The Pronk Pops Show 608, January 21, 2016, Story 1: Will The Democratic Party Nominate An Avowed Socialist — Bernie Sanders or A Target of FBI Investigation and A National Security Risk — Clinton Compromised Special Access Program Information And Risked The Lives Of U.S. Spies — Hillary Clinton — Garbage In Garbage Out — Send In The Clowns — Biden, Brown, Gore — Videos

Posted on January 22, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Al Gore, American History, Ben Carson, Communications, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Employment, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, Jerry Brown, Joe Biden, Law, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |


The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 608: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 607: January 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 606: January 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 605: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 604: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 603: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 602: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 601: January 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 600: January 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 599: January 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 598: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 597: December 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 596: December 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 595: December 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 594: December 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 593: December 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 592: December 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 574: November 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 573: November 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 572: November 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 571: November 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 570: November 6, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 569: November 5, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 568: November 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 567: November 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 566: November 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 565: October 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 564: October 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 563: October 28, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 562: October 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 561: October 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 560: October 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 559: October 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 558: October 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 557: October 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 

Story 1: Will Democratic Party Nominate An Avowed Socialist — Bernie Sanders or A The Target of FBI Investigation and National Security Risk — Clinton Compromised Special Access Program And Risked The Lives Of U.S. Spies — Hillary Clinton — Garbage In Garbage Out — Send In The Clowns — Biden, Brown, Gore — Videos

us-coversheetsconfidentialsecrettop secretSI-TK cover sheetclinton cashclinton cash bookJOE-BIDEN-to-Run-for-President

Send In The Clowns

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding at the Surf Ballroom Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, in Clear Lake, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Friday, January 22
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Loras College Clinton 59, Sanders 30, O’Malley 7 Clinton +29
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary Suffolk University Sanders 50, Clinton 41, O’Malley 2 Sanders +9
President Obama Job Approval Pew Research Approve 46, Disapprove 48 Disapprove +2
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 49, Disapprove 48 Approve +1
President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 49, Disapprove 50 Disapprove +1
Thursday, January 21
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Trump 37, Cruz 26, Rubio 14, Carson 6, Bush 3, Christie 1, Paul 2, Kasich 1, Huckabee 3, Fiorina 1, Santorum 1 Trump +11
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Clinton 43, Sanders 51, O’Malley 4 Sanders +8
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Loras College Trump 26, Cruz 25, Rubio 13, Carson 8, Bush 6, Christie 3, Paul 3, Kasich 4, Huckabee 3, Fiorina 2, Santorum 1 Trump +1
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus KBUR Trump 25, Cruz 27, Rubio 9, Carson 11, Bush 7, Christie 4, Paul 3, Kasich 3, Huckabee 4, Fiorina 3, Santorum 1 Cruz +2
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus KBUR Clinton 48, Sanders 39, O’Malley 7 Clinton +9
North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Civitas (R) Trump 27, Cruz 23, Rubio 10, Carson 7, Bush 4, Christie 4, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 2, Paul 2, Kasich 2, Santorum 1 Trump +4
North Carolina Senate – Burr vs. Ross PPP (D) Burr 43, Ross 33 Burr +10
North Carolina Governor – McCrory vs. Cooper PPP (D) Cooper 43, McCrory 40 Cooper +3
President Obama Job Approval The Economist/YouGov Approve 43, Disapprove 55 Disapprove +12
President Obama Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 45, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +6
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 26, Wrong Track 62 Wrong Track +36
Congressional Job Approval The Economist/YouGov Approve 12, Disapprove 66 Disapprove +54
Direction of Country The Economist/YouGov Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 65 Wrong Track +37
Tuesday, January 19
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination Monmouth Clinton 52, Sanders 37, O’Malley 2 Clinton +15
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary CNN/WMUR Sanders 60, Clinton 33, O’Malley 1 Sanders +27
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary ARG Trump 27, Kasich 20, Cruz 9, Rubio 10, Christie 9, Bush 8, Paul 5, Fiorina 2, Carson 2, Huckabee 1, Santorum 1 Trump +7
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary ARG Sanders 49, Clinton 43, O’Malley 3 Sanders +6
Maryland Republican Presidential Primary Gonzales Research Trump 32, Cruz 15, Rubio 14, Carson 9, Christie 8, Bush 4 Trump +17
Maryland Democratic Presidential Primary Gonzales Research Clinton 40, Sanders 27, O’Malley 5 Clinton +13
Maryland Senate – Democratic Primary (Van Hollen vs. Edwards) Gonzales Research Van Hollen 38, Edwards 36 Van Hollen +2

‘Worse Than What Snowden Did’: Krauthammer on Latest in Hillary Email Investigation

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs

With New Damning Email Evidence, Clinton Camp Blames Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories

Hillary Clinton’s Mishandling Of SAP Emails Brings More Scrutiny

Is Hillary Clinton Telling the Truth About Her Classified Emails?

