No one doubted that an incoming Secretary of State would have had to sign the typical non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that also inform high-ranking officials of the criminal consequences of failing to adhere to the rules and regulations governing the handling of classified material. However, no one could actually verify that Hillary Clinton signed off on those warnings, which would make her “I didn’t know any better” defense even more threadbare than ever. Now the signed NDA has been located, thanks to a FOIA request from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as Lachlan Markey reports for the Free Beacon:

As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. …

The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.

The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.

“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.

It’s interesting and a good snag by CEI and Lachlan, but not necessarily a game-changer. The legal requirements for those with clearance to classified material are set out in federal laws, among them 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 1924. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, and that’s likely even more true in this context, where access to classified material is granted on a very restrictive basis. In a trial, the assumption will be that a defendant has been well informed of these requirements based on the nature of the job. A signed NDA strengthens that assumption, but it’s almost certainly not necessary for a successful prosecution.

That assumes that this case will get into a court at all, which is still a very risky assumption. It would be a safer bet if the potential defendant’s name didn’t rhyme with Dillary Dinton. Regardless of whether Hillary signed the NDA, she built and ran a secret communications system that both transmitted and stored Top Secret-Compartmented information, as well as hundreds of other communications with lower classifications. Those actions are violations of both laws cited above, and especially so in the instances where Hillary herself either sent or re-sent classified and sensitive nat-sec info in e-mails, whether marked as such or not. Once again, note that 18 USC 793 does not require information to be specifically classified as a prerequisite to criminal acts, but only that dissemination of nat-sec info could do damage to the US. Note too that the same code makes criminal “gross negligence” that results in exposure of that material, not just intentional acts.

None of this matters, though, if the Department of Justice decides not to bring these issues to a court in the first place. The FBI can investigate all it wants, but it doesn’t bring indictments. A US Attorney working in the DoJ would have to do that, and thus far this administration’s DoJ hasn’t expressed much interest in cracking down on 18 USC 793 and 1924 unless it’s against leakers that make the Obama administration look bad.

It might not even matter politically. The NDA strongly suggests that Hillary has been lying, but is that news? Relatively few people think Hillary tells the truth anyway, and she’s still running away with the Democratic presidential nomination. If the DoJ ends up doing nothing about this, it’s possible that Hillary could outlast that issue into the general election, with the e-mail releases drying up early next year. That’s obviously Team Hillary’s strategy, and at least so far it’s working.