Sunday, July 15, 2018
Opinion

Clinton's email: How big a deal?

It's not surprising that the contretemps over Hillary Clinton's email practices at the State Department have riled up her critics and defenders alike.

To her critics, Clinton's discussion of sensitive topics via emails sent through a private server plays right into the narrative that she can't be trusted. To her defenders, the fact that her Republican predecessors as secretaries of state also conducted official business over private email reinforces the perception that Clinton is being singled out because of who she is, rather than what she did.

In today's political climate, it seems likely that no amount of legal analysis will budge either of the camps. That said, there are three points relevant to any legal analysis that many of the public discussions have overlooked.

Point 1: A fair amount of ink has been spilled on the number of emails on the private server that contained "classified" information. The problem is the timing: The government claims only now that the emails are classified to justify withholding them from the broader release of emails on the private server.

But federal law allows, and the government routinely engages in, retroactive classification, when the government decides that materials ought to be withheld from the public today, even if they weren't earlier. The legal question is not whether the emails contain information that is classified today; it is whether Clinton knew or should have known at the time that their content was or was not classified. Thus far, there is no public evidence to that effect.

Point 2: The two criminal statutes that Clinton's critics point to seem to require more than what's happened here. A section of the Espionage Act of 1917 makes it a crime for a government officer to engage in "gross negligence" that allows national security secrets to be removed from their "proper place of custody." Even if there were an argument that merely discussing sensitive subjects over email is tantamount to removing them from proper custody, the widespread use of private email servers by other government officials would make it near-impossible to establish "gross negligence" here.

The federal statute that deals with the less serious offense of mishandling classified information only makes it a crime for an official to "knowingly remove" such material "without authority and with the intent to retain" it. Again, it's not clear that merely discussing classified information is what Congress meant to prohibit. But even if it were, there's nothing to suggest that, unlike former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who physically removed secret documents from the National Archives, Clinton intended to deprive the government of possession of the information discussed in her emails.

Point 3: If the criminal laws were read broadly enough to encompass Clinton's conduct, it's hard to see where that would stop. It is no secret that government officials routinely mishandle classified information, by discussing it in public or through unsecured communications networks, and by failing to follow procedures for storing and transporting it. It's also not a secret that the Espionage Act would criminalize an awful lot of behavior that most of us would find harmless — like reading newspaper coverage of secret government programs.

This entire episode underscores that some criminal laws governing classified information are nearly a century old, and that our classification regime incentivizes classification and makes it exceedingly difficult to declassify materials that should never have been secret in the first place.

Reasonable minds can and will debate whether federal law ought to prohibit the use of a private email server. But wishing doesn't make it so.

Stephen I. Vladeck is a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. This was written for Newsday.

Comments
Romano: The best politician in Tampa Bay is not a politician

Romano: The best politician in Tampa Bay is not a politician

Some politicians bark, and some like to preen. Itís all part of an elaborate act to attract attention and create an image.But the very best politicians?They donít act like politicians at all.I was reminded of that last week while watching Pinellas Co...
Published: 07/13/18
Updated: 07/14/18
Editorial: A vote for preserving waterfront parks by St. Petersburg City Council

Editorial: A vote for preserving waterfront parks by St. Petersburg City Council

The St. Petersburg City Council made the appropriate but difficult decision to reject a contract with renowned artist Janet Echelman for one of her aerial sculptures. It would be wonderful for the city to have one of her signature works, but Spa Beac...
Published: 07/13/18

ĎEverybody needed to know what happenedí

The brutal murder of Emmett Till, a black Chicago youth, in Mississippi nearly 63 years ago went unpunished, but not forgotten. A decision by his mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, to allow an open casket at Emmettís Chicago funeral represented an act of def...
Published: 07/13/18
Brink: Extending the Suncoast Parkway has gone from boondoggle to folly

Brink: Extending the Suncoast Parkway has gone from boondoggle to folly

In a few short weeks, the Suncoast 2 toll road project has gone from boondoggle to folly.State officials pitched the 13-mile extension of the Suncoast Parkway as a step toward eventually linking the road to Interstate 75 near Ocala via a project dubb...
Published: 07/13/18
Daniel Ruth: Rays stadium dream masks the sticker shock

Daniel Ruth: Rays stadium dream masks the sticker shock

Close your eyes and dream. It is October 2023 or so and the Tampa Bay Rays are up 3-0 in the World Series against the Chicago Cubs. The game is being played in the Rays new stadium, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Credit Suisse, George Soros, Vinnyís...
Published: 07/13/18

Brooks: The quiet death of racial progress

Over the past few months, Iíve been trying to write a comforting column. The thesis was going to be that even though Donald Trump is doing his best to inflame racial division, we are still making gradual progress against racism and racial disparities...
Published: 07/12/18
Updated: 07/13/18
Pam Bondi: The Senate should confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Pam Bondi: The Senate should confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

I personally know appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to succeed retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. To call him qualified for the role is a massive understatement.A graduate o...
Published: 07/12/18
Column: The test for Judge Kavanaugh

Column: The test for Judge Kavanaugh

So itís Judge Brett Kavanaugh. There will be time enough to explore the nomineeís views and record. Letís step back a bit and get some perspective on the national debate that we are about to have.Those on the left fear, and those on the right hope, t...
Published: 07/12/18
Column: A liberalís case for Brett Kavanaugh

Column: A liberalís case for Brett Kavanaugh

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Donald Trumpís finest hour, his classiest move. A few days ago, the president promised to select "someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased...
Published: 07/12/18
Editorial: Personal bias taints Floridaís clemency system

Editorial: Personal bias taints Floridaís clemency system

A recent exchange between the governor and Cabinet and a felon seeking to have his civil rights restored underscores the arbitrary unfairness of Floridaís clemency system. A long waiting period, a ridiculous backlog of cases and elected officials who...
Published: 07/11/18
Updated: 07/13/18