Based on what we know from the news is that: (1) Somebody violated policy, and or the law, by transferring classified information to a non State Department, non secure device (the thumb drives). (Note: Once any classified data was transferred, opened, accessed on a device that device is subsequently classified and it is no longer the property of the individual as the data is owned by the US Government). Mrs. Clinton’s attorney has said they followed the State Dept. advice on how to handle the thumb drive; who gave them this advice and what specifically was that advice and why are no media sources asking that? (2) Somebody violated policy, and or the law, by allowing individuals without a security clearance and a need to know (you can have a clearance but if you have no need to know the information it is a security breach) see and or handle said data. The attorneys for Sec. Clinton have said they "reviewed" all of the information. Even if the attorneys are credentialed (have a clearance) they have no need to know this information and therefore that, in and of itself, is a breach. (Note: Once any classified data was transferred, opened, accessed on a device that device is subsequently classified, it is no longer the property of the individual as the data is owned by the US Government). Mrs. Clinton’s attorney has said he and others in his office had a clearance to work on the Benghazi hearings as they represented Mrs. Clinton. Who at the State Dept. was aware they were reviewing other data and who gave them the custodial right to such data? (3) Somebody violated policy, and or the law, by having classified data transferred, sent, routed through, or, replied from a non-US government server. Sec. Clinton's server was (a) in her home and (b) monitored / transferred to the possession of Platte River Technology (Denver) that is not a government contractor. (4) Regardless if there was or wasn't classified data on the server or thumb drive(s) there was a breach of standard operating procedures (SOP) as all information not directly slated to be released immediately by the US Government is marked; For Official Use Only /UCI. Such markings allow the government to review the information should a FOIA request be made and as it is marked FOUO a review can allow parts of this data to be blacked out under provisions of parts two through nine of the FOIA laws. Again, the attorneys had no official business with the US Dept. of State. They were, and still are, private attorneys in the employment of SOS Clinton. Their client is not the State Dept. but a private citizen and the information did not belong to SOS Clinton. The information belonged to the United States Government. (5) We know the data from the Clinton server was migrated to another server according to Platte River Technologies. Again, this is a transfer of FOUO (and higher) data by non-credentialed individuals. Further, even if Platte River were all credentialed and government contract employees, if they had no need to see this data it is a violation of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). (6) We know that of the emails reviewed twenty-five percent have been found to contain information that is classified. It is illegal to copy and paste data from a classified document and resend to a non-governmental server. Even if the information was not classified at the time it was sent the information was FOUO and should not have been sent to a private non-governmental server. Something to consider is that by using a private server Sec. Clinton exposed an entire treasure trove of communications to outside hackers and governments. Learning who the Sec. communicated with, how often and the thought process involved in her decision making would have been very valuable to foreign governments. Additionally, learning the up and down of who is receiving what and from whom would also be greatly valuable. Simply consider that in some of the released emails we know that Sidney Blumenthal shared not only strategy with SOS Clinton (yes, she called it “unsolicited” except she continued to return his emails and ask if he was “available” by phone). Mr. Blumenthal took credit in his emails for “sharing information” with reporters and according to his own email to SOS Clinton he claimed to have a role in a New Yorker piece by Sean Wilentz critical of the Tea Party as Mr. Blumenthal wrote to Mrs. Clinton, “Did this with Sean” as he shared the article (per Business Insider). Knowing that as an intelligence person would tell you (a) who to feed information to, (b) what person within the Clinton circle is trying to gain influence / prestige which would allow you to “prop them up” and would © give you the particulars necessary to gain access to Mr. Blumenthal’s email and find out the who, what, when, where, how and why of his communications. It’s odd that the media isn’t outraged over Mr. Blumenthal’s admission that he was, in essence, “pimping them” with an agenda (understand, I believe all political parties and political creatures do this but in this case we have his own written words that not only confirm it but indicate those media sources and reporters so willing to be used to forward an agenda). Don't get caught up in the argument that "she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time they were sent or received" as it's an academic argument. The fact is SOS Clinton held a private, non-governmental server in her home and she, by her own admission, conducted day to day State Dept. business through that server. Such behavior would not have been tolerated by Sec. Rumsfield, Sec. Rice or Sec. Powell and it ought not to be tolerated by SOS Clinton. This behavior is outside the standards of FIP's (Federal Information Processing) and one must assume that as the head of the State Dept. Mrs. Clinton was aware of this. Mrs. Clinton is asking the voters to elect her to the office of the POTUS of America and in the highest non-elected position she has held her first inclination was to "hide" and "control" the flow of data that came to her, that is enough (IMO) to remove her from consideration. Consider that Gen. Patreus was summarily destroyed for sharing with Paula Broadwell data that was classified during the course of his