This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What's The Difference Between Hillary, Snowden And Manning?
As the race for The White House heats up, it’s looking increasingly likely that the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton’s bid for the US Presidency will in fact be Hillary Clinton.
On the GOP side, Donald Trump has thus far proven to be "gaffe proof", as a series of vitriolic attacks against everyone from Mexicans to war heroes has only served to increase his lead over rivals, prompting some to brand the incorrigible billionaire the "Teflon Don", after the late New York crime boss John Gotti. Fortunately for Hillary, Trump’s popularity has further splintered an already divided Republican party, and in the eyes of some commentators, this makes the road (back) to The White House that much easier for Clinton.
That is unless the controversy surrounding her handling of classified e-mails mushrooms into a bigger public relations nightmare than it already is and as we noted late last month, it now looks as though it won’t be easy for the presumed Democratic frontrunner to shake accusations that she violated protocol.
"It's not that Donald Trump needed help in his juggernaut campaign across the GOP presidential primary, but the flamboyant billionaire got an unexpected present from the WSJ which may have just crippled the chances of his biggest democrat competitor as well, Hillary Clinton," we wrote, introducing a WSJ piece which cited an internal government review showing that the former Secretary of State, "sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department." Here’s more from McClatchy:
The classified emails stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies and included material related to the fatal 2012 Benghazi attacks, McClatchy has learned.
Of the five classified emails, the one known to be connected to Benghazi was among 296 emails made public in May by the State Department. Intelligence community officials have determined it was improperly released.
Revelations about the emails have put Clinton in the crosshairs of a broadening inquiry into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information when she used a private server set up at her New York home to conduct official State Department business.
While campaigning for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has repeatedly denied she ever sent or received classified information. Two inspectors general have indicated that five emails they have reviewed were not marked classified at the time they were stored on her private server but that the contents were in fact "secret."
That last passage is critical. Having a security clearance comes with a certain amount of responsibility and those who are privy to potentially sensitive information are expected to exercise good judgement.
In other words, whether or not the information carried a giant red "top secret" stamp isn’t the relevant question, nor is "no harm no foul" a legitimate after the fact defense.
And that, apparently, is the difference between a Clinton and say a Manning or a Snowden - that is, holding Hillary (or any other member of what Jimmy Carter would call America’s "political oligarchy") to the same standards as everyone else turns out to be an uphill battle.
Here’s Peter Van Buren writing for Reuters with more on what’s wrong with Clinton’s defense.
* * *
What everyone with a Top Secret security clearance knows – or should know
In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued astatement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.
A Clinton spokesperson responded that "Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted." Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.
Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit "send" (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.
What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked "classified." Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is "marked or unmarkedclassified information."
In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.
It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.
For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified.
In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.
"Not knowing" would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.
In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified.
The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.
Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is "failure to protect" by itself.
»
- 14129 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
- Hillary has about 2 inches on Snowden and an 1.5 inches on Manning
Damn, beat me to it! LOL
Just ask Huma.
a snake with tits, fake tits, and a guy who is the tits.
I'm gonna say the difference is she's got the smallest balls in that group. She's used to comparing her nut size with Bill and douchenozzles like Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner, etc. But in that group, she's lacking in testicular girth.
Bill Clinton, " Hillary is the one I am least likely to fuck."
My response was going to be "they're all men". Fuck, I hate being beaten to the punch!
Apparently Hillary is above the law, the other two aren't. Pretty simple.
What was the name of the General that got in trouble for the same thing ? Above the law works for a while !
Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty Tuesday to one federal charge of removing and retaining classified information as part of a plea deal, court documents show.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/deutch.pdf Joehn Deutch mishandled some classified too.
People do screw up, in handling, it's a different level of issue compared to
Snowden and Manning.... Snowden and Manning, deliberately released information, that's a big issue.
People lose information occasionally, they get disciplined or their clearances popped....
it takes a lot to make a negligence issue criminal.
Releasing information that reveals constitutional breaches is not against any fucking law regardless if there happens to be a law that says so, those laws are null and void and should be treated so. Just because I call you a pussy does not make you one does it?
Hillary is the ACTUAL traitor.
Dick length or vertical height?
the future of the USA is dependent upon uniform application of the rule of Law-regardless of whoz yur daddy
Otherwise it will Balkanize into ethnic/religious/racial geographic regions out of sheer self-protection-and crossing those divides will be a project
.
Yeah, 2 inches of girth.
Manning and Snowden are better looking, have nicer legs, would want to have a beer with them, are smarter, less offensive to be around, won't lie to you, are true AMERICAN HERO'S........
OT:
Has anyone postulated whether Trump may play the same spoiler role that Perot did in '92, and thus enable another Clinton to take power?
Wondering if I missed it.
I have offline with some other ZH'ers. It's a an annoying thought that won't leave me alone. The establishment on BOTH sides hates Trump. They'll find a way to give him the boot one way or the other. And if they do, there's probably a better than average shot he gets his back up about it and runs as an independent.
Regardless, I think Hillary's got problems of her own. Sanders is nipping at her heels and Biden smells the blood in the water already. If Biden gets into the race, Hillary's going to have a rough time of it. If you're not from the Delaware area (I am) you've probably never seen Uncle Joe go full-song on the stump. He can work a mic. He can work a crowd. He knows where the pain points are and he pushes right on them. Sure, he's an idiot and uses the wrong words for things, asks veterans with no legs to stand up and take a bow, etc. But don't underestimate his appeal to the no-information crowd. He's more than the idiot he's looked like as Veep.
I do so hope Uncle Joe tosses his hat into the ring. I don't have nearly enough footage for my "Give Him Enough Rope" montage of Biden's best gaffes yet.