Hillary Clinton’s emails contained highly classified intelligence

Hillary Clinton’s Mishandling Of SAP Emails Brings More Scrutiny

Chuck Todd schools Hillary Clinton spokesman on classification rules

Robert Gates, ‘Odds are pretty high’ that Russia, China and Iran have compromised Hillary’s server

John Cornyn on Hillary Clinton, ‘if it was you or me, she’d be indicted’

Judge Nap: Hillary Email Probe Finds ‘Treasure Trove’ of Financial Improprieties

MSNBC Fact Checks Hillary Clinton’s False Statements About Classified Emails

George Carlin – You have no rights

George Carlin – Voting is meaningless

Judy Collins Send in the Clowns

Send in the Clowns

Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air,
Where are the clowns?
Isn’t it bliss?
Don’t you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can’t move,
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Just when I’d stopped opening doors,
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours.
Making my entrance again with my usual flair
Sure of my lines
No one is there.
Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career.
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns
Well, maybe next year.

EXCLUSIVE: Clinton email exposed intel from human spying

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as “HCS-O,” which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record.

Both sources are familiar with the intelligence community inspector general’s January 14 letter to Congress, advising the Oversight committees that intelligence beyond Top Secret — known as Special Access Program (SAP) — was identified in the Clinton emails, as well the supporting documents from the affected agencies that owned the information and have final say on classification.

According to a December 2013 policy document released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: This designation “is used to protect exceptionally fragile and unique IC (intelligence community) clandestine HUMINT operations and methods that are not intended for dissemination outside of the originating agency.”

It is not publicly known whether the information contained in the Clinton emails also revealed who the human source was, their nationality or affiliation.

Dan Maguire, former Special Operations strategic planner for Africom, told Fox News the disclosure of sensitive material impacts national security and exposes U.S. sources.

“There are people’s lives at stake. Certainly in an intel SAP, if you’re talking about sources and methods, there may be one person in the world that would have access to the type of information contained in that SAP,” he said.

It is not known what the impact was on the source, nor the findings of a damage assessment by the agency that controlled the source.

Separately, Fox News has learned that the so-called “spillage” of classified information is greater than the “several dozen” emails identified in the January 14 letter to Congress, which also acknowledged for the first time, that the Clinton emails contained intelligence beyond Top Secret, also known as Special Access Programs (SAPs).

The source said that the “several dozen” refers to the main or principal email thread identified by reviewers, not the number of times that classified information was forwarded, replied to or copied to people who did not have a “need-to-know” using unsecured communication channels — in this case a personal server.  More than one Special Access Program was affected.

“It’s pretty tough to have SAP program material out in the public domain. I mean, it’s a huge foul if that occurs,” said Maguire, who retired after 46 years of service, and who was involved with Special Access Programs throughout his career.  Maguire says a damage assessment to the program is mandatory and immediate.

“It’s a fairly laborious investigation. Once you know something was out to one person, that person sends it to 15, 15 send it to someone else — so it’s very difficult to ascertain where it all went but that’s all part of the damage control aspect to get all the information back in the box.”

The two declarations provided to the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees — as well as the leadership of Senate Foreign Affairs with oversight for the State Department — include the emails containing SAP intelligence, as well as supporting documents from the agency affected, showing how they reached the determination it came from one of its sources, and not from publicly available information.

When the inspector general’s letter was first reported by Fox News, Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said, “This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received.”

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.


Former Sec Def Robert Gates: ‘Odds Are Pretty High’ Russia, China, And Iran Accessed Hillary’s Server

Steve Guest

Media Reporter

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says, “I think the odds are pretty high” countries like Iran, China, and Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server.

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Thursday, the former CIA director said “the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day.”

Hewitt asked Gates, “[A]re you surprised by the news that continues to come out about the former Secretary of State’s server and the fact that the intelligence community’s inspector general has said there was a lot of very highly classified information on her server?”

“Yeah, that’s a concern for me,” Gates said. “I never used email when I was head of CIA or head of the Department of Defense. As I used to joke, I didn’t want to have some chief of station overseas email me and say he was going to do something if I didn’t get back to him in three hours, and I would get back from a five hour hearing to discover I was two hours too late. I preferred dealing with people face to face and putting a signature on a piece of paper on matters of real national security and importance.”

Hewitt followed up, “One of your colleagues, Mike Morell [Former Deputy Director of the CIA], said on this program, or actually agreed with my assertion that almost certainly, Russians, Chinese and Iranians had compromised the home brew server of the former Secretary of State. He agreed with that. Do you agree with his assessment of my assessment?”

“Well, given the fact that the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day, I think the odds are pretty high,” Gates insisted. (RELATED: State Department Undermines Hillary’s Claim That It’s OK To Forward News Article Containing Classified Info)

“And so if they had real time access to her server, would that have compromised national security,” Hewitt asked.

“Well, again, it would depend entirely on what she put on there. And I just, I haven’t read any of these emails, so I don’t know what was on those servers.”(RELATED: Report: Emails At The Highest Classification Levels Found On Hillary’s Private Server)

Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified

Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.


While the State Department and intelligence agencies finish picking through messages recovered from the private email server Hillary Clinton used to conduct public business as secretary of state, the contents of the periodic document dumps have become increasingly sensitive. State has been referring any email that appears to contain sensitive information for further consideration by the agency with jurisdiction over the relevant data. Thus the most problematic emails are dribbling out last.

As the number of disclosed classified messages from Mrs. Clinton’s server has climbed above 1,300, her explanations have come to look increasingly improvisational and contrived. Recall that last summer—even after abandoning the claim that she maintained a private email account for convenience and because she was too busy solving the world’s problems to navigate the intricacies of a government account—she insisted that, “I did not send classified information and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know that something is.”