affair. This was, IMO, the proper thing to do as he willingly broke all protocol. Putting aside the fact that having an affair while in the military is a UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) punishable offense for a moment, remember that Ms. Broadwell was also Lt. Col. Broadwell and was not only a US Military Officer but a consultant for the FBI on counter-terrorism. She had a Top Secret security clearance but had no need to know the information shared with her by Gen. Patreus and that is the key issue to the intelligence community. Mrs. Clinton's receiving of classified data and then transferring said data to thumb drives, migrating the data to another server along with having outside attorneys review the data and the data being under the control (for however long) of Platte River Technology goes far beyond a Gen. sharing information with his Commissioned Officer mistress who also had a security clearance. One defense strategy is to bring up the Bush Email Scandal. However, what folks are leaving out of that is: (a) Democrats (who controlled in the House and Senate) investigated this and found no classified information, or if they did it was not in the House report. (b) AG Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign in part because of his involvement. © The House investigation found that DOE employees (non-political) were using off the books email addresses to communicate and ensure that those communications were out of the reach of Congress and citizens via FOIA. Further the House Investigation (again, conducted by Democrats) found that this process also was happening in the General Service Administration and caused the investigation into the GSA to be slow (we all remember Jeffery Neely of the “hot tub” photo fame who was sentenced to three months in prison just this past July along with three months house arrest for his behavior). (d) The House investigation found that at least 88 White House staff members were using email connected to the ghb43.com email server which was housed at the RNC and stated that such behavior was not just inappropriate but it was a clear attempt to thwart FOIA requests and possibly the Presidential Records Act as it kept these records outside of the custody of US Government professionals. Honestly, think about the fact that this was 2007 and remember this was two years before Citizens United was argued before the SCOTUS and three years before a verdict was rendered. This process (off book emails and instant messaging) was being used by not just the White House but by the GSA, DOE and as we now know the IRS to subvert open disclosure (I bring up Citizens United v. FEC because the IRS has said it was because of “Citizens United” that they "slowed" things down in reviewing non-profit request). We also now know that the IRS was using IM and that Ms. Leaner was using the off the books email address “Toby Miles” (named after her dog) to conduct official business. This process was not only deceptive but designed to keep information hidden from FOIA request. Mrs. Learner isn’t alone as on December 13, 2012 the IG notified the EPA that they would be conducting an audit into the use of a private email account “Richard Windsor” (also named for the family dog) by EPA Director Lisa Jackson. Director Jackson resigned from her position on December 27, 2012 and the American public was given the “nothing to see here folks” routine. Except we know that “Richard Windsor” (the fictitious email account used by Mrs. Jackson) received an “ethics award” as a “top student” by the EPA after disclosures came out in June 2013 (six months after Mrs. Jackson resigned). Yet, that isn’t the end of political folks caught with their keyboards hidden from public view. In June 2013 the AP reported that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was also using a “private” email address (kgs2@hhs(dot)gov) to conduct official business. The difference here is that while using her initials Sec. Sebelius was actually hiding her communications away from FOIA request as her actual, listed email address was not kgs2@hhs(dot)gov. It was nothing but an effort to subvert disclosure and it worked! Again, the public was told; “nothing to see here folks, move along”. The fact is that this behavior was, and I suspect is, rampant within the government and it is done not just to divert public and media review but to skirt the law. SOS Clinton’s behavior, while going much further than others, is truly no different. John Podesta is quoted as saying, “We need to defend her, and we are doing that”. But just how can a reasonable defense of SOS Clinton be made once one considers she is (a) an attorney (she can read laws), (b) worked on the Watergate Investigation, © was a US Senator and (d) was the SOS State yet still engaged in such reckless behavior? SOS Clinton was in the US Senate in 2007 when the Bush Administration was rightfully “pimp-slapped” by the US Congress for engaging in a similar set up. She knew from 2007 forward this was inappropriate, her colleagues in Congress said so and AG Gonzales resigned because of it. What made her think she was “different”? Another defense is that, “SOS Powell used a non-State Dept. email” and that is true. First and foremost his behavior was, IMO, wrong and as we all learned as a child two wrongs don’t make a right. But let’s not forget that SOS Powell did not possess a private server which he maintained and there have been no accusations that he sent or received any classified data. Finally, when his emails were requested SOS Powell worked with the State Dept. to recover these records and did not hire private attorneys to help review his emails prior to turning them over to the State Dept.. No question that SOS Powell was wrong for using a private email address, but with that said, his actions were also before the Bush email sandal of 2007 which exposed how using an off the books email address was inappropriate. Many have also made the defense that, “what SOS Clinton did was legal and permissible and didn’t break any policy”. That is clearly debatable but I would side with what Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (who incidentally was appointed by Pres. William Jefferson Clinton) said on 