a GENSER system in Clinton’s office sweet, but no way was there a TS system. And these systems can’t communicate with each other as it would be too easy to accidentally transmit information from a TS sytem to a GENSER system. And neither of those systems will communicate to an UNCLAS system.

It may be possible that Hillary Clinton was given classified briefings in her office at the TS level, but someone would have had to go the SCIF and print it off, and then at least put it in a folder before leaving the secure area. I would have gone to prison if I left a SCIF with that level of classified that at least wasn’t double wrapped and in a locked briefcase, with signed permission from the security officer to transport it after I signed some paperwork. But as Orwell, and Moynihan, observed some animals are more equal than others and I was not among the privileged anointed class.

By the way, in case someone thinks I’m speaking about thinks I shouldn’t be speaking about many of the DCI instructions that I used to have to comply with have been superceded, declassified, and are in the public domain. You can find them online.

So the bottom line is that two IGs have asked the FBI to start a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email practices. The press is in full spin mode, but it isn’t just some security review. The FBI looks into what was mishandled, they also do a damage assessment but they always at the end of the day look into whether or not criminal charges are warranted.

Any of those actions are criminal. Especially after Bradley Manning committed his deliberate breach by bringing private media, either CD’s or DVDS, into his classified works space that were marked as home copies of Lady Gaga music and pretended to rock out while he illegally downloading mountains of classified.

In fact, after the Bradley Manning case broke Hillary Clinton herself gave a speech reminding everyone in her department of the importance of protecting classified information.

I have no idea what his security officer was thinking. No personal media ever goes into classified systems precisely to guard against the Bradly Mannings of the world. If that media goes into a classified system it becomes government property on the spot. And if classified information gets on your UNCLAS PC or laptop, or server in Hillary’s case, if that computer isn’t already government property then it is now. And so would any device Hillary used to send and receive emails from that server such as her unclas blackberry or iPad, and every other computer or server that interacted with her server. And it also becomes classified at the hightest level of whatever information has gone onto that computer.

So Hillary Clinton is wrong, and everyone who parrots her excuses are wrong, when she claims her server is personal and private. Not if even on iota of classified data, even only confidential information, has been on it.

I can’t see how any FBI investigations would not recommend criminal charges in this case as the breach is so massive, and it could only have been done intentionally. Because TS codeword doesn’t get onto UNCLAS systems by accident. You’d have to download it on some unauthorized and illegal private media such as a thumb drive or a disk or just print it off and either upload the intelligence from the media onto the UNCLAS system. Or simply manually fatfinger the data into the UNCLAS system the old fashioned way. After illegally stripping it of its classification and dissemination markings.

In case anyone is interested, you can read the DCIDS that governed the security requirements for handling, storing, and disseminating intel here.

https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid.htm

They were all approved for public release years ago, or at least the ones that are linked at the site.

“DCIDs:
Director of Central Intelligence Directives

Director of Central Intelligence Directives (DCIDs) were formerly the principal instrument for defining intelligence community-wide policies. Since the establishment and the appointment of the Director of National Intelligence in 2005, however, many DCIDs have been updated, modified, replaced or reissued by the DNI as Intelligence Community Directives (ICDs). DCIDs that have been publicly released include the following. Somewhat awkwardly, they are indexed by CIA in “old” (P) and “new” categories, as listed below.

Old Category 1 – Protection of Sources and Methods – Requirements and Priorities…”

It is critical to note that the Secretary of State does not have the authority to declassify information. If the DoS’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) gets intelligence from other members of the IC, then INR must follow the originating agency’s classification and all such policies have to be uniform across the entire IC.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have been a member of the National Foreign Intelligence Board. The Director of INR would have had a seat on that board and would have had input. But they’d all be bound by the decisions of the NFIB when it came to executing security policy at their respective agencies. And ultimately the DCI had the final say.

Not Hillary Clinton.

So if Hillary Clinton tries to claim that there is some dispute over whether the information she was mishandling was really classified and if it was classified it was only classified later, and the Inspector General for the IC says it was indeed very classified at the time she was sending and receiving emails on her home brew server, by definition there is no longer any dispute. The IG for the IC has the final say. That settles the matter.