When asked whether she had her server “wiped,” she assumed an air of grandmotherly befuddlement: “What, like with a cloth or something?” she said. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

The current news, reported in the Journal and elsewhere, is that her server contained information at the highest level of classification, known as SAP, or Special Access Program. This is a level so high that even the inspector general for the intelligence community who reported the discovery did not initially have clearance to examine it.

The server also contained messages showing her contempt for classification procedures. This was bred at least in part by obvious familiarity with exactly “how it works”—such as when, an email shows, she directed a staff member simply to erase the heading on a classified document, converting it into “unpaper,” and send it on a “nonsecure” device.

Information disclosed by the State Department also reflects that in August 2011, when the State Department’s executive secretary suggested that he could provide Mrs. Clinton with a BlackBerry that would keep her identity secret but might generate communications that would be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act,Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, intervened and said the idea “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Further, Mrs. Clinton’s own memoir, “Hard Choices” (2014), apparently written at a time when she wished to stress how delicate were the secrets she knew, and how carefully she handled them, reports that she “often received warnings from Department security officials to leave our [BlackBerrys], laptops—anything that communicated with the outside world—on the plane with their batteries removed to prevent foreign intelligence services from compromising them.

“Even in friendly settings we conducted business under strict security precautions, taking care where and how we read secret material and used our technology,” Mrs. Clinton tells readers. She even read classified material “inside an opaque tent in a hotel room. In less well-equipped settings, we were told to improvise by reading sensitive material with a blanket over our head.”

The FBI’s criminal investigation of messages on the server initially related solely to Mrs. Clinton’s possibly unlawful mishandling of classified information. The investigation has now metastasized to include “the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed” as Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reported Jan. 19, quoting an intelligence source.

Which is to say, the FBI wants to know whether those messages, combined with other evidence, show that donors to the Clinton Foundation received special consideration in their dealings with the agency Mrs. Clinton headed.

Whatever the findings from that part of the probe, intelligence-community investigators believe it is nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked, possibly by the Chinese or the Russians. This raises the distinct possibility that she would be subject to blackmail in connection with those transactions and whatever else was on that server by people with hostile intent against this country.

No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind—a standard that may differ from one statute to another, depending on what criminal act is charged.

Yet—from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.

This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information.

The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind—whether mere knowledge of what she was doing as to mishandling classified information; or gross negligence in the case of the mishandling of information relating to national defense; or bad intent as to actual or attempted destruction of email messages; or corrupt intent as to State Department business—justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another.

But will it be brought? That depends in part on the recommendation of FBI Director James Comey, a man described by President Obama, at the time the president appointed him, as “fiercely independent.” If no recommendation to charge is forthcoming, or if such a recommendation is made but not followed by the attorney general, what happens then?

Would the public stand for it? My guess is not. However, my guess is also that we won’t be put to that test because our public officials will do their duty.

Mr. Mukasey served as a U.S. district judge (1988-2006) and as U.S. attorney general (2007-09). He is an adviser to Jeb Bush on matters of national security.


Hillary Clinton email controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State

U.S. Senator from New York

First Lady of the United States

Hillary Rodham Clinton Signature.svg
United States Department of State

A controversy arose in March 2015, when it became publicly known that Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used her family’s private email server for her official email communications while United States Secretary of State, rather than utilizing official State Department email accounts maintained on Federal government servers. Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that her use of private messaging system software, and a private server, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails that she deemed private, violated State Department protocols and procedures, and Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements. An FBI probe was initiated regarding howclassified information was handled on the Clinton server. The controversy occurred against the backdrop of Clinton’s 2016 presidential election campaign and hearings held by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi.


Domain names

At the time of Senate confirmation hearings on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State, the domain,, were registered to Eric Hoteham,[1] with the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York, as the contact address.[2][3] The domains were pointed to a private email server that Clinton, who never had a email account, used to send and receive email, and had been purchased and installed in the Clintons’ home for her 2008 presidential campaign.[4][5]

Email server

Until 2013, Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to former President Bill Clinton, managed the system. Cooper had no security clearance or expertise in computer security.[6]

The email server was stored in the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey to be wiped of any sensitive information before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.[7][8][9][10][11]Datto, Inc., which provided data backup service for Clinton’s email, agreed to give the FBI the hardware that stored the backups.[12]

The Clintons paid Bryan Pagliano, the former IT director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, to maintain their private email server while Clinton was Secretary of State.[13][14] Security experts such as Chris Soghoian believe that emails could be at risk of hacking and foreign surveillance.[15] According to documents and data reviewed by the Associated Press, Clinton’s server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft’sRemote Desktop Services.[16][17] These records showed that, using a computer in Serbia, the hacker had scanned Clinton’s Chappaqua server at least twice, in August and in December 2012. It was unclear from the reports whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton, although it did identify itself as providing email services for[16]Marc Maiffret, a cybersecurity expert, said that the server had “amateur hour” vulnerabilities.[16]

Initial awareness

As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the Department of State under Secretary Clinton.[18]

