Compare And Contrast: Treatment Of Thomas Drake & Hillary Clinton For Having Classified Info
from the double-standards dept
The Washington Post has a big story delving deep into how the Hillary Clinton email scandal happened, noting that Clinton just didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, even as the NSA told her repeatedly that it wasn't secure and there were serious risks involved. What's amazing, from the story, is how much everyone was focused on the BlackBerry side of things, and sort of skipped over the fact that she was using a private email account with the server set up in her basement. The WaPo article notes that for the first few months in her job as Secretary of State, the email server didn't even have basic encryption tools enabled. All of that is a travesty, and you should read the whole article to understand the issue more, but I wanted to focus in on a related issue: the high court/low court treatment of Hillary Clinton as compared to others. In particular, the situation with Thomas Drake, the NSA whistleblower.Almost five years ago, we wrote about the Thomas Drake case, highlighting some key passages in an astoundingly thorough New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer, which ripped the government's case to shreds. That long article is also worth reading, but for this story, the key points are that Drake was getting on some people's nerves by complaining about the decisions the NSA was making in the wake of 9/11 -- moving towards using an expensive computer system that would suck up everyone's data, while he and others had worked on a much more cost-efficient system that would get better results and had built-in protections for civil liberties. Drake blew the whistle and provided information to a Congressional oversight staffer.
When a big NY Times investigative piece came out later revealing the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, and the NSA tried to figure out who had leaked, they raided Drake's home. He hadn't been the leaker, but after ruffling through basically everything, they found that Drake had kept a few marginal classified documents:
Then, in April, 2008, the F.B.I. told him that someone important wanted to meet with him, at a secure building in Calverton, Maryland. Drake agreed to the appointment. Soon after he showed up, he says, Steven Tyrrell, the prosecutor, walked in and told him, “You’re screwed, Mr. Drake. We have enough evidence to put you away for most of the rest of your natural life.”The "classified" information in question was totally meaningless. There was unclassified stuff he had kept because he had given it to the Inspector General as part of his whistleblowing and had been told to keep it. And there was a schedule of meetings that was marked unclassified, but which the government claimed should have been classified. And another document that was declassified soon after:
Prosecutors informed Drake that they had found classified documents in the boxes in his basement—the indictment cites three—and discovered two more in his e-mail archive.
“They had made me into an enemy of the state just by saying I was,” Drake says. The boxes in his basement contained copies of some of the less sensitive material that he had procured for the Inspector General’s Trailblazer investigation. The Inspector General’s Web site directs complainants to keep copies. Drake says that if the boxes did, in fact, contain classified documents he didn’t realize it. (The indictment emphasizes that he “willfully” retained documents.) The two documents that the government says it extracted from his e-mail archive were even less sensitive, Drake says. Both pertained to a successor to Trailblazer, code-named Turbulence. One document listed a schedule of meetings about Turbulence. It was marked “unclassified/for official use only” and posted on the N.S.A.’s internal Web site. The government has since argued that the schedule should have been classified, and that Drake should have known this. The other document, which touted the success of Turbulence, was officially declassified in July, 2010, three months after Drake was indicted. “After charging him with having this ostensibly serious classified document, the government waved a wand and decided it wasn’t so classified after all,” Radack says.Because of those five documents, none of which ever should have been classified and one of which clearly was not... the Justice Department threatened Drake with thirty-five years in jail.
Drake was no longer charged with leaking classified documents, or with being part of a conspiracy. He is still charged with violating the Espionage Act, but now merely because of unauthorized “willful retention” of the five documents. Drake says that when he learned that, even with the reduced charges, he still faced up to thirty-five years in prison, he “was completely aghast.”Okay. Got that? Thirty-five years because he "retained" five documents the government claims were classified.
Now, back to Clinton:
State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.Right. So Drake gets his home raided and faces 35 years for "retaining" 5 documents. And Clinton appeared to run classified documents through her unprotected home email server pretty much all the time. Now, it's likely that a lot of those 2093 emails involved "overclassification" situations that are all too common in government. And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.
Before the server received a digital certificate marking the use of standard encryption, Clinton and her aides exchanged notes touching on North Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, military advisers, CIA operations and a briefing for Obama.
I'm just pointing out the seeming difference in treatment that someone like Drake gets, as a known "whistleblower" on government waste, as compared to Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination and a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.
