What's your Perspective on Handling of classified materials?

2015-09-29T11:48:57-04:00

What's your Perspective on Handling of classified materials?

There have been several discussions around this subject, but I consider this different based on current events and the comparison drawn by the author Ken Cuccinelli throughout his perspective/article. You don't have to agree or disagree and I'm not taking the author's or anyone's side on this issue. Just read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Your feedback is solicited?

Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia.

There is no link - the complete perspective is here for you to read:

September 27, 2015 | 9:16pm

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 29 at 2015 11:49 AM

2015-09-29T11:49:58-04:00

Classified materials must always be safeguarded COL Mikel J. Burroughs
While the different federal agencies have different classification systems, proper safeguarding in the office, while traveling and at home is critical.
I think the evidence should be reviewed by only people with sufficient and relevant clearance.
Since Hillary Rodham Clinton is the wife of a former President I know she has secret service protection and that there are "places: where Presidential level materiel is "reviewed" wherever He happens to be.
I do not expect this level of information to be revealed; but, Mrs Clinton was probably under secret service protection when she was sending these emails from wherever.
Hopefully sufficient truth will be revealed in these matters.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 12:03 PM

2015-09-29T12:03:19-04:00

All I can say is No in 2016

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Sep 29 at 2015 12:05 PM

2015-09-29T12:05:13-04:00

I would say it truly depends on what type of information it was. Come on now somethings should never be made public while some makes you wonder why they call it classified.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Sep 29 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-09-29T12:20:51-04:00

No one, not even the president is entitled to mishandle, classified info of this country. Especially information at the compartmentalized level. It is beyond the wisdom or right of any one person to think themselves more important than the nation itself.

Both Petraeus, and H Clinton should be/have facing extreme sanctions, I don't care how politically motivated things are at such a level. People at that level know better, If they break the rules , it is out of Hubris and nothing else.

Response by SGT Sara Hodgkiss made Sep 29 at 2015 12:36 PM

2015-09-29T12:36:34-04:00

We all must be held accountable for our mistakes. I do feel that justice in this case will be served. However on a lighter note, at least we know both the Clintons go for denial when accused of anything immediately every time....

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 29 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-09-29T12:54:00-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; The "legal" problems are going to arise over points (2), (3), and (5) since cases can be made either way on them.

For example "If a person has received a document which is not 'classified' at the time they receive it and that document later becomes a 'classified' document, has the person received a 'classified' document?".

As another example "If a person is sent a document by a second party, has the person who received the document 'removed' the document?"

And again "What does 'to retain' mean? Does it mean 'to store temporarily' or doe it mean 'to keep permanently', and how do you judge 'intent'?"

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 12:58 PM

2015-09-29T12:58:08-04:00

The former first lady and Secretary of State is NOT above the laws of this nation. I call BS if she thinks the Clinton's get a pass on mishandling of classified documents. It doesn't matter what were in those documents. There are procedures in how we protect our Nations secrets. Its about pieces of information that can be put together by someone leading to the source of that "information" or "intelligence".

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 29 at 2015 1:09 PM

2015-09-29T13:09:22-04:00

Not a fan of how this has become a inflated political football, but I've seen enlisted Joes hemmed up REAL GOOD for less when dealing with a security violation. GEN Patreus did get off easily (RHIP), and Hillary should have her shot group tightened up seriously. But RHIP again. If/When she becomes indicted, she should be immediately disqualified from running for office until the case has been mitigated in the courts. It makes no sense to allow her to continue to run (or even become president), and now we're facing a Nixon pt2. America doesn't deserve it.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Sep 29 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-09-29T13:59:53-04:00

Great question. First Obama demanded to use his Blackberry. And the WH scrambled to make that work. Now, it is common for people to have a private work email they can access from various areas. In this case.... did the State Dept put in the necessary protection? Or did H just do it herself?

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 29 at 2015 6:11 PM

2015-09-29T18:11:13-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Loose lips sink ships

Response by SFC James Barnes made Sep 29 at 2015 8:11 PM

2015-09-29T20:11:25-04:00

Yes she mishandled classified information and Should be held accountable. Even my PV1's Know that if it might remotely classified treat it as such. She was secretary of state what did she think was going to come to her? whether it was classified or not at the time it should never have been sent through a private server on a unsecured network. Honestly in my opinion if she does have the DOJ go after her it will be spun and be made to look like someone is going after her for political gain but I don't see it happening.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 29 at 2015 8:49 PM

2015-09-29T20:49:59-04:00

It's really easy to keep your story straight when you tell the truth...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 29 at 2015 8:58 PM

2015-09-29T20:58:21-04:00

I'm guessing that if Hillary is found guilty of violating the law regarding safekeeping secrets, her supporters will quickly shift gears to keep her punishment to a minimum. Personally, I don't care. I just care that she never again hold any elective or appointed office.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Sep 30 at 2015 10:42 AM

2015-09-30T10:42:54-04:00

If she can't be trusted to handle classified material correctly, how can she be POTUS/CINC?

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 30 at 2015 2:32 PM

2015-09-30T14:32:28-04:00

If you have to use your own personal devise to send top secret info, I wanna know how much you got paid for that bit of intell!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 1 at 2015 4:23 AM

2015-10-01T04:23:31-04:00

Somehow I doubt Hillary will ever see the inside of a prison cell!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 1 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-10-01T18:30:47-04:00

I don't Hilary would be charged for by the FBI. The statue for computer fraud is having an intent to deceive using access to technology. Since she did it by accident or caused no other party damages, it would be a hard case for criminal charges. The White House department can press disciplinary action against Clinton for not following protocol, but I think it's a hard case to charge.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Oct 2 at 2015 8:59 PM

2015-10-02T20:59:50-04:00

I think once you are so far up in status or position, there is no excuse! Either follow the rules to set the example or get fired!