Clinton made a big production on passing the buck when it came to the physical security of her installations in Libya. Even though she is supposed to make the final call about security at high risk installations. And it was her responsibility to make the call about shutting down DoS facilities in locations where neither the local government or her own DSS could not safeguard the facility.

But she evaded the responsibility by claiming she was not an expert on physical security, she had people who worked for her who were, and she deferred to their professional judgement.

OK, well she also had professionals working for her who were intelligence professionals who were experts in INFOSEC and in accrediting Automated Information Systems. She clearly ignored their professional judgement in those two areas. If they were even aware of what she was so criminally and negligently doing.

She can’t have it both ways. Her own DoS IG agrees with the IC IG’s assessment of the information.

Clinton had a habit of not liking the security guidance she kept getting from her own security people. She repeatedly asked to use a smart phone for the conduct of official business, and her security people told her only a blackberry was accredited for official use.

It appears she just ignored them and used an iPad anyway. And it also appears that even though her DoS IT people were very distressed that she was not using a state.gov email account for government business and she just ignored their concerns.

And, finally, DoS had to at least discover that Clinton did not use an official email account since Benghazi when they were answering FOIA requests and coming up empty, and Congressional subpoenas for emails that were supposed to exist but nowhere to be found. For the simple reason that none of her over sixty thousand emails were on any government servers. They may have come up with some of her partners in crimes emails, and possibly others on email exchanges with people who were using the government systems. But it would have been glaringly obvious there were huge gaps that could only be explained by the fact that Clinton herself was using a private account.

And it’s inconceivable that when DoS discovered this they didn’t inform the WH of this pending disaster.

So their feigned surprise as if they were just finding out what was going on is unbelievable.

Maybe Obama’s underlings dutifully kept the information from Obama. That is how Mafia crime families and Chicago government operates. So since it wasn’t on ESPN Obama wouldn’t learn about it. Which is how he wanted it.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 3:25 pm

I listened to parts of Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation today, and read some newspaper articles, and everybody is still talking about <i< “the” server – where there were two, an old one and a new one.

The new one was the one searched, and the old has been turned over.

One thing I learned today: At one point, Hillary Clinton and/or her lawyers claimed that the Sidney Blumenthal e-mails were unsolicited, but Trey Gowdy says that is not so.

Also, one of the 15 e-mails not turned over was about Benghazi.

I still don’t know if any or all of the Bluementhal e-mails supposedly hacked by Guccifer and published in Russia Today

http://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/

in 2013 are:

A) Genuine

B) Altered

OR

C) Total forgeries.

But the leak most definitely came from Putin.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 3:29 pm

Just a note, for now:

I agree there’s a problem with what Moynihan wrote about Bosnia, but he was repeating basically what the Clinton Administration had told him.

In reality, Bill Clinton desired to conduct bits of U.S. foreign policy completely off the record. (and maybe insert things into the record that didn’t reflect his real policy!)

But I do think there’s a big problem of overclassification.

After the Wikileaks leak, people in the State Department were not allowed to look at or refer to anything published that was there for the world to see, because it was all still classified SECRET. Putting it on the Internet didn’t declasify it.

And maybe one of the Hillary Clinton SECRET or TOP SECRET emails involves a discussion that began with a newspaper article about drone strikes. It may not be one of the 40.

I don’t think the issue of classification is the big thing with Hillary’s e-mails. The question is what she was doing, and to whom, if anyone, did she forward things to. Keeping too many things classified will only prevent us from finding things out.

“…But I do think there’s a big problem of overclassification.

After the Wikileaks leak, people in the State Department were not allowed to look at or refer to anything published that was there for the world to see, because it was all still classified SECRET. Putting it on the Internet didn’t declasify it.

And maybe one of the Hillary Clinton SECRET or TOP SECRET emails involves a discussion that began with a newspaper article about drone strikes. It may not be one of the 40…”

Yes, overclassification is a big problem. And it has caused us big problems in the past. For instance, US torpedoes in WWII. Those programs about certain components, such as the magnetic portion of the exploder, were so highly classified almost no one who would have to use them knew about them, and to keep the program secret they didn’t adequately test them. So after Pearl Harbor when the technicians swapped out the standard contact exploders for the new top secret magnetic/contact exploder (it was supposed to set off the warhead if it impacted the ship or passed under the keel) they were a complete mystery to the warfighter. And tales of dud torpedoes are legendary. But the Bureau of Ordnance insisted they were perfect, and the fleet needed more training.