Emails sent to Clinton’s private address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named “Guccifer” widely distributed emails sent to her from Sidney Blumenthal, obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal’s email account.[19][20][21] The emails dealt with the 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her address.[19][20][21]

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton’s personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A request by the State Department for additional emails led to negotiations with her lawyers and advisors. In October, the State Department sent letters to Clinton and all previous Secretaries of State back to Madeleine Albright requesting emails and documents related to their work while in office. In December, more than 50,000 printed pages of emails from Clinton’s personal email account were delivered to the State Department, and the State Department subsequently transferred the Benghazi-related emails related to the committee.[22]

A March 2, 2015 New York Times article broke the story that the Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law.[23][24][25] At that point, Clinton announced that she had asked the State Department to release her emails.[22] Some in the media labeled the controversy “emailgate”.[26][27][28]

Freedom of Information lawsuits

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State

Judicial Watch, a nonprofit advocacy organization, filed a complaint against the Department of State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 10, 2013, seeking records under the federal Freedom of Information Act relating to Clinton aide Huma Abedin (a former deputy chief of staff and former senior advisor at the State Department).[29][30] Judicial Watch was particularly interested in Abedin’s role as a “special government employee” (SGE), a consulting position which allowed her to represent outside clients while also serving at the State Department.[29] After corresponding with the State Department, Judicial Watch agreed to dismiss its lawsuit on March 14, 2014.[29] On March 12, 2015, in response to the uncovering of Clinton’s private email account, it filed a motion to reopen the suit, alleging that the State Department had misrepresented its search and had not properly preserved and maintained records under the act.[29] U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted the motion to reopen the case on June 19, 2015.[31][32]

On July 21, 2015, Judge Sullivan issued supplemental discovery orders, including one that Clinton, Abedin, and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Millsdisclose any required information they had not disclosed already, and promise under oath that they had done so, including a description of the extent Abedin and Mills had used Clinton’s email server for official government business.[33][34] On August 10, 2015, Clinton filed her declaration, stating “I have directed that all my emails on in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State”, and that as a result of this directive, 55,000 pages of emails were produced to the Department on December 5, 2014.[35][36][37] Clinton also said in her statement that Abedin did have an email account through that “was used at times for government business”, but that Mills did not.[35][36][37] The statement was filed as Clinton faced questions over fifteen emails in exchanges with Blumenthal that were not among the emails she gave to the department the previous year.[36] She did not address the matter of those emails in the statement.[36] On September 25, 2015, several additional emails from her private server[38] surfaced that she had not provided to the State Department.[38][39][40] These emails between Clinton and General David Petraeus, discussing personnel matters, were part of an email chain that started on a different email account before her tenure as Secretary of State,[38][39][40] but continued onto her private server[38] in late January 2009 after she had taken office.[38][39][40] The existence of these emails also called into question Clinton’s previous statement that she did not use the server before March 18, 2009.[41]

Jason Leopold v. U.S. Department of State

In November 2014, Jason Leopold of Vice News made a Freedom of Information Act request for Clinton’s State Department records,[42][43] and, on January 25, 2015, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel production of resposive documents.[42][43][44] After some dispute between Leopold and the State Department over the request, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered rolling production and release of the emails on a schedule set by the State Department.[45][46][47]

The State Department released the first batch of emails and posted them online on May 26, 2015,[48][49] and the second batch on June 30, 2015.[50][51][52] The emails showed that Blumenthal communicated with Clinton while Secretary on a variety of issues including Benghazi.[51][53] On July 31, 2015, the State Department produced its third batch of emails.[54]

On August 17, 2015, the State Department filed a court document in the case saying that it had reviewed 6,100 emails (20 percent of the full email set), and of these had referred 305 emails to the various intelligence agencies for further screening for classified information.[55]

Associated Press v. U.S. Department of State

On March 11, 2015, the day after Clinton acknowledged her private email account, the Associated Press (AP) filed suit against the State Department regarding multiple FOIA requests over the past five years. The requests were for various emails and other documents from Clinton’s time as secretary of state and were still unfulfilled at the time.[56][57][58] The State Department said that a high volume of FOIA requests and a large backlog had caused the delay.[56][59]

On July 20, 2015, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon reacted angrily to what he said was “the State Department for four years dragging their feet”.[59] Leon said that “even the least ambitious bureaucrat” could process the request faster than the State Department was doing.[60] On August 7, 2015, Leon issued an order setting a stringent schedule for the State Department to provide the AP with the requested documents over the next eight months.[58] The order issued by Leon did not include the 55,000 pages of Clinton emails the State Department scheduled to be released in the Leopold case, or take into account 20 boxes given to the State Department by Philippe Reines, a former Clinton senior adviser.[58]

Coordination of email cases

In September 2015, the State Department filed a motion in court seeking to consolidate and coordinate the large number of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits relating to Clinton and Clinton-related emails. At least three dozen lawsuits are pending, before 17 different judges.[61][62]

In an United States District Court for the District of Columbia order issued on October 8, 2015, chief judge Richard W. Roberts wrote that the cases did not meet the usual criteria for consolidation but: “The judges who have been randomly assigned to these cases have been and continue to be committed to informal coordination so as to avoid unnecessary inefficiencies and confusion, and the parties are also urged to meet and confer to assist in coordination.”[62]

