WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton on Tuesday defended her exclusive use of a private email system while she was secretary of state, saying she had opted for "convenience."
"I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would have been better if I'd simply used a second account and carried a second phone," Clinton said. "I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
The New York Times revealed last week that Clinton used only a private email address, and that she did not initially provide those records to the government, in possible violation of the Federal Records Act.
Clinton belatedly provided some 55,000 pages of email to the State Department about two months ago, and tweeted last week that she was urging officials to make the documents public. The State Department announced Tuesday that it would post Clinton’s emails on a website after reviewing them, a process that could take months.
So far, that has not satisfied critics such as Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, who said there appear to be large gaps in what she surrendered.
But there is another question that Clinton's news conference did not address: whether she violated the Espionage Act, a law that the Obama administration has used repeatedly against whistleblowers. The relevant section of the law says that it is a crime to retain classified material.
The Justice Department leveled just that charge against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist who sent classified documents to an archive at the Hoover Institution. Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee also was infamously charged with 10 counts of retaining classified data for storing information on tapes.
There are two big hurdles to making such a determination in Clinton's case, however, said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of Americans Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.
Officials have said it does not appear as if classified matters were discussed in the email. Secondly, officials at the level of secretary of state have broad latitude to decide what is classified.
"Any email that the secretary of state sends is at least sensitive, and would be of interest to many foreign intelligence agencies, but that's not the same as it's classified or that mishandling is punishable under the Espionage Act," Aftergood said.
That would make Clinton's case different from that of former Gen. David Petraeus, who handed obviously secret material to his biographer, and recently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information.
Aftergood thought there was "zero chance" that Clinton would face a prosecutor based on what is currently known, but he allowed that it was possible if the material is later determined to be classified.
"I think there's a question about how the selection of emails was made for transferring to the State Department, and what might not have been transferred," he said. "I think we shouldn't be asked to trust Secretary Clinton when the whole arrangement is so irregular."
"There's also a question of whether a prosecutor would move to indict under these circumstances," he said.
He thought there was a greater chance of Clinton running afoul of the Federal Records Act, although that rarely results in punishment.
"Even if it is permissible to use private email from time to time, the records themselves are supposed to be transferred to government control, and that was not done," Aftergood said.
A lawyer who represented Drake saw little difference between the Espionage Act case against him and what Clinton appears to have done, especially is any of her communications can be deemed to be classified.
"Technically she should be vulnerable to the same Espionage Act charges as Tom," said Jesselyn Radack, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project.
She thought Clinton would never face prosecution, not because she hasn't overstepped, but because she's an exalted political figure, unlike the individuals who have been targeted in leak probes.
"Prosecutors have enormous discretion and, as we've seen from the General Petraeus case, political elites disclosing classified information are not subject to the same draconian laws as whistleblowers," she said.
Since Clinton never did turn over all of her communications, and only her staffers were involved in deciding what material to give to the government, it may be impossible to ever tell if she broke the law.
"We ought to know, and as long as we don't know either way, then there's going to be some lingering doubt," Aftergood said.
Read More http://ift.tt/1AeNYBq
"I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would have been better if I'd simply used a second account and carried a second phone," Clinton said. "I thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
The New York Times revealed last week that Clinton used only a private email address, and that she did not initially provide those records to the government, in possible violation of the Federal Records Act.
Clinton belatedly provided some 55,000 pages of email to the State Department about two months ago, and tweeted last week that she was urging officials to make the documents public. The State Department announced Tuesday that it would post Clinton’s emails on a website after reviewing them, a process that could take months.
So far, that has not satisfied critics such as Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, who said there appear to be large gaps in what she surrendered.
But there is another question that Clinton's news conference did not address: whether she violated the Espionage Act, a law that the Obama administration has used repeatedly against whistleblowers. The relevant section of the law says that it is a crime to retain classified material.
The Justice Department leveled just that charge against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist who sent classified documents to an archive at the Hoover Institution. Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee also was infamously charged with 10 counts of retaining classified data for storing information on tapes.
There are two big hurdles to making such a determination in Clinton's case, however, said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of Americans Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.
Officials have said it does not appear as if classified matters were discussed in the email. Secondly, officials at the level of secretary of state have broad latitude to decide what is classified.
"Any email that the secretary of state sends is at least sensitive, and would be of interest to many foreign intelligence agencies, but that's not the same as it's classified or that mishandling is punishable under the Espionage Act," Aftergood said.
That would make Clinton's case different from that of former Gen. David Petraeus, who handed obviously secret material to his biographer, and recently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information.
Aftergood thought there was "zero chance" that Clinton would face a prosecutor based on what is currently known, but he allowed that it was possible if the material is later determined to be classified.
"I think there's a question about how the selection of emails was made for transferring to the State Department, and what might not have been transferred," he said. "I think we shouldn't be asked to trust Secretary Clinton when the whole arrangement is so irregular."
"There's also a question of whether a prosecutor would move to indict under these circumstances," he said.
He thought there was a greater chance of Clinton running afoul of the Federal Records Act, although that rarely results in punishment.
"Even if it is permissible to use private email from time to time, the records themselves are supposed to be transferred to government control, and that was not done," Aftergood said.
A lawyer who represented Drake saw little difference between the Espionage Act case against him and what Clinton appears to have done, especially is any of her communications can be deemed to be classified.
"Technically she should be vulnerable to the same Espionage Act charges as Tom," said Jesselyn Radack, an attorney with the Government Accountability Project.
She thought Clinton would never face prosecution, not because she hasn't overstepped, but because she's an exalted political figure, unlike the individuals who have been targeted in leak probes.
"Prosecutors have enormous discretion and, as we've seen from the General Petraeus case, political elites disclosing classified information are not subject to the same draconian laws as whistleblowers," she said.
Since Clinton never did turn over all of her communications, and only her staffers were involved in deciding what material to give to the government, it may be impossible to ever tell if she broke the law.
"We ought to know, and as long as we don't know either way, then there's going to be some lingering doubt," Aftergood said.
Read More http://ift.tt/1AeNYBq
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "How Hillary Clinton Could Be Targeted Under The Espionage Act"
Post a Comment