Others have certainly noticed this double standard as well. Last summer, the ACLU called out this seeming unequal treatment, as did the Daily Beat, which referred to it as a double standard. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has -- quite reasonably -- gone even further, in pointing to Clinton's own comments on another situation involving classified emails: the case against Chelsea Manning. That involved the leaking of classified State Department cables while Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton condemned Manning and insisted that the State Department had to be able to keep communications protected. And, yes, she said this at a time when her own emails were being run off a server in her home's basement.
Who knows what's going to happen with Clinton's email situation, but at the very least, the differential treatment she's received so far, compared to whistleblowers, should highlight just how ridiculous the treatment was for those whistleblowers. And it should reinforce the nature of the "high court/low court" distinction among the politically powerful. They get to avoid the kind of legal troubles the "little people" deal with.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: classified information, clinton emails, confidential information, differential treatment, emails, high court, hillary clinton, low court, thomas drake, treatment, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What about Valerie Plame?
What about Valerie Plame? George Bush pardoned the leaker for political reasons.
And in the case of General Petraeus, he got off with a slap on the wrist for revealing classified data to a reporter.
I almost feel like you picked the worst possible case, because you're a Bernie Sanders supporter who can't stand the idea that Clinton isn't in jail yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Valerie Plame?
Also, you seem to have missed this part in your haste to comment:
Now, it's likely that a lot of those 2093 emails involved "overclassification" situations that are all too common in government. And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.
I'm just pointing out the seeming difference in treatment that someone like Drake gets, as a known "whistleblower" on government waste, as compared to Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination and a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.
And this part...
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has -- quite reasonably -- gone even further, in pointing to Clinton's own comments on another situation involving classified emails: the case against Chelsea Manning. That involved the leaking of classified State Department cables while Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton condemned Manning and insisted that the State Department had to be able to keep communications protected. And, yes, she said this at a time when her own emails were being run off a server in her home's basement.
Calling out hypocrisy and double-standards is always a good idea. Even if Mike was saying Clinton deserved to be in jail for her actions with regards to classified documents, which doesn't seem to be the case, given her past stance to 'mishandling' sensitive documents it would simply be applying her own words against her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Valerie Plame?
I am an American that can't stand the idea that Hillary isn't in jail yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about Valerie Plame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Valerie Plame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She shouldn't need to; she and Bill have both done more than enough other things that, if everyone was treated equally under the law, they ought to both be put away for the rest of their natural lives and then some, long before the prosecutors even start looking at this case!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm not saying Clinton should be in jail, but this guy with two pieces of classified data is in jail. Just saying."
Vs
"I'm not saying Clinton is corrupt. I'm just saying anyone who takes wall street money is corrupt, and is partially responsible for the financial melt down. And that Clinton takes money from wall street."
The Thomas Drake case is 5 years old at this point, so Mike isn't reporting on current news. Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up.
It has been my observation that the classified email indictment scandal is only interesting to Bernie Bros, who pretty much need Clinton to be in jail for her to lose the nomination at this point.
This is also not the first time we've had an article on techdirt criticizing Clinton for the email scandal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the comparison to Snowden is apples and oranges idiot... Snowden performed a public service to his nation... as in one of the Last Standing patriots known to the public at large.
Maybe you need to got back and suck on Hillary's slong a bit longer, you obviously have not had your protein for the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everyone here wants to get on Bernie's dick.
Mike, are you brave enough to come to the comments and deny that you're a Bernie Bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bernie's dick.
Frankly, I'm still sore over the lack of hope and change or even transparency. I think Bernie's going to flop once in office like the rest of them.
Only he looks the least evil of our options.
Feel free to figure out how to get someone in place that will serve the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bernie's dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bernie's dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bernie's dick.
But at this point, I imagine that Bernie could only stay in office by being a stooge to some benefactors.
But then Chester A. Arthur was totally owned and then got a conscience in the presidency. So miracles are not unheard of.
I would be joyous to be surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders at all. I think his understanding of economics is warped, and that he would not be a particularly good President. His view of economics is historical and does not understand the current industrial environment in the slightest.
Why you think this article has anything to do with Sanders is beyond me.
If it hasn't been made clear already, I am not a fan or a supporter of any major Presidential candidate on either side of the Republican/Democratic debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could that be caused by your obvious bias, making you an unreliable observer?
"Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up."
You are more than welcome to write your own articles on your own blog to make these points. The Drake case highlights how the system abuses those they feel betrayed them making claims that they then abandon when it is convenient. One might even make a case for how this undermines the legal system with uneven enforcement of the law.
Perhaps the flaw is you can't bear to hear any discussion of the politician you support without assuming that it is a hit piece out to destroy her, rather than pointing out the huge gulf between the treatment of people who did very similar things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike also chose to compare it to Hillary Clinton's email scandal, instead of say Edward Snowden, or any of the cases I brought up.
He was trying to draw a contrast, so it would make no sense to compare Drake to another whistle blower who had the book thrown at him. You might hate to acknowledge it, but there are valid reasons to criticize Clinton (which really is not even the point of this article) that have nothing to do with the presidential campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, let's fuck the guy doing the right thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws are for little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws are for little people.
If you vote for Hillary, then you have absolutely NO STANDING to ever challenge or talk trash about another corrupt politician regardless of their political party.
And sweet sweet irony it would be if you were to suffer under a candidate you hate that caused you Financial or Legal pain with the same corrupt style of government that Hillary uses.
Regardless of your Party affiliation... you must reject corruption period, even if the 'other guy' wins.
I have been trying to explain this concept to the repukes for some time... still not sure it is sinking in with the thought of Cruz or Trump being viable candidates... however the rest are far worse and more corrupt than these two from the immediate looks of it.
Either way. Clinton/Bernie Cruz/Trump... going to need to hold you nose while you vote cause they all stink like Dog, Horse, & Bull shit all mixed in together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us clarify this:
They vote against the greater evil.
If it comes down to Hillary and Trump, are you going to vote for a third party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us clarify this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us clarify this:
I don't envy the USA at this minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let us clarify this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let us clarify this:
The problem is that we're forced to vote against the worst of them by voting for the other guy.
And the problem is we've had a chain of obvious choices to not have in office since 2008. (Though in 2008 proper, it was McCain's running mate Palin that was the spoiler).
And sadly, having The Bad Choice running against The Right Choice has made for really poor Right Choice candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us clarify this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Past The Post
A paraphrase of Donald Rumsfeld I'm fond of: You build a civilization with the people you have, not the people you wish you had.
Curse the people all you want for their idiocy, their ignobility, their disinterest in civics, their lack of self awareness regarding their own best interests, or their susceptibility to demagogy. They're the same shlubs that every other nation works with. And we have to get people to govern themselves despite themselves.
That may not entirely be possible, but we can get closer than we are. Sadly, the US Constitution, for all its strengths is too difficult to adapt to new science. The two party system is probably here to stay until the nation fragments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us clarify this:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious Issues
As for Hillary - if anyone here is old enough to remember the crap that flew her way 16-plus years ago for just being an active first lady, and even for being the victim of a wayward husband... I'm not surprised she did not trust the Washington establishment to safeguard her personal correspondence, would rather have direct and total control over her email server. The real question is why nobody around her told her this was a worse idea if it really was illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious Issues
She can do whatever she wants with her personal correspondence. This was about official State Department communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cold reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presidential candidates
So rather than being incompetent, he was just willfully malicious.
Feel free to look around for a candidate that might do some good. I was such a fool, I thought we had that in Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT. Nobody wants surströmming-crotch running the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know what's depressing?
That's what money does to politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is what it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Do You Trust?
While I think the treatment of Mr Drake is outrageous and should never have transpired that way...this is a real apples/oranges comparison...not particularly worthy of Techdirt IMO. FYI...I support Bernie, but I think these things need to be fair. We really dont know whats going on with this email crap...almost anything you read should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I've read that the logs on her server state it was never hacked (politico)...and I find that just as hard to believe...but again, there is know way for me to know, nor anyone else out there who says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Do You Trust?
Yeah, that was the point. The two were treated very differently.
I support Bernie, but I think these things need to be fair.
This is not about Sanders or the campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Do You Trust?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who Do You Trust?
As in, what Clinton did (knowingly handle sensitive/classified materials on an open email system for years) was much worse than what Drake did (keep a handful of classified documents that probably shouldn't have been classified at the order of the investigator)? Or something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]