Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:13 PM Mar 2016

Is "Over Classification" a legal defense?

The line from the Clinton camp seems to be that all the emails should be released and anything that has been classified shouldn't be.

Besides the fact that there are over 2000 of these, with 22 of them being classified as "Top Secret", does that really matter?

I can argue that the speed limit should be 70 mph in the area that I got ticketed for doing 65, but that is not a legal defense. If I was doing 65 in a 55 then I broke the law.

Hillary can argue that the information she sent over her private account should not be classified, but I don't see how it is a legal defense. They have been classified and if she mishandled them she could be guilty.


It would seem that if the State Department can't, or won't, release every single email then Hillary could be indicted. Even if she is right (which seems unlikely due to the volume of classified documents) I just don't see how she convinces a prosecutor to not pursue the case. It seems to me that she has no defense.


18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
4. yes, if the documents were not really anything that would
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:25 PM
Mar 2016

endanger the security of the United States in any event, that most certainly undercuts the case for a prosecution

For example, if they forwarded a news article about the drone program or link to Wikileaks, that is technically classified or even top secret because our intelligence agencies overclassify.

But it would be complete bullshit to prosecute someone for sending an email with a forwarded news article.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
8. But will a judge ever make that determination?
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:51 PM
Mar 2016

Even if the documents should not be classified. If they are, doesn't the judge need to treat them as if they are classified correctly?


I think you missed the point of my OP.


There are over 2000 emails with classified information in them and 22 with Top Secret information. It is very unlikely that everything in them is information which should not be classified.

Even if that were true, can Clinton and her lawyers walk into a court room and expect a judge to ignore the classifications? Can a prosecutor ignore them?

I would think not. They are not experts in national security and it would seem as if they need to adhere to the law and treat the classifications of the emails as if they are correct.


 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. 1) talking points aren't confidential
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:15 PM
Mar 2016

2) that document wound up getting sent by secure fax anyways

Zzzzzxxzxx.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
15. But you can see they were comfortable sending it in a non secure way.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:20 PM
Mar 2016

It seems very unlikely that people with the attitude toward sensitive information demonstrated in that email chain didn't screw up somewhere.



dchill

(38,320 posts)
5. I think it's a deliberate erosion of "classified."
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:26 PM
Mar 2016

As is the tried and true practice of the HRC Campaign, keep putting it out there in a watered down, dishonest form, then spread the accusations around - everybody does it - then call out your opponent(s) for being the one who dealt it.

Then call in your favors and get your "supporters" to claim incredulously that you've been falsely accused. In other words, play the victim card. Apparently, it can be used repeatedly, ad infinitum.

Bring on the mendaciously fawning press, and you're golden.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
6. Over-classification is indeed a problem, and Obama is worse on this issue than Bush was.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:40 PM
Mar 2016

However, it is irrelevant to the Clinton situation: if communications were legally classified, then the laws pertaining to the handling of classified material apply.

To say they don't is the same as saying the 55 MPH speed limit is too low, so she shouldn't be ticketed for driving 75 MPH.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
9. There are laws about things that are not posted, speed limits and information too.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:03 PM
Mar 2016

Lawrence O'Donnell is no right wing hack. Joe and Mika are terrible, but listen to what L O'D says here.


http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/odonnell--private-emails-violated-the-foia-409216579763



The video is from before the emails were released. We now know that there are over 2000 with classified information and 22 with Top Secret information.



 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
10. I was in Navy as a Nuclear Reactor Operator
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:04 PM
Mar 2016

And our manuals where classified confidential. Some where valid this way and others where something you could get info from anywhere. Like electrical theory or Calculus. But not matter if it was or not the material in them was classified and you where not allowed to treat it as anything but. While I was Nuke school my roommate lost a Calculus book(which was not suppose to be removed from the school) and was kicked out program because he lost it. He got a other than honorable discharge.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
17. I love me the Navy Nuclear Men. I will never forget
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:15 PM
Mar 2016

How hard they worked at our Red Cross supply station during Hurricane Katrina.

Most educational (although I am convinced the alligator stories were maybe a little bit of hyperbole?).

Thank you for your service!

amborin

(16,631 posts)
18. interesting article here on classification:
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:48 PM
Mar 2016


snip

We know Clinton never used the .gov email account that was created for her. It is very important to understand that HRC as Secretary of State was one of ten members of the government that had the authority to make a document classified. Like all government employees at this level, HRC signed a document that clearly states she is responsible and accountable for information that is classified regardless of when it is given the status of classified. This cuts through the smokescreen of the defense that documents that went through HRC’s private server were later identified as classified and that is all she had done. She was expected by way of law to know which material by its inherent nature was deemed worthy of this classification. We know that at least 22 of her emails were not only classified but identified as SAP. Special Access Programs (SAP) are considered “highly classified” documents. It appears quite likely she broke national security laws during her time as Secretary of State.

The big question is why did HRC not use a .gov email address and why did she only use her private server for ALL of her email correspondence. Her stated reason of “convenience” seems incomplete at best in terms of an answer when it is handling matters of national security.

Yes, it was inconvenient for her to read all of her classified email from a secure laptop in a special room which disabled her blackberry, but how does that justify anything when it comes to national security. HRC was rebuffed when she requested of the NSA a secure blackberry similar to the one they made for President Obama that could not be hacked. A big reason why HRC could not bring her blackberry into the secure room is that hackers can take over a blackberry and turn it into a listening device. Her Secretary of State offices were located in such a room so that yes, this was inconvenient. It was deemed by the NSA too costly and time-consuming to create a second blackberry. It has been noted by the NSA that this was typical of the Clintons to believe they warranted special treatment above and beyond everyone else.

An obvious reason for HRC to want to control all of her email by private server became readily apparent when after her time as Secretary of State individuals and organizations put in FOIA requests regarding her emails. The State Department ultimately came back with the response to these requests that there were no documents to be found. The State Department mislead the requesters by not informing them that they could not be found because they were not on a government server but a private server. This would indicate the possibility that some of her old employees were trying to protect her. These would probably be the same employees who did not think to question why their Secretary of State did not use a .gov email. Apparently HRC is such an intimidating figure that no one in government thought to question this matter of national security.

In regards to access of her emails if she would have used a .gov email then not only FOIA requests were a concern for HRC but also the fact that thousands of individuals could have access to her emails. Given the Clintons penchant for scandals and their subsequent secrets it does not take any imagination to conclude why HRC only used a private server. She expected to have something to hide. The only reasonable conclusion to be made by all of this is that HRC prioritized her ability to keep secrets over the needs of national security. There is one particular area of interest that is being speculated she wanted to hide and might have been included in the 30K emails she destroyed. This is the matter of money donated to the Clinton Foundation by the same countries who got approved by Hillary’s State Department to buy U.S. arms. The book “Clinton Cash” covers this in detail and is being studied by the same FBI investigators that are investigating her emails.

snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-pappalardo/hillary-email-probe-could_b_9579826.html
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Is "Over Classification"...