- We still have the problem of over-classification in the government, which does not excuse anybody from taking documents marked classified to put in boxes or show to friends.

[lighthearted music] - Hello and welcome to GZERO World.

I'm Ian Bremmer and today I'm going to tell you a secret, America's classification process doesn't work very well.

Whether it's classifying material that has no basis for remaining secret or shuffling top secret documents behind a cheap shower curtain, it's high time we talk about how we keep things confidential.

Joining me for that is a woman who knows more than she'd like to admit about the darkest corners of American government, former nine-time Congresswoman Jane Harman.

She served as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

And later we travel back in time to the country's first whistleblower case.

Don't worry, I've also got you're a Puppet Regime.

- Eugene, you're live.

Put it out there.

- Hello, Vladimir.

- But first a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

- [Announcer] Funding for GZERO World is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

- [Announcer] Every day all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains with a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform, addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at prologis.com - [Announcer] And by.

- [Announcer] Cox Enterprises is proud to support GZERO.

We're working to improve lives in the areas of communications, automotive, clean tech, sustainable agriculture and more.

Learn more at cox.career/news.

- [Announcer] Additional funding provided by Jerre and Mary Joy Stead, and.

[gentle music] [stamp thumping] - When Henry Kissinger was tapped by President Nixon to be his national security advisor, he'd served the military but otherwise never worked in government.

But the young Harvard professor had an acquaintance who had spent years as a senior intelligence analyst at the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation.

And this acquaintance did his best to prepare Kissinger for the secret world ahead.

- And I said, "Henry, you're about to get a lot of clearances higher than top secret that you did not know existed.

That's going to have a sequence of effects on you.

First, the great exhilaration that you're getting all this amazing information that you didn't know even existed.

And the next phase is you'll feel like a fool for not having known of any of this, but that won't last long.

Very soon you'll come to think that everyone else is foolish."

- Who was this acquaintance?

Daniel Ellsberg, who would go on to become the world's most famous whistleblower.

Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, 7,000 pages of top secret Vietnam War documents to The New York Times back in 1971.

While Kissinger denies it, it's been widely reported that he called Daniel Ellsberg, and I quote, "The most dangerous man in America."

But back to that story that Ellsberg recounted.

In that 1968 meeting, Ellsberg was warning Kissinger about the pitfalls of knowing too much.

But in the five decades since and until his death in June at the age of 92, Ellsberg spoke out about the dangers we face as a nation by keeping too many secrets, and he's not alone.

The 9/11 commission found that a lack of information sharing between agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA prevented the U.S. government from foiling the terrorist attacks that day.

A key reason was the over-classification of information.

An estimated 50 million documents are classified each year, though the exact number is unknown, not because it's classified, but because the government just can't keep track of it all.

In the words of the former U.S.

Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, "Some secrets are not worth keeping."

It's hard for the American public to know what its government is up to if so much of that work is classified.

It also forces journalists to weigh the risks of disclosing information to the public against the possibility of prosecution under the Espionage Act.

There are of course plenty of good and important reasons to classify information.

We don't want Kim Jong-Un or Ayatollah Khamenei to get their hands on our new nuclear codes.

But beyond national security concerns, a big contributor to over-classification comes down to incentives.

If you're a government employee, the risk of classifying something that doesn't need to be classified is low.

But if you un-classify something that you shouldn't, then you're in trouble.

It's also about control.

Classification protects the government against revelations of mistakes, false predictions or other embarrassing outcomes that the rest of us like to call accountability.

Here once more is Ellsberg himself speaking to a British journalist in 1972, over a year after leaking the Pentagon Papers and while awaiting trial in Los Angeles.

- If the president can really keep secret indefinitely and at his own decision, essentially without appeal, this sort of information both from Congress and the public, he really escapes from all accountability and it's hard to say that our foreign policy is in any way democratic.

- Here to talk about all things classified.

Including those documents in Biden's garage and Trump's bathroom is former Congresswoman Jane Harman.

She served in Congress for nine terms and she was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee after 9/11.

In other words, Jane knows a secret or two.

What follows are the unclassified parts of our conversation.

Jane Harman, welcome back to GZERO World.

- Happy to be back.

- So I want to talk about classification.

There's so much in the news about all these people, including the former president doing things that may well be illegal.

But you've been involved with this topic for a long time.

I wanted to ask you first, go back to 9/11, and you were very concerned about information sharing in the government coming off of the 9/11 commission.

