It maybe was when you were there. But just look at how almost all aspects of our government work today and how dysfunctional it all is. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see that standards have dropped or people just do not care anymore.
Overclassification has been a problem for years. Every year, millions of classified documents are generated--not all of it top-secret, scif-class stuff, but still restricted. Which makes the job of keeping tabs on all of it difficult. It is arguable that too many people have classification authority, and that a lot of material is classified for categorical reasons but have no real security meaning.
This is generally true, but there is the human factor of people getting lax. You would think something as simple as passive RFID stickers on all documents could be done to automatically scan as you go in and out of doors, but there is such a huge "nothing wireless, ever!" bias that the whole system is going to be stuck in error-prone human controls forever.
I could see legitimate risk with RFID tags. One of the tools sigint uses is simply the volume of transmissions going from one point to another. You can wrap tagged documents in RF blocking covers but eventually you'll have to unwrap them to view. You might even be able to infer the kinds of documents being moved if you track routes. White House to DoE etc.
Sounds far-fetched but there have been some pretty wild methods lately about timing screen flashes to determine hash creation and stuff like that. Nothing is too far-fetched to intelligence gathering.
When you have secrets that affect the fate of humanity, freedom, your country, and millions or possibly billions of lives, it seems reasonable to not broadcast any information.
This is precisely what a certain presidential candidate wants you to think, they want you to be completely disillusioned with the system and assume it's beyond replacement, but in reality it's not that muddy and cases involving mishandling documents are routinely successfully tried.
You conflate malice with sloppiness. Out of the American government people there were at least 4 high-profile cases in which 3 of the perps were transparent and compliant, and one wasn't. It does make a significant difference.
Trying to make secured email as significant as physically moving many boxes with many documents many times on purpose is a bad flame bait on your part.
The “whataboutism” that’s a standard “defence”, because you believe that people who support clinton must also believe she is above the law, as you believe a different certain candidate is above the law.
Nobody believes that. Charges were not laid against Clinton for a myriad of reasons that do not apply to the other candidate.
There is no “whatabout”. A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. That didn’t happen on the other candidates email server.
Hypothetically, let us assume Trump had gone through the effort to declassify these documents explicitly. Would he have been successful? What authority would anyone have to stop him? Would there be any legal grounds to charge after leaving office?
In medieval Iceland, you could be declared an outlaw (effectively a death sentence) for all sorts of reasons, including presenting your case before a jury of the incorrect number of people. Such harsh punishment for a procedural error probably strikes most people today as bizarre and excessive.
What you have conceded is that Trump isn't actually being prosecuted for doing anything with the documents, or even for having them, but for simply failing to place the proper rubber stamp on them before taking them.
How exactly do you expect this to play out in the courts, or in public opinion? Do you really think they care about this kind of thing when politicians blatantly mishandle classified documents all the time, without serious repercussion.
It sounds like something suspicious was going on with this person, but it could also be completely innocent and the person just wanted to work from home. They mention calls were made from her to suspicious people, but that the employee would not reveal the nature of the calls or who they were to - I guess they invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege, but you can do that and be totally innocent - it is your right not to speak to the investigators once you are in their custody, even if you have nothing to hide.
I'm guessing the severity of the sentence though was based on the fact the FBI could never figure out the whole picture, as it seems long for a situation where it was never shown that the information was shared with anyone.
Unlike with the Trump case where it is claimed he showed some of the documents to friends and associates. So, if Trump does get convicted I'm sure cases like the one above will be cited to try and increase the severity of his sentence. It would be unreal to see a former President in a federal prison camp.
When I got my clearance, it was made very clear to me: If I take them home or store them with my Corvette or have them on my email server, I'm going to jail.
There is still process you have to follow. Being president doesn't magically make you immune to rules and process. No, trump could not just "think they are declassified and they are", and that's not how it works, and he knew that.
Well, it really does work that way. The classification stems from a series of executive orders [1] which long post-date things such as the Espionage Act.
The thing is that Biden is the president not Trump so Biden could declassify everything at Mar-a-lago but Trump can't.
Have you never taken personal notes on a piece of paper near your desk only to notice that you wrote down some work information on it elsewhere?
