Thread by @MiekeEoyang

I know that I've been criticizing Republicans for security violations recently, and some of you have suggested we should lock them up.

After the chants of "Lock him up" at the ballpark, I feel I should address it.

We need to be able to draw distinctions between what the President is alleged to have done, as different from the security violations of both (a) Matt Gaetz, and (b) Hillary Clinton, and the appropriate punishments in these circumstances.

First, the security violations.

Information security is governed by regulation, not statute. The standards ensure clear guidelines to protect information.

National security professionals take them very seriously and there are punishments for failing to meet them.

The punishments for violating the standards are generally administrative NOT criminal in nature (**with a couple of exceptions).

That's not to say it's not severe. You might just get a reprimand or you could lose your clearance, or your job.

(**The exceptions include espionage and intentionally revealing the name of an agent under cover. I'm not going to dive into those statutes here. You can look them up yourself.)

But like with other violations, it matters if you intend to violate the standards or if you unintentionally violate the standards.

So, barging into a SCIF with your phone out, recording what's happening is different than entering, forgetting the phone in the bottom of your bag.

The first is in defiance of the rules, the second is a mistake.

And truth be told, the second happens more often than anyone would like, because we're human.

And the same is true about the use of email. There's a difference between intentionally emailing around a document, created by someone else, that is marked TOP SECRET, and writing an email about something that happened that is later categorized as such.

The first is an intentional violation, the second is a security precaution, that on reflection, the email deserves higher protection.

Cast a critical eye on security violations that flow from classification after the fact, especially in politicized cases.

But in BOTH cases, that of @mattgaetz and of @HillaryClinton, the punishment for the security violation at issue is certainly NOT criminal.

Everyone needs to stand down on the "Lock 'em up" language on both sides.

That's not to say that either or both shouldn't have had some refreshers on security procedures. And for intentional violations, the organizations that provide them access to classified information might choose to limit their access to same. But what is appropriate depends.

The President's actions, however, are an animal of a different family. The conduct to which he has admitted is not simply a security violation.

It is an abuse of power, and potentially a criminal one. He was certainly warned that it was against the law.

But in a nation that believes to its core in the rule of law, there is an appropriate process for determining what happened and what the punishment should be.

Congress has begun that process.

If Congress determines his conduct fell below the Constitutional standard, he will be removed from office.

At that time, as a regular citizen, he can be prosecuted.

He will have all the due process protections of the Constitution in both the Congressional & criminal arenas.

But as a nation, we don't believe in mob justice for either side.

Do not let the Trump supporters' chants of "Lock Her Up" make you think that is appropriate for them too.

Believe that America is better than that. <fin>

PS, which is all to say that fundamentally, while I don't think that Gaetz and Clinton should be locked up for their conduct, I think there's a real possibility that Trump should be locked up for his -- after appropriate process.