Recently in National Security Category

Amnesty for Hillary

| 3 Comments
In 1868, the treason trial of Jefferson Davis was pending.  He certainly did levy war against the United States, which is the constitutional definition.  See Article III, § 3.  Nonetheless, the President decided to issue a blanket amnesty to help heal the nation's wounds, and that was the end of the case.  See Case of Davis, 7 F. Cas. 63, 102.

Our country today is not as bitterly divided as it was then, but healing is still in order. 

As former Attorney General Mukasey explained in the Wall Street Journal in July, the evidence against Hillary Clinton clearly fulfills the requirements of the two criminal statutes involved, and FBI Director Comey's statement that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the charges was just wrong.  Mr. Mukasey, after all, is a reasonable prosecutor.

Even so, there are times when other considerations come into play so that a prosecution should not be pursued even though fully justified on the facts and the law.  President-elect Trump has evidently decided that this is one of them. 
Damian Paletta and Byron Tau have this story in the Wall Street Journal.

And while candidates should generally keep their campaign promises, it is sometimes better to let those go also.
Ed O'Keefe, Jose A. DelReal and John Wagner have this article in the WaPo, with a lead paragraph that is typical of what is all over the net:

Democrats prepared to use their convention Wednesday night to raise fresh doubts about Donald Trump's fitness to serve as commander in chief, as the Republican presidential candidate called on Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's email server to find "missing" messages and release them to the public.
But did he really say that?  His actual statement is in the next two paragraphs:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said during a news conference at his South Florida resort on Wednesday.

"They probably have them. I'd like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them," Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. "If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them."
As I read that, he is expressing a belief that they already have the emails, having hacked Mrs. Clinton's home-brewed server a long time ago, and he is saying he hopes they release them.  That is a very different thing.

How could he possibly call on Russia to hack into a server that was taken off line and wiped a long time ago?  That doesn't make any sense.
There doesn't seem to be a flash transcript of today's hearing in its entirety, but CNBC does have a transcript of the exchange between FBI Director James Comey and South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy, both former prosecutors.  I will paste it after the break.

Mens Rea, and Justice, Upside Down

| 8 Comments
Question 1:  Under what circumstances will Barack Obama's Justice Department charge and convict you, and seek and obtain a prison sentence, on the basis of a crime (production and shipment of infected produce), that you committed out of gross negligence, but without criminal intent?


Question 2:  Under what circumstances will Barack Obama's Justice Department refuse to charge or convict you, or seek any criminal  punishment, on the basis of your grossly negligent, but putatively unintentional, exposure of top secret national security information? 

A:  When you're Hillary Clinton.  See Director Comey's testimony today.  Director Comey's position is that Hillary's conduct matches the behavior prohibited in Section 793(f), but that it would be "unfair," and "constitutionally suspect," to seek criminal punishment because that provision allows conviction merely on the basis of gross negligence.

****************************************************

I thought it was possible that, for the first time in 50 years, I would go an entire campaign and agree with almost nothing the Republican candidate said.

I was wrong.  The system is rigged.  And it's rigged especially quaintly if you're a Clinton. If Madame Hillary is, not merely exempted from punishment lesser people face for criminal negligence, but rewarded with the Presidency, for God's sake, the anthem "Equal Justice Under Law" becomes a bawdy joke.

Seven Questions for Director Comey

| 13 Comments
Director Comey will appear before Congress today.  Here are seven questions I hope he'll be asked.

1.  You said that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought a case against Sec. Clinton on the facts you found.  But four well-regarded former federal prosecutors  -- Attorney General and Judge Michael Mukasey; former Deputy Attorney General Rudy Giuliani; former Division Chief Andy McCarthy of the USAO for the Southern District of New York; and former Appellate Chief for the Eastern District of Virginia (now Georgetown Law Professor) William Otis have all said that a prosecution could have been brought and probably would have succeeded.  Do you think these are all unreasonable judgments?