Question of use of private server for government business

According to former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, and a spokesman for Clinton, a number of government officials have used private email accounts for official business, including secretaries of state before Clinton, such as Colin Powell.[63][64] State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said that: “For some historical context, Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a email account.”[23] Experts[who?] agree that these practices are allowed by federal law,[64][65] at least in case of emergencies.[24] Dan Metcalfe, a former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, stated: “She managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever.” He said that was “a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better”.[23]

According to Department spokesperson Harf, use by government officials of personal email for government business is permissible under the Federal Records Act, so long as relevant official communications, including all work-related emails, are preserved by the agency.[23] The Act (which was amended in late 2014 after Clinton left office to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days) requires agencies to retain all official communications, including all work-related emails, and stipulates that government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.[23] NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained, require that they must be maintained “by the agency”, that they should be “readily found”, and that the records must “make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress”.[23] Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which “knowingly” removing or housing classified information at an “unauthorized location” is subject to a fine, or an up to year in prison.[23]

Transparency advocates, such as John Wonderliche of the Sunlight Foundation, concede that the use of private email accounts is legally permissible, but discourage the practice, believing that official email accounts should be used.[23] Jason R. Baron, the former head of litigation at NARA, described the practice as “highly unusual” but not a violation of the law. In a separate interview, he said, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario—short of nuclear winter—where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.”[24][66][67] Baron told the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2015 that “any employee’s decision to conduct all email correspondence through a private email network, using a address, is inconsistent with long-established policies and practices under the Federal Records Act and NARA regulations governing all federal agencies”.[68]

Question of classified information in emails

Some of the emails were later deemed classified by government officials.[69] Questions were raised about whether Clinton passed information through her mail server that was classified at the time, which would be improper because it was a private, non-secured channel.[70]

Official statements

A June 29, 2015 memorandum from the inspector general of the State Department, Steve A. Linick, said that a review of the 55,000-page email release found “hundreds of potentially classified emails”.[71] A July 17, 2015 follow-up memo, sent jointly by Linick and the Intelligence Community (IC) inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, to Under Secretary of State for ManagementPatrick F. Kennedy, stated that they had confirmed that several of the emails contained classified information that was not marked as classified, at least one of which was publicly released.[71] On July 24, 2015, Linick and McCullough said they had discovered classified information on Clinton’s email account,[72] but did not say whether Clinton sent or received the emails.[72] Investigators from their office, searching a randomly chosen sample of 40 emails, found four that contained classified information that originated from U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA).[72] Their statement said that the information they found was classified when sent, remained so as of their inspection, and “never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system”.[72]

In a separate statement in the form of a letter to Congress, McCullough said that he had made a request to the State Department for access to the entire set of emails turned over by Clinton, but that the Department rejected his request.[72][73] The letter stated that none of the emails were marked as classified, but because they included classified information they should have been marked and handled as such, and transmitted securely.[73]

On August 10, 2015, the IC inspector general said that two of the 40 emails in the sample were “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information” and subsequently given classified labels of “TK” (for “Talent Keyhole”, indicating material obtained by spy satellites) and NOFORN.[74] One is a discussion of a news article about a U.S. drone strike operation.[74] The second, he said, either referred to classified material or else was “parallel reporting” of open-source intelligence, which would also be classified.[74][75] Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the letter, and questioned whether the emails had been over-classified by an arbitrary process. According to an unnamed source, a secondary review by the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency endorsed the earlier inspectors general findings concluding that the emails (one of which concerned North Korea’s nuclear weapons program) were “Top Secret” when received by Clinton through her private server in 2009 and 2011, a conclusion also disputed by the Clinton campaign.[76]

The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016. In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn declaration that “several dozen emails [had been] determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels.” Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced by the emails. [77][78][79]

Journalists and experts

According to the New York Times, if Clinton was a recipient of classified emails, “it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified.”[72] No email yet released was marked as classified at the time it was sent or received, although several were subsequently marked classified.[80] The newspaper also reported that “most specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in the Clinton account was probably of marginal consequence.”[4] Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said that inadvertent “spillage” of classified information into an unclassified realm is a common occurrence.[4] No evidence has emerged that was ever actually compromised.[15]

An August 2015 review by Reuters of a set of released emails found “at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails,” that include what the State Department identifies as “foreign government information,” defined by the U.S. government as “any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.”[80] Although unmarked, Reuters’ examination appeared to suggest that these emails “were classified from the start.”[80]J. William Leonard, a former director of the NARA Information Security Oversight Office, said that such information is “born classified” and that “If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession.”[80]According to Reuters, the standard U.S. government nondisclosure agreement “warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.”[80] The State Department “disputed Reuters’ analysis” but declined to elaborate.[80]

The Associated Press reported that “Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification.”[74]Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience.[70] Toobin writes that “government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.”[70] Toobin wrote that “It’s not only the public who cannot know the extent or content of government secrecy. Realistically, government officials can’t know either—and this is Hillary Clinton’s problem.[70] Toobin noted that “one of Clinton’s potentially classified email exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones” and wrote: “That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets.”[70]