Granted TFA is not about an accident but you can accidentally take documents home just like you can accidentally walk into a SCIF with a wireless microphone (your cellphone).
No, you can't. You could accidentally take classified documents/information out of a SCIF, but not innocently. This is a strict liability offense, so it being an accident doesn't make you innocent.
If it weren't so, then every spy trying to exfiltrate documents would do it 'accidentally'. "Oops, I accidentally put the wrong documents into my bag. Oops, I accidentally left the bag on a bus where, completely unknown to me, that Russian agent with a diplomatic passport picked it up. Terrible mistake, but you can't prove I meant for this to happen." It doesn't work like that; even if it was a genuine accident that doesn't get you out of trouble.
You are trying to inject uncertainty where there is none for the purposes of a prosecution like this.
It doesn’t matter the purpose of taking secret documents. Only that the defendant knew that they were secret and removed them from a secure facility. And since they were an FBI agent, there is documentation of when they were given access to secret documents, so the defense can’t argue they didn’t know the rules around control Those documents. Every person who is granted legal access to secret or better signs a legally binding contract that explains these things.
You're right as far as it comes to the prosecution itself. But there's additional value both to the FBI and to the public at large to determine the more general nature of the infractions. The FBI likely has enough information to infer if this was malicious or just acting outside of regulation out of carelessness/complacency/convenience.
The rest of us are left to conjecture and reading the tea leaves.
I expect that an FBI agent knows very well that they cannot remove the documents from the secure facility, for any purpose. For me it raises the question of why they believed otherwise - did leadership or other people's behavior lead them to think it was ok?
Trump also allegedly misled officials about it and refused to return documents when requested.
That's not what executive privilege means. Executive privilege is the right to shield documents from disclosure to Congress.
Moreover, taking certain documents, specifically those relating to nuclear secrets, is unrelated to the Presidential Records Act, and must be declassified following the Atomic Energy Act.
>it could also be completely innocent and the person just wanted to work from home
That isn’t completely innocent. If this were a case where they accidentally brought classified home, that is “innocent” and being careless. Intentionally removing it to “work from home” is intentionally and knowingly stealing classified information, regardless of what you plan to do with it. This type sentence is in line with knowingly taking classified material [1][2], as opposed to accidentally removing it, or unknowingly hainv it in your possession (like if you are emailed classified information).
There's more than two tiers to the justice system. Poor people basically have no access to it at all: they can't afford the lawyers to stand up for their rights. Poor people are also disproportionately punished for the same crimes that a middle-class person might also commit. And middle class people go to jail for things that executives get away with all the time, and CEOs are untouchable. Elected politicians seem to get the best treatment though
I mean, what if an indie developer wants to challenge some major platform? They'll go bankrupt before the case even gets to court, and an indie developer has way more money available than a typical lower-class poor person
The key difference is that Trump, as president, was the ultimate authority on what documents are his personal documents. Any documents that he took with him are presumed personal - and that legal precedent was established with Bill Clinton[1].
Consider too that no executive branch agency can have authority over the president - that would be violation of Article 2 of the constitution. The only legal option route for legal punishing a president requires impeachment first.
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
> The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff's claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.
>...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)
The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim.
> Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not.
Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran).
His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.
53 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadSounds far-fetched but there have been some pretty wild methods lately about timing screen flashes to determine hash creation and stuff like that. Nothing is too far-fetched to intelligence gathering.
Not every SCIF is a multi-story black tint'd cube.
Trying to make secured email as significant as physically moving many boxes with many documents many times on purpose is a bad flame bait on your part.
Nobody believes that. Charges were not laid against Clinton for a myriad of reasons that do not apply to the other candidate.
There is no “whatabout”. A current certain presidential candidate wilfully sold classified secrets to another country. That didn’t happen on the other candidates email server.
Do you have proof to back this up?
In medieval Iceland, you could be declared an outlaw (effectively a death sentence) for all sorts of reasons, including presenting your case before a jury of the incorrect number of people. Such harsh punishment for a procedural error probably strikes most people today as bizarre and excessive.
What you have conceded is that Trump isn't actually being prosecuted for doing anything with the documents, or even for having them, but for simply failing to place the proper rubber stamp on them before taking them.