2.  The statute most obviously suited for prosecution is 18 USC 793(f), which forbids improper exposure of classified national security information through gross negligence. You correctly characterized Ms. Clinton's behavior with such information as "extremely careless."  Doesn't extreme carelessness provide a fully adequate basis to put before a trial jury the question whether Ms. Clinton's conduct showed gross negligence, and thus breached the statutory standard?

3.  You began your statement by reciting what the law requires for a felony or misdemeanor conviction in cases like this. You noted that gross negligence is the standard for a felony conviction. You then recited a host of facts as the FBI found them. Isn't there, at the minimum, a reasonable prospect that a trial jury would have found these facts taken together, to  constitute gross negligence?

4.  When it came time to merge these two strands and explain your decision whether to recommend an indictment, you then, oddly it seems, made no reference to the legal standard you correctly articulated a few minutes earlier.   Instead, you formulated a new standard based on features you said have been present in past cases where prosecutions have been brought for the mishandling of secret/classified information. Gross negligence  --  the statutory measure  --  was no longer included in your description, and was replaced by intent to harm the U.S.or disloyalty.

Doesn't that amount to a re-interpretation of the statute, not by the courts or Congress, but by the investigative arm of the executive branch?  And doesn't it, in effect, transform a gross negligence statute into a more typical  --  but not constitutionally  required  --  mens rea statute?


5.  Putting that entirely to one side, have there not indeed been prosecutions for 793(f) offenses based strictly on the statutory standard of gross negligence?   For example . United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (1995) (affirming 18 U.S.C. 793(f) conviction of a military serviceman who inadvertently placed classified materials in his gym bag and then took them home, which the court determined to be "gross negligence" as the statute required).  Does that case call into question your statement that a Clinton prosecution on these facts would be "unprecedented."


6.  Even if one takes the problematic view that the very unusual and prominent features of this case warrant taking into account more than "merely" the existence of probable cause and gross negligence, does it seem to you that  those features  -- principally the need for accountability from high officers of the government, and for public confidence in equal application of the law to big shots as well as ordinary people  --  suggest even more strongly that an indictment should have been recommended?


7.  If Ms. Clinton had been an employee of the FBI; had engaged in the same pattern of extreme carelessness; and had in addition displayed the same failure to be truthful in describing what she had done, and in having her lawyers delete thousands of emails before your investigation could assess their national security significance, would Ms. Clinton have been promoted or demoted  --  or fired?

Byron Tau has this article in the WSJ comparing findings from FBI Director Comey's statement with earlier statements by Hillary Clinton.

Update:  Also in the WSJ, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey has this op-ed headlined Clinton Makes the FBI's Least-Wanted List: Explaining why he wasn't recommending prosecution, Director James Comey instead showed that charges would have been justified.

Never Hillary

| 4 Comments
Hillary Clinton today escaped an FBI recommendation that she be indicted.  Many of my conservative friends are furious.  Whether they're right to be is not my point here.  
My point is that presidential elections are not won merely by staying out of jail, and that Comey's effective indictment of Sec. Clinton as a potential President was devastating. Her behavior  --  in her give-a-hoot attitude toward national security and her repeated, flagrant lying about what she was actually doing with her email servers  --  was spelled out in breathtaking detail.  And, as Comey noted in a little-cited comment near the end of his remarks:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Translation:  If some State Department flunky sitting at a cubical had done the same thing, he would, at the minimum, get his security clearance lifted and would receive a letter of censure. But the head of the agency did it, and now wants  --  ready now?  --  a promotion to be President.

Many criminals get away with it, simply because, for one reason or another, they're never brought to court.  But Ms. Clinton is, by her own choice, before a different court  -- the court of public opinion.  In that forum, the evidence disclosed today establishes proof of dishonor, and breach of duty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jim Comey's statement is here.  The Washington Post story showing how thoroughly Hillary is exposed as a serial liar is here (starting at the 14th paragraph).

Hillary Clinton Gets a Pass

| 7 Comments
Kate O'Keeffe and Byron Tau report for the WSJ:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling classified information while secretary of state and said scores of emails on her personal server contained highly classified information--but he said the FBI won't recommend criminal charges against her.
*              *             *
While the announcement is a major positive development for the Clinton camp, Mr. Comey's comments were hardly uncritical of the presumptive Democratic nominee, saying she and her State Department colleagues were irresponsible in their handling of national secrets.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Mr. Comey said.
Director Comey's statement is here.

