Clin­ton’s email is more than a scan­dal

Cecil Whig - - FRONT PAGE -

FROM: DAN WHITE ELK­TON

Hil­lary Clin­ton’s email is more than a scan­dal.

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, I held a se­cu­rity clear­ance for sev­eral gov­ern­ment con­tracts my com­pany was in­volved in for De­fense Ad­vanced Re­search Projects Agency, and the Of­fice of Naval Re­search. We were in­structed an­nu­ally on the han­dling of clas­si­fied in­for­ma­tion. These were the days be­fore the in­ter­net, and all of our com­puter files, printed doc­u­ments and ex­per­i­men­tal ma­te­ri­als were locked in safes in re­stricted parts of the fa­cil­ity with sign-in/sig­nout pro­ce­dures.

None of our doc­u­ments were “stamped” clas­si­fied, as it was fully un­der­stood that all of our work au­to­mat­i­cally qual­i­fied as such. There was never the thought that any of our work could be taken home or out of the fa­cil­ity. Our an­nual brief­ings also cov­ered the penal­ties for rule vi­o­la­tions. First, you lose your clear­ance. Sec­ond, you would likely lose your job. Third, you may be sub­ject to mone­tary fines. Fourth, you may be sub­ject to crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion. It did not mat­ter if our ac­tions lead to in­for­ma­tion be­ing com­pro­mised, but also for gross neg­li­gence, i.e. sloppy han­dling of clas­si­fied doc­u­ments.

Daily I watch in amaze­ment as Hil­lary Clin­ton, who han­dled in­for­ma­tion and doc­u­ments far more clas­si­fied than any­thing I may have been in­volved with, is de­fended by the me­dia, politi­cians and sup­port­ers. That her emails, which in­cluded names of covert op­er­a­tives, were stored on her home non-cleared server is not just gross neg­li­gence, but amounts to crim­i­nal of­fenses. Any­one de­fend­ing Mrs. Clin­ton is ei­ther ig­no­rant of the law, or be­ing in­ten­tion­ally dis­hon­est. Maybe the same rules that ap­ply to us don’t ap­ply to our coun­try’s po­lit­i­cal elites?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.