How exactly do you expect this to play out in the courts, or in public opinion? Do you really think they care about this kind of thing when politicians blatantly mishandle classified documents all the time, without serious repercussion.
I'm guessing the severity of the sentence though was based on the fact the FBI could never figure out the whole picture, as it seems long for a situation where it was never shown that the information was shared with anyone.
Unlike with the Trump case where it is claimed he showed some of the documents to friends and associates. So, if Trump does get convicted I'm sure cases like the one above will be cited to try and increase the severity of his sentence. It would be unreal to see a former President in a federal prison camp.
The thing is that Biden is the president not Trump so Biden could declassify everything at Mar-a-lago but Trump can't.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_...
This is why they're so willing to leak things as they don't actually suffer any repercussions (besides electability).
Have you never taken personal notes on a piece of paper near your desk only to notice that you wrote down some work information on it elsewhere?
Granted TFA is not about an accident but you can accidentally take documents home just like you can accidentally walk into a SCIF with a wireless microphone (your cellphone).
If it weren't so, then every spy trying to exfiltrate documents would do it 'accidentally'. "Oops, I accidentally put the wrong documents into my bag. Oops, I accidentally left the bag on a bus where, completely unknown to me, that Russian agent with a diplomatic passport picked it up. Terrible mistake, but you can't prove I meant for this to happen." It doesn't work like that; even if it was a genuine accident that doesn't get you out of trouble.
It doesn’t matter the purpose of taking secret documents. Only that the defendant knew that they were secret and removed them from a secure facility. And since they were an FBI agent, there is documentation of when they were given access to secret documents, so the defense can’t argue they didn’t know the rules around control Those documents. Every person who is granted legal access to secret or better signs a legally binding contract that explains these things.
The rest of us are left to conjecture and reading the tea leaves.
Trump also allegedly misled officials about it and refused to return documents when requested.
Moreover, taking certain documents, specifically those relating to nuclear secrets, is unrelated to the Presidential Records Act, and must be declassified following the Atomic Energy Act.
That isn’t completely innocent. If this were a case where they accidentally brought classified home, that is “innocent” and being careless. Intentionally removing it to “work from home” is intentionally and knowingly stealing classified information, regardless of what you plan to do with it. This type sentence is in line with knowingly taking classified material [1][2], as opposed to accidentally removing it, or unknowingly hainv it in your possession (like if you are emailed classified information).
[1] https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/sacramento/news...
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-nsa-employee-sentenced...
I mean, what if an indie developer wants to challenge some major platform? They'll go bankrupt before the case even gets to court, and an indie developer has way more money available than a typical lower-class poor person
It's apparently a problem for many high ranking government officials. The differentiator is what one does when it's discovered.
This is the point that many, so so many, either miss or refuse to see.
Consider too that no executive branch agency can have authority over the president - that would be violation of Article 2 of the constitution. The only legal option route for legal punishing a president requires impeachment first.
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/22/tapes-store...
>“We did not hold in Armstrong I that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise “virtually complete control” over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of “presidential records” in the PRA.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 297 (D.D.C. 2012)
Additionally:
>“The only reference in the entire statute to the designation of records as personal versus Presidential also calls for the decision to be made by the executive, and to be made during, and not after, the presidency.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, 300-1 (D.D.C. 2012)
Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not. [https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pd...]
>...Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b)
https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watch-inc-v-natl-archives...
The room for judicial review of a President's determination of personal vs. presidential records is so narrow the chances of it actually being successful in court are slim.
> Moreover, that goes in hand with the recently released audio of the events transcribed in US v. Trump Nauta wherein he acknowledges that he could have declassified it, but did not.
Looking at the context in which the statements were made, it is clear that Trump's primary intent was to signal the authoritative nature of the documents - in order to demonstrate that a senior military official had been lying about him (with regard to plans to invsde Iran).
His statements about whether they are classified mean very little when his very act of retaining them makes them personal records. Saying "I could have declassified them" is simply another way of saying "I could have made them public" and is not a statement about his right as president be the sole arbiter over what constitutes a presidential record.
This person shouldn't get only 46 months. Am I crazy?