Posted on 01/09/2016 9:04:11 AM PST by Signalman
Over the past few days, there have been a number of articles in the press concerning Hillary ordering an aide to remove classified markings or "headers", i.e. "SECRET", "TOP-SECRET" from emails before sending them to her and most of them have said that this act (the removal of the markings) alone is a criminal violation.
I would love this to be the case but I've researched a number of the federal statutes dealing with this topic such as 18 USC 793 and I haven't yet found anything that SPECIFICALLY states that removing markings, or headers, from a document containing classified information is a crime under US Law.
I've also checked the CFRs (Code of Federal Regulations) and haven't found a federal regulation that deals with this, specifically.
If any FReeper who is a current or former Assistant US Attorney, or anyone else, can locate this information, please let me know.
Thank you
I’m not sure, but I think Gaffer has expertise in this area.
18 U.S.C. § 1924
Unauthorized removal of classified documents. The alteration of headers to facilitate removal of documents via an unauthorized channel is the crime.
It comes down to ‘negligent & improper handling’ of classified information. You might take a look at this interview with Joseph DiGenova on Laura Ingraham’s show...
https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/1/7/hillarys-watergate-looms
The headers DO NOT make the document secret or top secret. The contents of the document are SECRET OR TOP SECRET. Folks with security clearences are trained to know what is classified or not. The headers are just warnings that there is clasdified info on the page. A blank page with “TOP SECRET”stamped on it is not top secret;likewise, a document with TOP SECRET info in it is top secret whether it is stamped TOP SECRET or not.
Thanks.
§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) 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 one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States†means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
This is the statute, I believe, for which Gen. Petraeus was convicted.
But I’m not sure that “knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location” pertains to removing the classified markings off the documents themselves.
Rather, it addresses the act of taking classified documents from a secure approved location and storing them at an unsecure, unapproved location.
Thanks.
§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) 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 one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States†means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
This is the statute, I believe, for which Gen. Petraeus was convicted.
But I’m not sure that “knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location” pertains to removing the classified markings off the documents themselves.
Rather, it addresses the act of taking classified documents from a secure approved location and storing them at an unsecure, unapproved location.
That is exactly right.
Removing the headers does not remove the security classification. In this case, Hillary and Sullivan are guilty of conspiring to and sending classified info in the open.
Right.
This is the part that the Media befogs because they're either stupid [being journalism majors, for the most part], or intentionally, because they're actors for "their side" .
Or both.
If you work for the government, you get training. Loads of training. You get thick booklets, and they train you on the booklets.
Pretending for the unwashed masses that "this information JUST came up!" is mere Progressive propaganda.
I agree.
But Di Genova said, or implied, that the removal of the markings, by itself, was a crime. And I don’t think that is the case.
If a republican had done what Hillary did, I’m sure they’d be serving a long jail sentence by now.
Good question.
The "marking" are not really significant. I do not think you will find a statute which talking about unauthorized removing of "markings".
The documents matter. The contents of the documents, that is. The State Dept had documents which contained classified information. Therefore, they were marked. Hillary wanted those documents to be in an unauthorized location (big NO-NO according to statute). In order to facilitate getting the classified documents into an unauthorized location, Hillary instructed her employee to remove markings. This is bad.
It's not the removal of the markings. It's the re-location of the documents.
Her intent was CLEARLY in violation of statute.
Removing the classification stamps should be part of the conspiracy charge.
The trainers get trained. The people who train the trainers get trained. It's a vertical ladder.
EVERYONE in the pyramid is aware - that's why I argue that anyone who works for the IRS is an accessory after the fact in the Lois Lerner thing.
She committed multiple felonies, and THEY ALL KNOW. And they're not blowing the whistle, so they're all accessories.
The same thing is going on here.
It can be argued that all these people that work for State have a duty to spill the beans on this. They're not doing that.
The Clintons being who they are, she will say she was merely instructing Sullivan to sanitize the TP’s for unclassified transmission. If they find Sullivan’s email with the dirty information, she will throw him under the bus. And skate into the presidency.
And by the way, she will say this is a Republican sexist witch hunt, already been investigated for years, and old news.
To sum this up, I have found that there are ADMINISTRATIVE rules and regulations within the federal agencies and departments that prohibit sending classified information over unsecure channels deal with the markings on classified documents.
But I haven’t (yet) found any federal laws that apply.
Where I work, a guy discarded some classified vugraphs in his waste can. They were run off a printer and handed to him. They were technically “working papers’, i.e., not accountable material, but still subject to proper handling. Someone else, not the janitor, notice them there and reported it. The individual got a reprimand, and a suspension without pay and the facility got tagged with an incident report. (Incident reports are bad because they trigger increased costly security inspections by the DoD and can lead to revocation of the facility’s certification to retain classified information.)
If anyone where I work had tried a stunt like what Madame Secretary pull off, they would have been fired on a rocket sled.
I agree with you.
I’m pretty sure the FBI also agrees with you. The FBI will not let this go. If they do let it go, then they are also accessories, and the FBI won’t sign up for that sort of thing. They will chase Hillary down over this. I have no doubt.
Of course, Obama would pardon her, so jail time won’t happen. But she should be unable to hold public office after this. I mean that as a legal prohibition. It simply should not be allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.