Watched this early AM. 20+ years ago before Oprah decided to lose weight. He's consistent.
Bill Still: Trump Jumps
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230469
Fight Club Bitchez! Let's go!
I might start listening to Strump when he recommends the same treatment for Hitlery that he does for Snowden
Lost me at Jimmy Carter
Jimmy knows what is happening to US politics. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy...
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Q81XJ20150803?irpc=932
I understand he is doing just fine now.
I have said it before will say it again. Hillary could be the greatest thing for the US and the world if she wins in 2016. can you image how much super secret stuff will get released under her watch? they say she is really smart, so she maybe doing this on purpose.
Again, Bill did not try to hide he was a womanizer and he still got elected. Then we got the blue dress and teaching kids all kinds of sex stuff on primetime T.V. Hillary does not give a crap about classified documents. We elect her and we can teach kids what the truth is, maybe even stuff about buildings falling into their own footprint at freefal, from an office fire. There is little point in spending money to educate children if the laws of physics are invalid. She also might leak stuff on the federal reserve and the MIC.
Dream on. She probably saw the Zapruder film by now.
They use Trojans while she is one.
I'm thinking of voting for Chauncey Gardiner
Hillary is a nightmare - Other than that, I can't think of any other thing positive about her.
And I'm STILL the best candidate.
The David Portreus was a walk in the park by comparison. Hillary will finally be brought to justice. Give her 10 years, she'll die in prison.
Yes, Hillary will die in prison. Also, all the elites the world over will suddenly keel over and die from acute cardiac conditions, and a unicorn shitting skittles will fly over my house and give me a million bucks.
Please. Hillaries don't go to prison. They pay meager little fines that amount to 1/2 of 1% of their net worth, and they move on to bigger and better scams and ponzi schemes. Do I even need to bring up Corzine?
"On the GOP side, Donald Trump has thus far proven to be "gaffe proof", as a series of vitriolic attacks against everyone from Mexicans to war heroes ..."
...so tellin' it like it is is an "attack"? I don't think so.
And she and her crony staff of hacks only deleted like...54,000 other emails...so obviously nothing else to see here.
"What difference does it make!!!"
penis size
Spelled it wrong. Try 'spine' size.
Net worth makes her different in front of law.
I would imagine that there are those in the intel community that really want this to be pursued. Hills campaign is over. She will chug along for awhile getting money/donations but her aspirations to become POTUS have evaporated.
Snowden warned Americans with proof their government was breaking the law. He goes into exile as he rightly believes he will not get a fair trial or be tried at all.
Clinton does a lot worse than Snowden and she walks and may even become President.
If the USA does not match the definition of insane, I don't know what does.
no matter; almost in final phase.
The US government does not respect "the law" and I can assure you I'm quite sane.
So we've come to this paradigm again, this fork in the "legal" road, this vexing thing called "the law" where on the one hand someone tells me that this is "the law" yet everyone and their brother can see "the law" only applies to serfs.
Ya ain't gotta be an MIT "professor" like Jonathan Gruber or a Nobel Peace Prize Winner like ObaMao or an honest businessman like Jon Corzine to figure out what the real skinny is ;-)
"In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong."
There's the problem right there.
There were only ever two options: her "homebuilt" system could accommodate national security caveats (and wasn't "homebuilt") or it couldn't and she was going to use the ignorance defense so preferred by the D's when they're acting like R's.
What's the difference between Hillary, Snowden, and Manning?
Let's just say that Hillary is second runner up in that particular beauty pageant.
To the point of whether she ever handled classified information, it is important to recognize that keeping the entire flow off of government systems means that it is IMPOSSIBLE to pre-classify prior to sending.
It also means that she needs to show us what system she did use that did in fact receive whatever classified information was sent to her in her official capacity.
She has yet to admit to the presence of a single classified document from her tenure on her own server. Okay, where were they sent to, if not there?
Game, Set, Match but not a question that anybody dares to ask her.
Except me, of course.
It all had to be treated as classified in part or whole. Game over.
She's a witch.
Her name is Huma Weiner. They're not even trying anymore. It is a complete farce.
If Hilary wins then we have Chelsea to look forward to running for Pres against another Bush or Obama.
Just become a Monarchy already. Every President acts like a king anyhow.
She is a bad actor and the other two are real people.
Manning does not have a penis.
IMO, the major difference is that the two men have an overriding interest in America, it's people, and a fear of the government. Hill however is interested only in Herself.
Reporter Wins Fifth Amendment Case
August 3, 2015
https://consortiumnews.com
The U.S. government’s recurring threats to prosecute journalists who receive classified documents may have created an avenue for some reporters to evade testimony at least in civil cases – by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, says Marcy Wheeler.
...Convertino’s complaint in his merits suit against the DOJ alleges facts that if proven could implicate Ashenfelter in the commission of one or more crimes, including the allegation that federal officials illegally provided Ashenfelter with two confidential OPR documents. If proven, this allegation would appear to establish that Ashenfelter ‘receive[d]’ a ‘record . . . of the United States or of [an] agency or department thereof,’ raising a risk of prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
“In this setting, it requires very little ‘judicial imagination,’ if any, to comprehend that Ashenfelter could have reasonable cause to fear that answering questions regarding the source or sources of the leak would risk injurious disclosure.
Effectively, the court agreed that it would be possible for a journalist to be charged because he knowingly used government documents that had been stolen to do reporting, and therefore Ashenfelter could properly rely on the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid testifying.
That conclusion is not surprising given that DOJ has considered similar charges against Julian Assange and the UK is still considering charges against journalists who have been working with documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
The difference between Manning, Hillary and Snowden are that one is on the right, one is on the wrong and one is on the fence.