Tell me what it was that you found so alarming.

- Well, the problem is that there are good reasons to classify documents, to protect sources and methods.

If somebody found out information in a surreptitious way, let's imagine a CIA operative inside Russia and the fact that that happened or even the name of that person is disclosed, that person is likely to be pushed out of a window.

So we don't want to reveal the sources, even technical sources, satellites and where they might be located, that lead us to find important information about the motives and intentions of our adversaries.

A bad reason to classify is to protect your turf.

You don't want other people to know what you know or to protect yourself from embarrassment, meaning you screwed up and you don't want people to know that happened.

That is not a justification to classify and yet people do it all over the government.

There are multiple classification systems, and that prevents us from curing the problem we faced on 9/11, which was when the need to know trumped the need to share.

We had information about these hijackers, we knew that there were people training on airlines, we had some other information about we had an FBI informant in San Diego and yet that information was not put together in the FBI and in the government to lead us to know that there was possibly a plot inside the United States involving airplanes.

So I authored legislation a bit later, but we still have the problem of over-classification in the government, which does not excuse anybody from taking documents marked classified to put in boxes or show to friends.

- I understand that.

But what I'm hearing, and I have been surprised to learn about just how much information gets classified is that a lot of classified documents do not contain any sensitive information.

I'm sure that our audience is not aware of that.

So how is that possible?

- Well, I don't think that is technically the case.

People who classify documents claim to have a reason to do it.

The only good reason to classify documents is to protect our sources and methods, how we got information.

One of the problems, among many, is that there is not so-called portion marking.

So if you have a document, I'm writing you a document and it's about hot dogs, but in there it says that Vladimir Putin has some kind of a lock that's illegal on the hotdog market.

What should happen with that document is the general description of hotdogs should just be available and that one portion that says something about Putin doing something nefarious that is a secret that we don't want people to know should be classified.

That's called portion marking.

The other problem we have is that agencies have different classification systems.

So if you're reading, I'm not sure this is still true, a DOD document, it may not have the same classification as pick another place, CIA document.

I'm quite sure that's been corrected, but maybe not as a Homeland Security document, and that's another problem.

- So if we have an over-classification problem in the U.S., do we also have an over clearance problem in the U.S.?

I mean I know that millions of Americans, either full-time employees or consultants to various parts of the U.S. government have some level of clearance, of security clearance, which means they have access to some level of over-classified information.

What do we think about that process, Jane?

- Well, it's kind of circular.

We over-classify so yes, we over-clear.

Our clearance process is very cumbersome.

For example, in the early 2000s when we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, I was very much in favor of getting language speakers who spoke dialogues to read some of the information we were getting through so-called technical means, that means non-humans or humans, because they would understand better what the words meant than would somebody who studied Arabic at Harvard University, unless that person were native.

Problem, couldn't clear those people because they had a grandma in Baghdad and everyone was afraid that they would be some form of blackmail against them.

So what I argued we needed was a tiered classification system where you can clear people only up to a certain amount.

In other words, some person who speaks a regional dialect could be given papers to read but not told the context of the papers.

So that person would just translate the language and then somebody with a higher classification level could put that together.

- So of the classified briefings and documents that you are now exposed to with that clearance that you need to have to do the job to provide the advisory work that you do, what percentage of those today would you say in your view actually needs to be classified?

The documents and the briefings that you have received in the last say two years, what percentage actually needs to be classified?

- I don't know the answer to that.

I don't think all of it needs to be classified.

I totally agree, I think- - But is it closer to 90 or is it closer to 10?

- No, it's not 10.

It's not 10.

- It's not 10.

I guess let me ask the question in a slightly more direct way, do you think that you could do your job equally well without a clearance?

- No.

I just had a series of briefings in this role that I now have on threats, especially the China threat, and there was information in that briefing that I don't think I could get from open sources and I think having that information makes me better informed to help make the decisions for this commission.

- So let's talk about some of these cases right now.

So there are a lot of people that have mishandled classified information, but this happens a lot, right?

I mean we found out that Pence had documents that he shouldn't have, Biden has documents he shouldn't have, all sorts of cabinet secretaries.

The fact that it happens so often tends to minimize the way the public considers it when it can be serious.

What can be done to explain that away?

- I think we should be much clearer about how presidents and ex-presidents and vice presidents, how they can transfer documents for personal use, what documents, and there ought to be some kind of a minder, sadly, to go through papers to make sure that no classified materials are part of boxes of papers.