Richard Lempert, in an analysis of the Clinton email controversy published by the Brookings Institution, wrote that “security professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification.”[81] Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says that “The odds are good that any classified information in the Clinton emails should not have been classified,” since an estimated 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could be made public without risking national security.[81] Nate Jones, an expert with the National Security Archive atGeorge Washington University, said: “Clinton’s mistreatment of federal records and the intelligence community’s desire to retroactively overclassify are two distinct troubling problems. No politician is giving the right message: Blame Clinton for poor records practices, but don’t embrace overclassification while you do it.”[81]

FBI probe

The State Department and Intelligence Community (IC) inspector generals’ discovery of four emails containing classified information, out of a random sample of 40, prompted them to make a security referral to the FBI’s counterintelligence office, to alert authorities that classified information was being kept on Clinton’s server and by her lawyer on a thumb drive.[72][73] As part of an FBI probe at the request of the IC inspector general, Clinton agreed to turn over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as thumb drives containing copies of her work-related emails. Other emails were obtained by the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi from other sources, in connection with the committee’s inquiry. Clinton’s own emails are being made public in stages by the State Department on a gradual schedule. The FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, but has suggested that the bureau’s interest focuses on the broader question of how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily on launching a criminal inquiry.[82]

Clinton’s IT contractors turned over her personal email server to the FBI on August 12, 2015,[11] as well as thumb drives containing copies of her emails.[83][84] In a letter describing the matter to Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Clinton’s lawyer David E. Kendall said that emails, and all other data stored on the server, had earlier been erased prior to the device being turned over to the authorities, and that both he and another lawyer had been given security clearances by the State Department to handle thumb drives containing about 30,000 emails that Clinton subsequently also turned over to authorities.[85] Kendall said the thumb drives had been stored in a safe provided to him in July by the State Department.[85][85]

On August 20, 2015, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan stated that Hillary Clinton’s actions of maintaining a private email server were in direct conflict with U.S. government policy. “We wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy,” he said, and ordered the State Department to work with the FBI to determine if any emails on the server during her tenure as Secretary of State could be recovered.[86][87][88] Platte River Networks, the Denver-based firm that managed the Clinton server since 2013, said it had no knowledge of the server being wiped, and indicated that the emails that Clinton has said were deleted could likely be recovered. “Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told the Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”[89] When asked by the Washington Post, the Clinton campaign declined to comment.[89]

In September 2015, FBI investigators were engaged in sorting messages recovered from the server.[90] In November 2015, the FBI expanded its inquiry to examine whether Clinton or her aides jeopardized national security secrets, and if so, who should be held responsible.[91][92]

House Select Committee on Benghazi

On March 27, 2015, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi , asserted that some time after October 2014, Clinton “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean” and “summarily decided to delete all emails.”[93][94] Clinton’s attorney, David E. Kendall, said that day that an examination showed that no copies of any of Clinton’s emails remained on the server. Kendall said the server was reconfigured to only retain emails for 60 days after Clinton lawyers had decided which emails needed to be turned over.[95]

Subpoenas for Department Testimony

On June 22, 2015, the Benghazi panel released emails between Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal, who had been recently deposed by the committee. Committee chairman Gowdy issued a press release criticizing Clinton for not providing the emails to the State Department.[96] Clinton had said she provided all work-related emails to the State Department, and that only emails of a personal nature on her private server were destroyed. The State Department confirmed that 10 emails and parts of five others from Sidney Blumenthal regarding Benghazi, which the Committee had made public on June 22, could not be located in the Department’s records, but that the 46 other, previously unreleased Libya-related Blumenthal emails published by the Committee, were in the Department’s records. In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill, when asked about the discrepancy said: “She has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”[97]

Republican Committee members were encouraged about their probe, having found emails that Clinton did not produce.[97][98] Clinton campaign staff accused Gowdy and Republicans of “clinging to their invented scandal.”[98]

Allegations of politicization

On September 29, 2015, House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the following during an appearance on Hannity: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”[99]

In response, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi threatened to end the Democrats’ participation in the committee,[100] and committee Democrats released the full transcript of earlier testimony by Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, which Republicans had refused to release.[101] As Democrats considered filing a complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics,[102] Representative Louise Slaughter introduced an amendment to disband the committee, which was defeated in a party-line vote. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer indicated that Democrats might leave the committee after Clinton’s testimony on October 22.[103]

On October 7, the editorial board of The New York Times called for the end of the committee, by which time the committee had spent $4.6 million.[104]Representative Alan Grayson took the step of filing an ethics complaint, calling the committee “the new McCarthyism” and alleging that it violates both House rules and federal law by using official funds for political purposes.[105]Richard L. Hanna, a Republican representative from New York,[106] and conservative punditBill O’Reilly acknowledged the partisan nature of the committee.[107]

In October 2015, Bradley F. Podliska, who had recently been fired as a staffer on the committee, said that the purpose of the committee is political and that he was fired for not focusing his research on Clinton.[108]

Clinton’s testimony at public hearing

House Select Committee on Benghazi – Hillary Clinton public hearing

On October 22, 2015, Clinton testified before the Committee and answered members’ questions for more than eight hours before the Committee in a public hearing.[109][109][110][111]