It turned out these exploders were junk. But the excessive secrecy cost a lot of sailors lives before that could be worked out.

That’s beside the point here. Whether Clinton or her aids thought something should not have been classified does not give them the authority on their own to treat it as if it’s not.

Just as with the Wikileaks leak, unauthorized personnel can not declassify information by their own actions. And just like Bradley Manning if Hillary Clinton had classified material on her server she had leaked the information. In fact by having company, Platte River Networks, with no facility wide accreditation for handling classified material she published that information just as surely as Manning did. To a smaller audience perhaps (and even that’s unsure) but by putting it on her server and giving members of the uncleared public access to it she published that information.

Of course this is a different thing entirely when someone who does have the authority, such as the Director of Central Intelligence, reviews and sanitizes documents and authorizes them for public release. As with the DCIDs. Those have been declassified.

R.E. what she discussed and the sources, according to reports those sources were not news reports. At least not in the 10% of the sample of 40 emails the DoS and IC IGs reviewed. In at least one case one of her aides try to flag her attention to what one of the letter agencies was reporting. Which should have made it clear that since it was coming from a member of the IC that the information was classified. If someone sent me an email that agency XYZ is reporting something or other, I’d want to know where the classification and dissemination markings are.

It may not be classified. But there would still be page and paragraph markings making it clear that there was not classified information in that report. To take an example from one of the DCIDs:

“Security Policy for Uniform Protection
of Intelligence Processed in
Automated Information Systems
and Networks (U)
(Effective 19 July 1988)

1 This directive supersedes DCID 1/16 effective 4 January 1983. (U)

Pursuant to the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the Director of Central Intelligence for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, Executive Orders 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145, policies and procedures are herewith established for the security of classified intelligence processed, communicated, or stored in automated information systems (AISs) and networks. (U)”

The title and paragraphs are clearly marked as UNCLAS. The original publication was classified, but any information that was released to the public would have been UNCLAS from the start, downgraded to UNCLAS, or redacted before release.

This is how any reporting from an intelligence agency would look. If it is UNCLAS you still do not remove the markings that make that very clear.

But then these IGs would be experts on what information is and is not unclassified and Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, etc., are not. The IGs wouldn’t confuse a completely unclassified press report with classified information.

I don’t see this turning out well for Mrs. Clinton:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

“…The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.”

It looks like someone is trying to spin the press like this is not big deal because so far only two of her emails contained TS codeword information, only one contained Secret, and the rest “only” contained confidential. So there’s really nothing to see.

No, that’s not how it works.

“THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release — April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION”

Executive Order 12958 has never been classified. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been a matter for the White House Press Secretary to handle. And it makes it clear that removing information that is classified as “only” confidential is still a serious matter.

” Sec. 1.3. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.”

I’ve known people to lose their clearance and their careers for removing confidential information from government facilities. You can’t just take it back to your house to read it.

I’ve seen people get administrative separations from the Navy under other than honorable conditions. Which doesn’t have the same devastating effects on their lives as a court martial conviction, but it does have negative effects.

And one sailor had a grudge against the Navy and he was going to expose “the truth.” Apparently his recruiter lied to him or something, and the rest of us didn’t appreciate his true worth. He kept bugging his Congressman, who finally called the command and asked us to investigate his claims. The Congressman didn’t believe him; he said he seemed like a malingerer to him, which he was. But we had to investigate his claims within a certain amount of time when we get a request from a Congressman.

It didn’t turn out anything like the sailor wanted. During the course of the investigation one thing lead to another and we discovered he had stolen a treasure trove of confidential documents as evidence.

I believe he went to court martial. It was evidence alright. But I ultimately don’t know the final disposition of his case as he was immediately taken off the ship.

As for Clinton, when it rains it pours:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/16/report-highly-likely-that-theres-a-full-backup-of-hillarys-email-server-video/

Sammy Finkelman | August 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm

“The IGs wouldn’t confuse a completely unclassified press report with classified information.”

The Associated Press or the New York Times fairly frequently publishes classfied information.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend