Mike Pompeo 'Regularly' Used Personal Email While Director of CIA

[Stoic]

The investigation confirmed that the material under the paragraph marking (C) was in fact confidential.

It had been confidential, but was not at the time the email was sent.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/re...d-information/

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, IF the document is properly marked classified, then you can assume that the (C) means that the particular paragraph is Confidential. Otherwise, for all you know it was copied from a document where the paragraphs were labeled (A), (B), and (C).



That was the classification when the original document was created. By the time it made it into an email, it was no longer classified. (i.e., it is not the case that once something is classified, it is always classified)

The investigation confirmed that the material under the paragraph marking (C) was in fact confidential.

[Bill the Cat]

So you disagree with the State Department as to whether these people should be charged. That's fine, but I'm looking for a reason to believe the State Department is wrong.

The law is arguably pretty clear in this instance. But it is up to the DoJ to charge and prosecute. They whiffed. They were wrong.

Neither of those cases is equivalent to someone putting some classified information into an unclassified email and sending it to someone who is authorized to receive that classified information.

(I'm not arguing that this is an acceptable practice, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the sort of thing anyone has ever been criminally charged for.)

The overall principle is applicable. Classified data typically starts out on classified systems. Someone had to transport it from the classified system to Sec. Clinton's unclassified and uncontrolled system. The cases I mentioned above were 2 people who transported classified material from the classified network to a private unclassified system, just like Sec. Clinton.

[Stoic]

There are still unanswered questions. We don’t know anything about the third email that Comey said was improperly marked classified, for example. We’ll update this item if more information becomes available.

Sure. But until then, we have no reason to believe the third email would be any more incriminating than the first two.

[Stoic]

Kristian Saucier

Okay, he's not currently in jail, but he was in prison for a year for taking six photos while aboard a submarine, which is considered "confidential/restricted" information, the lowest level of classification. He never even showed the pictures to anybody. They were discovered when his supervisor happened to look at his phone. Saucier could have been sentenced for up to 8 years but the judge said he was a good kid who just had a moment of stupidity.

In contrast, Hillary as Secretary of State operated an unauthorized, unsecured private server that trafficked countless highly classified secrets that were intercepted by our enemies. For instance, it was discovered that a state owned Chinese company had real time access to every single email sent and received on Hillary's server. Heck, they were probably reading the emails before Hillary even knew they were in her inbox.

Saucier knew that what he did was illegal. Even if he hadn't admitted it, it was obvious from the fact that he destroyed his computer, his camera, and an SD card after he was interviewed by the FBI. (And it wasn't his supervisor, it was the supervisor of the town dump in Hampton, Connecticut.)

In contrast, there is no reason to believe that Hillary knew that there was any classified information on her server.

[CivilDiscourse]

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

Kirby confirmed the Times report but then said it appears that in both instances the markings were the result of “human error” during the development of “call sheets,” which are memos that contain information that can be used when talking to foreign leaders. The department marks a portion of the call sheets as “confidential” — the lowest level of classified information — until the secretary makes a decision whether or not to call the foreign leaders. He explained that this is done to give the secretary time to make a decision and to avoid potential embarrassment if it turns out that the secretary decides not to call the foreign leader.

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis mine)

There are still unanswered questions. We don’t know anything about the third email that Comey said was improperly marked classified, for example. We’ll update this item if more information becomes available.

[Stoic]

Where's your evidence that it was no longer classified at the time of entry. You seem straining here to come up with a reason to justify your incorrect post.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

Kirby confirmed the Times report but then said it appears that in both instances the markings were the result of “human error” during the development of “call sheets,” which are memos that contain information that can be used when talking to foreign leaders. The department marks a portion of the call sheets as “confidential” — the lowest level of classified information — until the secretary makes a decision whether or not to call the foreign leaders. He explained that this is done to give the secretary time to make a decision and to avoid potential embarrassment if it turns out that the secretary decides not to call the foreign leader.

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis mine)

[Mountain Man]

Name one.

Kristian Saucier

Okay, he's not currently in jail, but he was in prison for a year for taking six photos while aboard a submarine, which is considered "confidential/restricted" information, the lowest level of classification. He never even showed the pictures to anybody. They were discovered when his supervisor happened to look at his phone. Saucier could have been sentenced for up to 8 years but the judge said he was a good kid who just had a moment of stupidity.

In contrast, Hillary as Secretary of State operated an unauthorized, unsecured private server that trafficked countless highly classified secrets that were intercepted by our enemies. For instance, it was discovered that a state owned Chinese company had real time access to every single email sent and received on Hillary's server. Heck, they were probably reading the emails before Hillary even knew they were in her inbox.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes, IF the document is properly marked classified, then you can assume that the (C) means that the particular paragraph is Confidential. Otherwise, for all you know it was copied from a document where the paragraphs were labeled (A), (B), and (C).



That was the classification when the original document was created. By the time it made it into an email, it was no longer classified. (i.e., it is not the case that once something is classified, it is always classified)

Where's your evidence that it was no longer classified at the time of entry. You seem straining here to come up with a reason to justify your incorrect post.

[Stoic]

Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.

The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.

Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).

Yes, IF the document is properly marked classified, then you can assume that the (C) means that the particular paragraph is Confidential. Otherwise, for all you know it was copied from a document where the paragraphs were labeled (A), (B), and (C).

There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.

That was the classification when the original document was created. By the time it made it into an email, it was no longer classified. (i.e., it is not the case that once something is classified, it is always classified)

[Stoic]

There are people currently in jail who did far less than Hillary.

Name one.

[Stoic]

Either way, yes it is correct. Security incidents, both class and unclass, are called violations, which is the worse of the 2 categories:

An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.

State Department policies do not overrule US law. That the APD determined "There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." should have been immaterial to 18 U.S. Code § 1924. The Code does not address volume or intent. Comey just whiffed on applying it.

So you disagree with the State Department as to whether these people should be charged. That's fine, but I'm looking for a reason to believe the State Department is wrong.

Around the time of Sec. Clinton's server issue:

In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.

In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.

Neither of those cases is equivalent to someone putting some classified information into an unclassified email and sending it to someone who is authorized to receive that classified information.

(I'm not arguing that this is an acceptable practice, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the sort of thing anyone has ever been criminally charged for.)

[Bill the Cat]

It's actually a State Department document. Sen. Grassley just had a conveniently located copy.

Either way, yes it is correct. Security incidents, both class and unclass, are called violations, which is the worse of the 2 categories:

An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.

The State Department obviously doesn't think that 18 U.S. Code § 1924 applies to "the introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control." From the same document I linked before:

ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.

State Department policies do not overrule US law. That the APD determined "There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." should have been immaterial to 18 U.S. Code § 1924. The Code does not address volume or intent. Comey just whiffed on applying it.

Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.

Around the time of Sec. Clinton's server issue:

In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.

In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.

[Mountain Man]

At the very, VERY least, she should have had her clearance revoked when all of this came up.

There are people currently in jail who did far less than Hillary.

[Stoic]

Sen Grassley is correct in that there is a violation.

It's actually a State Department document. Sen. Grassley just had a conveniently located copy.

However, they are still illegal and carry punishments with their commission. 18 U.S. Code § 1924 says " Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

The State Department obviously doesn't think that 18 U.S. Code § 1924 applies to "the introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control." From the same document I linked before:

ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.

Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.