The New York Times reported that “the long day of often-testy exchanges between committee members and their prominent witness revealed little new information about an episode that has been the subject of seven previous investigations…Perhaps stung by recent admissions that the pursuit of Mrs. Clinton’s emails was politically motivated, Republican lawmakers on the panel for the most part avoided any mention of her use of a private email server.”[109] The email issue did arise shortly before lunch, in a “a shouting match” between Republican committee chair Trey Gowdy and two Democrats, Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings.[109] Late in the hearing, Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, accused Clinton of changing her accounts of the email service, leading to a “heated exchange” in which Clinton “repeated that she had made a mistake in using a private email account, but maintained that she had never sent or received anything marked classified and had sought to be transparent by publicly releasing her emails.”[109]

Responses and analysis

Clinton’s initial response

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill defended Clinton’s use of the personal server and email accounts as being in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules.” Clinton herself stated that she had done so only as a matter of “convenience.”[112]

File:Clinton - Opted to Use Personal E-mail Account 'For Convenience'.ogv
VOA News video on Clinton email controversy

On March 10, 2015, while attending a conference at the United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan, Clinton spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes.[113] Clinton said that she had used a private email for convenience, “because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”[114][115] She said that her staff would be turning over copies of 30,000 emails from her private server from her time at the State Department that she believed belonged in the public domain. She said that they had deleted another 32,000 emails from the server from that same time period, that she regarded as personal and private.[116] It was later determined that Clinton had used both an iPad and a BlackBerry while Secretary of State.[114][117][118][119]

Republican response

Republican National Committee chairmanReince Priebus said, in a statement regarding the June 30 email releases, “These emails … are just the tip of the iceberg, and we will never get full disclosure until Hillary Clinton releases her secret server for an independent investigation.”[53] Gowdy, a Republican, said on June 29, 2015 that he would press the State Department for a fuller accounting of Clinton’s emails, after the Benghazi panel obtained 15 additional emails to Sidney Blumenthal that the department had not provided to the Committee.[120]

On September 12, 2015, Republican Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson, chairmen of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they will seek an independent review of the deleted emails, if they are recovered from Clinton’s server, to determine if there are any government related items among those deleted.[89] The Justice Department (DOJ), on behalf of the State Department has argued that personal emails are not federal records, that courts lack the jurisdiction to demand their preservation, and defended Clinton’s email practices in a court filing on September 9, 2015. DOJ lawyers argued that federal employees, including Clinton, are allowed to discard personal emails provided they preserve those pertaining to public business. “There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the DOJ lawyers wrote in their filing.[89]

Democratic response

Democrats downplayed the significance of Clinton’s private email account, saying her use of personal email has been public knowledge for years, and that follows a pattern of use by previous secretaries of state.[64]

In August 2015, the New York Times reported on “interviews with more than 75 Democratic governors, lawmakers, candidates and party members” on the email issue.[121] The Times reported that “None of the Democrats interviewed went so far as to suggest that the email issue raised concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s ability to serve as president, and many expressed a belief that it had been manufactured by Republicans in Congress and other adversaries.”[121] At the same time, many Democratic leaders showed increasing frustration among party leaders of Clinton’s handling of the email issue.[121] For example, Edward G. Rendell, formergovernor of Pennsylvania, a Clinton supporter, said that a failure of the Clinton campaign to get ahead of the issue early on meant that the campaign was “left just playing defense.”[121] Other prominent Democrats, such as Governor Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut, were less concerned, noting that the campaign was at an early stage and that attacks on Clinton were to be expected.[121]

At the October 2015 primary debate, Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, defended Clinton, saying: “Let me say this. Let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right. And that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!” Clinton responded: “Thank you. Me too. Me too.” Clinton and Sanders shook hands on stage.[122][123] According to the Los Angeles Times: “The crowd went wild. So did the Internet.”[122][123] Sanders later said that “real issues” such as paid family and medical leave, college affordability, and campaign finance reform “are more important than Hillary Clinton’s emails.”[123]

Later responses by Clinton

Clinton’s responses to the question, made during her presidential campaign, have evolved over time.[70][124] Clinton initially said that there was no classified material on her server.[70] Later, after a government review discovered some of her emails contained classified information, she said she never sent or received information that was marked classified.[70] Her campaign also said that other emails contained information that is now classified, but was retroactively classified by U.S. intelligence agencies after Clinton had received the material.[125] Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said: “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.”[125] Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri has “stressed that Clinton was permitted to use her own email account as a government employee and that the same process concerning classification reviews would still be taking place had she used the standard ‘’ email account used by most department employees.”[74][126] Downplaying the seriousness of the events, Palmieri said: “Look, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president. We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day.”[7]

In her first national interview of the 2016 presidential race, on July 7, 2015, Clinton was asked by CNN‘s Brianna Keilar about her use of private email accounts while serving as Secretary of State. She said:

Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.[127]

On September 9, 2015, Clinton apologized during an ABC News interview for using the private server, saying she was “sorry for that.”[128]

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on September 27, 2015, Clinton defended her use of the private email server while she was secretary of state, comparing the investigations to Republican-led probes of her husband’s presidential administration more than two decades ago, saying, “It is like a drip, drip, drip. And that’s why I said, there’s only so much that I can control”.[129]

Comparisons and media coverage

Media commentators have drawn comparisons of Clinton’s email usage to past political controversies.[130]Pacific Standard Magazine published an article in May 2015, comparing email controversy and her response to it with the Whitewater investigation 20 years earlier.[131]