Will Hillary Get Indicted?

| 1 Comment
Three Justice Department veterans  --  one at the top and two in the middle  --  think so.  I am one of those in the middle.  The story is here.

The San Bernardino Massacre

| No Comments
I have held off commenting on the San Bernardino massacre until more was known.  Today's WSJ has a number of articles on the emerging picture and the policy dilemmas we faced as we decide what to do to reduce the risk of such horrors.

Emails, Investigations, and Espionage

| 1 Comment
Bernie Sanders and the Democratic debate audience may be sick of hearing about Mrs. Clinton's "damn emails," but news sources as diverse as the NYT and Fox still think the story is newsworthy.

Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne report that the FBI is now focused on whether there was a violation of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §793(f).  That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, far more serious than the misdemeanor I noted back in August.  I have copied the text of the statute at the end of this post.

Matt Apuzzo and Michael Schmidt at the NYT note the reaction of FBI agents to President Obama's statement that "national security was [not] endangered."

Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton's email setup had in fact put any of the nation's secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
Jack Gillum and Stephen Braun report for the Associated Press (emphasis added):

The private e-mail server running in Hillary Clinton's home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers while using software that could have been exploited, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, N.Y., that also were directly accessible from the Internet. One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.
Seriously?  The Secretary of State's communications conducted over a server using notoriously hackable off-the-shelf Microsoft software?  This is even more grossly reckless than I thought.

"That's total amateur hour," said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cybersecurity companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. "Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this," he said.

Do Not Forget. Do Not Repeat.

| No Comments
Fourteen years ago today, the worst crime in American history was committed.  For a time, we came together and realized that business as usual would not do.  Some people have very short memories, and many people have slipped back into the casual attitude toward national security that enabled Al Qaeda to perpetrate this crime.  Some contend that the Constitution requires us to dismantle the measures we put in place that successfully prevented a repeat of this crime.  It does not.

The great Justice Robert Jackson nailed it in 1949:  "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Add to this the famous saying of George Santayana:  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

We must not forget.  We must not repeat.
WaPo Fact Checker Glenn Kessler reviews this statement by Hillary Clinton:  "It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email."

Kessler focuses on whether the statement is true and whether it amounts to evasion of record-keeping laws.  He does not discuss what I consider to be the far more serious problem.  (To be fair, that problem may not lie within his "fact-checking" mission.)

Is it a good thing that "everybody knew"?  If something is widely known within our government, then you can bet your bottom dollar it is known to the people who spy on our government. 

If Russian intelligence knows that the American Secretary of State's email is hosted on a "soft target" private server, is that a good thing?  Is it good if Chinese intelligence knows?  Is it good if Al-Qaeda knows?  No, no, and no.  Not just no, but hell no.  Even if the emails were not classified (and there is good reason to believe many of them were) people involved with secret information "talk around" it all the time.  Spies can add pieces to their jigsaw puzzle from unclassified correspondence.

This was gross recklessness, dereliction of duty, and probably criminal.  It should certainly be disqualifying for higher office.
Yesterday, I noted that the "defense" that emails containing classified information may not have been marked classified was a weak argument for emails received by former SecState Clinton and no defense at all for those written and sent by her.  Today, Carol D. Leonnig and Rosalind S. Helderman report in the WaPo:

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

Although government officials deemed the e-mails classified after Clinton left office, they could complicate her efforts to move beyond the political fallout from the controversy. They suggest that her role in distributing sensitive material via her private e-mail system went beyond receiving notes written by others, and appears to contradict earlier public statements in which she denied sending or receiving e-mails containing classified information.

The classified e-mails, contained in thousands of pages of electronic correspondence that the State Department has released, stood out because of the heavy markings blocking out sentences and, in some cases, entire messages.
"At least six," of course, means at least six in those released so far.  There are surely many more.

Earlier on the same subject, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey had this article in the WSJ on August 14.

Monthly Archives