I mean what happened, as I understand it in the Pence and Biden cases is it was just sloppy.

They didn't read the documents.

They were found and when they were found they were turned back.

In the Trump case, again, reportedly allegedly the stuff according to him was mixed up in his golf clothes.

So that seems a bit more deliberate and there are again allegations that he intentionally took those documents out of boxes and waved them around in order to impress people at his golf clubs.

- Now, he was President of the United States and as such, and we've heard on many occasions that the president has the ability to declassify classified documents.

Now there there's no evidence that he did so, but if he could have done so then in principle a mountain is being made of a molehill or is that not true?

- I think that's not true.

I think if you believe, and I do, that there are important reasons to classify documents, just declassifying them at whim, if you have the power, is really bad practice.

The problem has been that we don't have clear rules.

I think if Congress can possibly work together that there might be agreement in the future on what good rules could look like and red lines around what you can do in terms of declassifying.

I think at a minimum you have to make a record in some form that you are declassifying some list of documents.

Trump did not do that.

He said he thought about it in his mind, and in this recording that has just come out of him talking about some material on Iran- - This totally wins my case, you know.

Except it is highly confidential.

As president I could have declassified it.

Now I can't, but this is still a secret.

- He basically says after he has left the White House that he does not have authority declassify it.

So that rule is pretty well understood.

- Leaving aside the ongoing 37 counts against Trump on these classification issues, which are the former American officials who have had the most serious charges of mishandling classified documents in your view and why?

- Well, Daniel Ellsberg just died, and reading his obits, I've learned more about him than I knew.

I mean he graduated third in his class at Harvard.

He was a really bright guy.

He went to work for the Rand Corporation.

He got on this study of the Vietnam War, and that produced the Pentagon Papers and they showed, and he was alarmed, that a lot of the facts about the Vietnam War were not true.

He was a true believer that the people had to know this and he ultimately had his...

He was, I think, convicted, but the case was dropped because of misdeeds by the other side.

I mean do we remember the plumbers and do we remember Nixon?

I think we do.

So there was a huge consequence for what he did and sadly, at least to him, what he did didn't end the Vietnam War and he was forever sad about that.

But that would be one that stands out.

This new thing with this airman, Teixeira, in Massachusetts, yeah, it's kind of interesting.

I mean, again, a kid who wanted to show off.

- A kid like 20, in his- - A kid.

- His early 20s with access to documents that seems well above his pay grade, frankly.

- We have had, and we have to correct it again, a trusted system.

We don't have that many people in it, but we have a trusted system.

And that airbase I think no longer has classified documents.

It certainly doesn't allow for them to be transferred in any form.

But it is a very difficult problem, a wicked problem, how do we control this but also share crucial information?

It's this tension between the need to know, and we can argue how many people need to know a very privileged information, and the need to share.

And I can argue that people who are in a position to stop harm to the United States need to get the information that gives them the tools to stop the harm.

- Now, I noticed you didn't mention Hillary Clinton.

And of course if you're a Trump supporter right now, you're saying that the fact that Hillary has not been done up on charges while Trump is shows that the system has been de-legitimized and that it's all political.

What's your view of the mishandling of classified documents on Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State's private laptop?

- Well, as I understand it, that was used for her convenience, just to make it easier for her to access emails.

But it wasn't appropriate.

There are laptops appropriate to handle classified information and there are some that are not, so it was on the wrong laptop.

It was discovered accidentally and it shouldn't have been there, this classified information.

I don't know what the classified information was, but it was wrong.

I think looking back on the incident, Hillary Clinton would've been advised to say at the front end, "This was wrong.

I made a mistake.

This material's going right back to the federal government.

It was sloppy practice and I apologize."

- So in other words, covering it up was the bigger transgression here?

- Well, I don't know if they covered it up, but not addressing the issue.

- Going back to Trump for a second, is the thing that most concerned you about Trump, not the fact that he had all these documents but the fact that he obstructed justice, the fact that he lied and instructed people to lie about it to the DOJ and the FBI?

- What bothers me is that he, I think and this has to be proved in court, knowingly took this information, knowingly marked it up, knowingly shared it with people.

And I think while he was president, but certainly afterwards, it was not in secure places and some of the information, allegedly, included information about our war plans on Iran.

Well, excuse me, I hope we don't go to war with Iran, but I certainly don't want to read about it in the newspaper or have some guy who was a random golf buddy at Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey.