In August 2015, Washington Post associate editor and investigative journalistBob Woodward, when asked about Clinton’s handling of her emails, said “they remind him of the Nixon tapes” from the Watergate scandal.[132] On March 9, 2015, Dana Milbank of the Chicago Tribune wrote that the “email fiasco shows that she’s her own worst enemy”, pointing out that Clinton herself had justifiably criticized the George W. Bush administration in 2007 for its “secret” White House email accounts.[133]

On Fox News Sunday, political analystJuan Williams contrasted the media coverage of Clinton’s emails to the coverage of the 2007 Bush White House email controversy.[134]

Special access program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Special Access Program)

Special access programs (SAPs) in the federal government of the United States of America are security protocols that provides highly classified information with safeguards and access restrictions that exceed those for regular (collateral) classified information. It may be a type of black project. In addition to collateral controls, a SAP may impose more stringent investigative or adjudicative requirements, specialized nondisclosure agreements, special terminology or markings, exclusion from standard contract investigations (carve-outs), and centralized billet systems.[1]

Types and categories


Two types of SAP exist: acknowledged and unacknowledged. The existence of an acknowledged SAP may be publicly disclosed, but the details of the program remain classified. An unacknowledged SAP (or USAP) is made known only to authorized persons, including members of the appropriate committees of the United States Congress. Waived SAPs are a subset of unacknowledged SAPs in the Department of Defense. These SAPs are exempt by statutory authority of the Secretary of Defense from most reporting requirements and, within the legislative branch, the only persons who are required to be informed of said SAPs are the chairpersons and ranking committee members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senate Armed Services Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee.[2] Oftentimes, this notification is only oral.[3][4]


There are three categories of SAPs within the Department of Defense:[5]

  • Acquisition SAPs (AQ-SAPs), which protect the “research, development, testing, modification, and evaluation or procurement” of new systems;
  • Intelligence SAPs (IN-SAPs), which protect the “planning and execution of especially sensitive intelligence or CI units or operations”;
  • Operations and Support SAPs (OS-SAPs), which protect the “planning, execution, and support” of sensitive military activities.

Only the Director of National Intelligence may create IN-SAPs. Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) control systems may be the most well-known intelligence SAPs. The treatment of SCI is singular among SAPs, and it seems there is some disagreement within the government as to whether or not SCI is a SAP. Defense Department sources usually state that it is,[6] and at least one publication refers to a separate SCI-SAP category alongside the three listed above.[7] The Intelligence Community, drawing on the DNI’s statutory responsibility to protect intelligence sources and methods, finds a legal basis for SCI separate from that of SAPs, and consequently consider SCI and SAPs separate instances of the more general controlled access program.[8]


SAP documents require special marking to indicate their status. The words SPECIAL ACCESS REQUIRED, followed by the program nickname or codeword, are placed in the document’s banner line.


Abbreviations may be used for either element. Portion markings use SAR and the program’s abbreviation. For example, a secret SAP with the nickname MEDIAN BELL would be marked SECRET//SPECIAL ACCESS REQUIRED-MEDIAN BELL. Portions would be marked (S//SAR-MB).[9]

Multiple SAPs

Multiple SAPs are separated by slashes.


Compartments within SAPs may be denoted by a hyphen, and are listed alphanumerically. Subcompartments are separated by spaces, and are also listed alphanumerically. Markings do not show the hierarchy beyond the sub-compartment level. Sub-sub-compartments are listed in the same manner as sub-compartments.[10] A more complex banner line with multiple SAPs and subcompartments might read TOP SECRET//SAR-MB/SC-RF 1532-RG A691 D722.[11]


Older documents used different standard for marking. The banner line might read SECRET//MEDIAN BELL//SPECIAL ACCESS REQUIRED, and the portion marking would read (S//MB).[12] Other variations move the special access warning to a second line, which would read MEDIAN BELL Special Control and Access Required (SCAR) Use Only or some other phrase directed by the program security instructions.[13]

Involved individuals

SAP access ergo policy on classified security categories de facto is understood informally as described as those who need to know have access, access is “on a need to know basis”.[14] A SAP can only be initiated, modified, and terminated within their department or agency; the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence; their principal deputies (e.g. the Deputy Secretary of State in DoS and the Deputy Secretary of Defense in DoD); or others designated in writing by the President.[15]

The U.S. Secretary of Defense is obliged to submit a report, submitted not later than the 1st of March for each year, to the defense committee on special access programs.[16]

Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel B.A. Plentl lists on his resume his expertise with SAP.[17]


The following national or international SAPs, unless otherwise noted, are identified in 32 CFR 154.17:

  • Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), national intelligence information concerning sources and methods which is protected by control systems defined by the Director of National Intelligence. Note that SCI markings are separate from those of other SAPs.
  • Single Integrated Operational Plan-Extremely Sensitive Information (SIOP-ESI, replaced by NC2-ESI), the national plan for nuclear war. Note that SIOP-ESI was listed among non-IC dissemination control markings on classified documents, not with other SAPs.
  • Presidential support activities
  • Nuclear Weapon Personnel Reliability Program
  • Chemical Personnel Reliability Program[18]
  • Access to North Atlantic Treaty Organization classified information at the staff level

See also

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 608

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: