The Real Political Scandal Is That Too Many Documents Are Classified
Many Democrats and Republicans were outraged when Trump and Biden respectively were found with classified documents. But both sides are missing the point.

Classified documents are found in former President Donald Trump's home!
Democrats were outraged! Trump is guilty of "mishandling of some of our nation's most sensitive secrets" creating "a national security crisis!" said MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Nicole Wallace.
Then President Joe Biden got caught.
Suddenly conservatives were upset.
"Thanks to Joe Biden," said Sean Hannity, "America's most sensitive secrets were floating around."
But both sides were wrong.
The truth is, the word, "classified" means little. Our bloated government now classifies three things every second.
If you stacked up all the classified paper in Washington, the stacks would be taller than 26 Washington Monuments.
In my new video, Matthew Connelly, author of The Declassification Engine, explains that "as much as bureaucrats know they're only supposed to classify information that's really important, they end up classifying all kinds of nonsense….Even like telling a friend, 'Let's go have coffee.' They'll end up classifying that email as top secret."
Former CIA Director Mike Hayden once got a classified email saying "Merry Christmas."
For years, government classified how much peanut butter the Army bought. They classified a description of wedding rituals in Dagestan. They even classify newspaper articles.
They are especially eager to classify dumb things they do, like the Army's reported experiments testing whether "psychics" could kill people with their eyes.
"A lot of what the government keeps secret, they keep secret simply because it's embarrassing," says Connelly.
Occasionally, government tries to reduce the overclassification.
Presidents Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all pledged to reduce the excess.
"Not in one case did they actually reduce the rate at which our government was creating secrets," says Connelly. "In fact, the amount of secrecy only increased."
I'm not surprised. In government, butt-covering and status matter more than efficiency.
I say to Connelly, "I would imagine bureaucrats think, 'Ooh, if I label this classified, I'm more important.'"
"In Washington," he answers, "many officials won't even look at something unless it's classified."
And classifying something needlessly has no downside.
"In all my years of research," says Connelly, "I've never found a single instance of anybody being fired for overclassifying something."
With so much unimportant but "classified" paper around, it's no surprise that some ends up in officials' homes.
After Trump and Biden were caught, classified documents were found at the home of former Vice President Mike Pence. In 2014, Hillary Clinton was caught sending emails that included classified information. Former CIA Director David Petraeus gave classified papers to his mistress for a book she was writing.
Connelly is upset that these people act as if government documents are their personal property. Some of Biden's documents were found in a folder labeled "personal."
"I'd like to know who thought that this was his personal property?" Connelly says. "These are our property. These records are our history."
Ordinary people who take records home go to jail. A Navy veteran who took top secret documents got three years in in prison. An ex-CIA contractor who kept classified documents in his home was sentenced to three months.
I bet that won't happen to Biden or Trump.
America's first "top secret" was the D-Day landing. It succeeded partly because Hitler didn't know exactly where the troops would land.
The second was the atomic bomb.
"We have to keep secrets," says Connelly. "But when we create tens of millions of new secrets every year, it's impossible to identify and protect the things that really do have to be protected."
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That picture looks like David Schultz smacked him again.
Take a look at the bot below paraphrasing your comment and then adding an advertisement!
As long as “the big guy” gets 10%, I’m good with that.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
The J6 videos were released today.
I’m sure it’s all a big nothing;
DC Police officer on J6: “They set us up, they set us the fuck up”
From the look of that picture, David Schultz hit him again. This post is one of the best ever. Here is where you can find out more about who we are and what we do: Business Loan Leads.
You owe me 10%.
No. Republicans weren't shocked that Biden had classified documents. They were appalled by the pure witch-hunting tactics the Democrats are resorting to.
Funny how this was my take since at least September, shortly after it initially broke. Eventually mainstream libertarians can catch up, I guess. Though I don’t know how justified the both-sidesing is, since many Republicans were merely pointing out double standards in terms of the coverage and the way government treated both.
Republicans were merely pointing out double standards in terms of the coverage and the way government treated both.
Anything a Republican does is automatically doubleplusungood, regardless if some Democrat does the same thing. And if the Republican in question is Trump, then he's literally Hitler.
Yeah, I think there were some squawking about damage to national security, but most of what I saw was Repubs calling out the tremendous double standards at play with the left's hyperventilation about Trump and complete non-care about Biden.
If you guard your toothbrushes and your diamonds with equal zeal, you’ll lose fewer toothbrushes and more diamonds.
– National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy
That quote is from sometime in the 1960s, I think - and we are still making the same mistake.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
LOL. Stalin had multiple pipelines out of Los Alamos and the White House to keep up with developments of the atom bomb.
If everyone is doing it, is it still a bad thing?
Depends; If only Republicans are found doing it; its the end of the world! But once it's found out Democrats are doing it too; then it's A-Okay.
It think the whole story line establishes that one.
The ethical standard of a given behavior is in no way related to the number of people engaging in that behavior. So, yes, bad behavior that is widespread is still bad.
But people have been fired for failing to mark something classified that should have been. There's literally no incentive to not overclassify things, which is probably the main reason for it.
That said, marking a "Merry Christmas" email classified is ridiculous. Although I would be curious if maybe that was just the last response to an email chain that contained classified information, or perhaps originally had an attachment that had classified info in it. Although if that were the case it should have been re-labeled once the attachment was dropped, or better yet, if you want to wish someone a Merry Christmas send a new email instead of replying to an email chain, but whatever.
"In all my years of research," says Connelly, "I've never found a single instance of anybody being fired for overclassifying something."
That's because those instances are classified.
Former CIA Director Mike Hayden once got a classified email saying “Merry Christmas.”
Because it was from, say, Kim Jong-un, say, or the real Santa Claus.
You’re not right. the real reason to classify information is to compartment it. To make it hard to aggregate. A lot of time the information itself isn’t classified, it’s the way it might be analyzed, aggregated and therefore show the thinking, or the vulnerabilities of strategy, and sources of information. You have this wrong on this one, John. Classification is vital, even as it is obnoxious.
While I understand your point it is often possible to circumvent classification by aggregating publicly available data. That happened in 1979 when the Progressive Magazine published how to make a hydrogen fusion bomb.
First Stossel is 100% correct here far too many things get classified and stay classified longer than is necessary. It makes sense that the D-Day invasion was classified, but after the attack large part of the documentation should have been declassified. Same with other things. Protect methods, sources, future plans, but not every detail need to be classified.
This article reminds me of a chemistry lecture I had in Inorganic Chemistry. The topic was hydrides, compounds where the hydrogen atom act as a positive rather than negative element. These compounds were hard to first synthesize and once the first compound was made the chemist proceeded to move up the periodic table make hydrides with new elements, all the way up till they successful made uranium hydride, at that point the government classified all research on topic.