P.S., there may be additional charges against him in New Jersey because of this.

I don't want some random golf guy to have information like this and blow up a situation where our national security is at risk.

- Jane Harmon, thanks so much for joining us today.

- Always a pleasure.

[electronic music] - Whistleblowing is nothing new.

The country's first whistleblower case can be traced back to its founding.

It's a story I'm particularly fond of because it makes Rhode Island look bad.

Regular viewers will know by now, our sixth season, that I do not consider it to be a state.

- [Canned Audience] Boo!

- Our villain is a man named Esek Hopkins, Commander in Chief of the Continental Navy during the Revolutionary War.

Hopkins was born into one of the most prominent Rhode Island families, which is not exactly saying much, and he went to sea at the age of 20 as a privateer.

He made a name for himself in 1765 by captaining the slave ship Salley from West Africa to the West Indies, a journey that killed 109 of the 196 slaves aboard.

In one of our country's earliest instances of failing up, Hopkins' disastrous command of the Salley earned him the role of Commander in Chief of the Continental Navy just as the Revolutionary War broke out.

From the start of the war, Hopkins defied the continental Congress's orders.

In 1776, Congress ordered Hopkins to clear the southern coast of British raiders and then to head north and do the same.

But Hopkins had other ideas, sailing to the Bahamas to capture an undermanned British garrison.

Sounds like more fun.

Despite some wildly profitable exploits, Hopkins' disdain for his superiors and his penchant for disproportionately favoring Rhode Island with his spoils alienated him from the powers that were.

But what sank his career was discontent from below decks.

On February 19th, 1777, 10 of his officers sent a petition to the Congress requesting Hopkins' removal from command.

The petition cited not just the many instances that Hopkins defied congressional orders, but also painted a portrait of a self-serving and sadistic captain who "treated prisoners in the most inhuman and barbarous manner."

And also "is oftener guilty of profane swearing than any Jack Tar that belongs to the ship."

In 1778, the Congress dismissed an enraged Hopkins who soon filed a criminal libel lawsuit against the 10 crewmen.

Two of those poor rascals happened to be in Rhode Island at the time where Hopkins still held sway and were imprisoned.

But not only did the Congress order their release, but soon after it passed the nation's first whistleblower protection law, stating the public servants had a duty to report wrongdoing and they were protected in doing so.

The Congress also covered the two imprisoned crew men's legal fees, totaling $1,418, roughly $56,000 today.

As for Hopkins, he remained a highly respected member of the Rhode Island community, continuing to serve on the State's General Assembly through 1786.

And if you ever find yourself in Providence, you can visit a statue and you guessed it, Hopkins Square.

[electronic music] Now we pay visit to the land of our furry little four-fingered friends.

It's time for our Puppet Regime.

- Hi, welcome back to Puttin' It Out There, calling show where you ask me questions and I tell you lies.

First of all, apologies for being out of pocket for past couple of weeks.

As you may have heard, I had some personal problems, but everything has been straightened out now so let's get to it.

First caller, Eugene from St. Petersburg.

Eugene, you're live, put it out there.

- Hi, Vladimir.

First time, long time.

I work at a catering company and let me say first of all, that boss, CEO of company, is a great guy.

But CFO, he's a scumbag.

He's an idiot.

He's making terrible decisions.

He's corrupt.

He's ugly.

He has crazy hairline.

He's so bad that competition is literally killing us.

- Yes, I see.

What you plan to do about this, Eugene?

- I am sick of it, okay?

I have half mind to gather everybody from my department and march right to boss' office and tell him.

- And tell him what, Eugene?

What are you going to march all the way to your boss' office to tell him?

- That he's great boss, sir.

He's great boss.

- [Announcer] Puppet Regime.

- That's our show this week.

Come back next week, and if you like what you see or even if you don't, you know it's not a secret, you can check us out, at gzeromedia.com.

[upbeat music] [upbeat music continues] [upbeat music continues] [electronic music] - [Announcer] Funding for GZERO World is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

- [Announcer] Every day all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains with a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform, addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at prologis.com - [Announcer] And by.

- [Announcer] Cox Enterprises is proud to support GZERO.

We're working to improve lives in the areas of communications, automotive, clean tech, sustainable agriculture, and more.

Learn more at cox.career/news.

- [Announcer] Additional funding provided by Jerre and Mary Joy Stead, and.

[electronic music]