As a former Air Force B-1 pilot, and now as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have handled some of our country’s most sensitive information. I recently had the opportunity to read 29 emails that were contained on Hillary Clinton’s private server. Having done so, it is clear to me these emails contain extraordinarily sensitive information. They do reveal classified sources. They do reveal classified methods. Worst of all, they also reveal sensitive human assets.
It’s important to understand what this means. The official definition of TOP SECRET is that the information is so sensitive that its disclosure could be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
Exceptionally grave damage is not a trifling thing.
Secretary Clinton is arguing that she is the victim of a culture of over-classification. She goes even further, arguing that these emails should be released. Having read these emails, I know that is an absurd proposition. Does she really propose that we further endanger national security by releasing emails that the executive branch under the leadership of President Obama has stated contain exceptionally sensitive national security information? It’s a sleight of hand and she knows it, a dishonest effort to suggest the emails are not truly classified. But I know that isn’t the case. And so do any others who have read them.
The secretary has also argued that none of these emails were marked classified at the time that she received them. This defense essentially comes down to this: I don’t have the judgment to recognize sensitive information involving national security unless someone tells me.
We should expect more from a national leader.
As a hypothetical example, were I to receive an email with the names and addresses of undercover intelligence officers in a foreign country, common sense would tell me this information was classified, regardless of the absence of any official headings. If a member of my staff engaged in this kind of behavior, they would lose their security clearance and their job.
Having read the secretary’s emails, I know that any reasonable person who read them would have recognized their highly sensitive nature at the time they were sent and received. Secretary Clinton surely knew that as well. Yet, she continued to handle these highly classified communications through an unsecure server in her private residence.
Some want to dismiss the ongoing FBI investigation as a politically motivated attack. But it’s important to note that this investigation is being conducted by the Obama administration, not a vast right-wing conspiracy. Indeed, Secretary Clinton’s own State Department recently determined that 22 of these emails were so sensitive that they cannot be released, in whole or in part.
The bottom line is this: Secretary Clinton repeatedly received TOP SECRET intelligence on what she knew to be an unsecure, private server. The unsecure handling of these communications had the potential of endangering human assets and national security.
I don’t know what the legal outcome of the current FBI investigation will be. But I don’t think whether Secretary Clinton will be prosecuted is the only consideration we should debate. An equally important question is this: Regardless of the outcome of the law enforcement process, has the former secretary shown the necessary judgment to be our commander-in-chief?
Based on my experience serving our country and knowledge of what these emails contain, I don’t believe America should elect a commander in chief who puts her convenience above our nation’s security interests. Americans cannot trust a leader who continues to mislead and divert responsibility for her judgment on vital matters of national security.
Chris Stewart represents Utah’s second congressional district. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
