Here we go again — yet another GOP “investigation” around Clinton emails.
In all the discussion around Clinton’s previous testimony and that of FBI Director James Comey, I have been appalled to see a complete lack of coverage concerning the simple topic of the markings themselves. As a result, various pundits/media have been free to push the “Clinton lied” and/or “Clinton intentionally exposed our secrets” memes. Once you dig into the mechanics of how classified information is marked, however, it becomes clear that both Clinton and Comey could be absolutely truthful in their respective testimony without conflicting with or contradicting the other.
Follow me below the fold, and I’ll explain further…
[NOTE: This diary does not address Clinton’s “personal email server”. That is, as they say, a completely different question; please take discussion of that topic elsewhere.]
Our source material for this diary comes from the 2011 Intelligence Community Classification and Control Markings Implementation Manual; the link is a PDF document.
It is common to create, send, and receive documents containing a mix of classified and unclassified information and/or information classified at varying levels. The basic rules are as follows:
If a document is completely unclassified and is transmitted via an unclassified system, no markings are required — if transmitted via a classified system, however, the full document must be marked UNCLASSIFIED. If all the information in a document has the same classification level, individual portions do not require markings — but the full document must be marked with the proper classification. If a document contains portions that are classified at different levels, ALL portions must be marked with their individual level of classification — even unclassified portions must be marked as such. If a document contains portions that are classified at different levels, the full document must be classified at the highest level indicated by a particular portion — and must be marked as such.So, what does this look like in theory? Here’s an example from the manual linked above:
This example uses portion markings for three different levels of classification — UNCLASSIFIED (U), CONFIDENTIAL (C), and SECRET (S). The other markings are distribution restrictions; “REL TO USA, FVEY” means that the information in that section can be released within the US and to our “Five Eyes” allies, “FOUO” means “For Official Use Only”, and “NF” is short for NOFORN, or “not for distribution to foreign nationals.” (There are TONS of distribution/access controls — too many to list here, in fact.)
As you can see, Individual portions have been marked as (U), (C//REL TO USA, FVEY), (S//NF), and (U//FOUO). This means that the entire document must be marked as SECRET//NOFORN (S/NF), because that’s the highest classification level of any portion of the document. “Marking the document” is done with the use of banner lines at the top and bottom of each page, as seen in the example.
These portion markings and banner lines can be lengthy. If you look at the materials leaked by Snowden, you’ll see banner lines like “TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN” or “S//SI//REL USA,FVEY” — and the standard allows for even longer markings. (See page 8 of the PDF linked above for a a full breakdown of the format.)
The responsibility for proper markings (both portion markings and banner lines) lies with the creator of the document.
Let’s put this into a real world (albeit simplistic) example. Suppose that I’m sending you a note about an upcoming diplomatic event, and it looks like this:
We’ll meet at the embassy at 7pm and travel to the Mxyzptlk embassy together.
A few odds and ends:
Dress is formal. Expect to encounter diplomats from DPRK and PRC. IC suspects that nuclear materials are being stored on embassy grounds; I’ll be wearing a dosimeter and covering as much of the embassy’s public space as possible during the event. You’ll be expected to offer at least one toast.See you at 7pm.
Obviously, that bit about the IC (Intelligence Community) is classified information, so if I’m going to include that in this note, I’m supposed to make the note look something like this:
TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN
(U) We’ll meet at the embassy at 7pm and travel to the Mxyzptlk embassy together.
(U) A few odds and ends:
(U) Dress is formal. (U) You may encounter diplomats from DPRK and PRC. (TS//SI//NF) IC suspects that nuclear materials are being stored on embassy grounds; I’ll be wearing a dosimeter and covering as much of the embassy’s public space as possible during the event. (U) You’ll be expected to offer at least one toast.(U) See you at 7pm.
TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN
(In the interest of space, I’m leaving off the “point of contact” and “classification authority” blocks shown in the example — but you get the picture.)
Note that marking the classified portion ISN’T ENOUGH — I’m supposed to go back and mark EVERY portion (even the unclassified portions) AND apply banner lines to each page of the document. Again, the responsibility for doing this is mine, because I’m creating the document. That’s an important point, as we’ll discuss in a moment.
So, as I read the testimony from Clinton and Comey, it would seem that they’re talking about two separate pieces of this puzzle:
When Clinton said “no documents marked classified”, that suggests that none of the emails carried banner lines indicating classified content. When Comey said that three messages “bore some markings indicating sensitive content”, that suggests that individual portion markings were found in three instances.As you can see from our examples above, both of these statements can be true, and they do not necessarily conflict.
For instance, suppose that someone sending an email to Clinton cut-and-pasted a marked portion (even one sentence) from a classified document, but did not go back and apply the portion markings and banner lines to the new email message. Were that to happen, Clinton would receive a document NOT marked as classified (as she testified), AND Comey would find a message that “bore some markings” (as he testified)...all because the person who composed/sent the message didn’t do a complete job of marking it.
It would seem that the GOP is depending upon people NOT to understand how this stuff works and how easy it is to screw it up.