08/20/15, “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy”. Judge Sullivan, in supporting his belief that the policy was not followed, referred to the State Dept. responsibility to comply with the Federal Records Act of 1950. Additionally J. Willliam Leonard, the former head of Information Security Oversight Office under Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush, is quoted as saying; “If a foreign minister just told the SOS something in confidence, by US rules that is classified at the moment it’s in the US channels and US possession.” He added that for the State Dept. to say otherwise was “blowing smoke”. Reuters is reporting (08/21/15) that there were several email chains between SOS Clinton and Ms. Abedin that were marked “Foreign Government Information” which is a marking used by the State Dept. and is considered “classified”. In fact those emails have been largely redacted and while that doesn’t imply the information was classified it clearly shows the data was not to be shared with the general public. Consider all the things about this that simply don’t make sense and defy simple employee / employer logic and then think about the fact that the State Dept. admitted in a court filing regarding the FOIA case involving SOS Clintons aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills that the Blackberry devices given to them by the State Dept. simply can’t be reviewed because the devices were either “destroyed or sold off”. Understand that State Dept. Executive Secretary Joseph MacManus said that the State Dept’s “standard procedure upon return of such devices is to perform a factory reset (which will remove all data) and then to reissue the device to another employee, to destroy it or to excess it”. Mr. MacManus also said, “Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed”. Now think about the fact that the State Dept. seems to have a policy on how to treat a Blackberry, but they had no policy regarding using non-State Department email? It simply doesn’t make sense. SOS Clintons campaign is now trying to make this a partisan issue by attacking House Member Trey Gowdy but what the campaign is asking everyone to do is forget that; (1) it was the Inspector General's report that found problems with SOS Clintons email and requested a DOJ Investigation and (2) the State Dept. is in Federal Court over an FOIA request stemming from SOS Clintons actions. This isn’t an Rep v. Dem issue and Mrs. Clinton can’t honestly trot out the old, “vast right wing conspiracy” argument used during what Clinton Staffer Betsy Wright called “Bimbo Eruptions”. The fact is that State Dept. Spokesperson Mark Toner has stated that the proportion of emails now classified is twenty-five percent. This is neither a mistake nor is it insignificant. This shows that there was an ongoing cavalier attitude regarding the handling of data by SOS Clinton and her Staff. To think otherwise means that the voter must accept that our elected and appointed officials handle information correctly only seventy-five percent of the time and is that truly the standard we are striving for. Someone made an enormous error in judgment and I believe violated either the law or many security policies and protocols. The fact that Mrs. Clinton could make joking, flippant remarks in Iowa about joining "snapchat" and "loving it" because the "messages just disappear" and receive cheers from supporters is sad and a horrible commentary on just how ignorant and uniformed Americans have become. SOS Clinton joking about "wiping it clean, you mean with a cloth"? There is nothing funny about this situation and the fact that SOS Clinton thinks so is sickening. Bob Woodward thinks this is reminiscent of Pres. Nixon yet the truth is this is much, much worse. Some folks (Mrs. Clinton and others) have said this is nothing but "partisan" or a "vast right wing" issue, nothing could be further from the truth. Sen. Claire McCaskill called this whole thing about SOS Clintons server a “witch hunt”. Really. Folks the "leaks" are coming from the Obama DOJ and FBI. These are his people "sharing" information off the record, why? What is it about Mrs. Clinton that someone in her own Party wants to see her taken down and whom do they want to benefit from this? Use Google, Snopes and Factcheck to look up anything that I have written and see if I am wrong, you won't, but please feel free to do so. Then Google 18 US Code 798 and ask yourself: (a) Did SOS Clinton open any email that was classified (even if she was unaware of its classification) on a non-governmental server? (b) Did SOS Clinton allow any data that was classified to be transferred to thumb drives (again, regardless if she knew the data was classified) and was that data provided to or shared with individuals who had no need to know that information? © Did SOS Clinton allow or request data to be migrated from one server to another by individuals (Platte River Technologies) that had no need to know this data and was the storage of such data on non-governmental devices? (d) Was SOS Clinton granted the authority to delete, destroy, wipe-clean data owned by the US Government (Dept. of State) regardless of the level of classification and if so who gave her such authority? (Point, even if the information was not classified it was not her property and by deleting the data she ordered and allowed a violation of eRecords standards). Mrs. Clinton is quoted as saying; "If I had not asked for my emails all to be made public, none of this would have been in the public arena". This simply isn't true. The only reason this issue is being discussed is because the Associated Press and others sued the State Department for the emails to be released and that case continues in Federal Court to this day. Having said all of that, I expect Sec. Clinton will be given a "pass" in some convoluted manner by the DOJ and by late 2015 we will learn that all was "well" with the choices she and her staff made. It will be a grand whitewash and there will be nothing to see. I'd bet my left nut on that. As an aside...I've left out any speculation as to what communication was so important (or damning) that it's deletion superseded the possible destruction of a Presidential campaign? asssit:
