WaPo: Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

[leveymg]

Late Friday evening, The Washington Post published an important follow-up on the Clinton email story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

For those Hillary supporters here who by reflex action flagged my diary written earlier that day http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511413322 as “fiction” and “uninformed”, I can only say, read it and weep:

Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified

What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails

The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger March 5

Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ­authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

(. . .)

When her use of a private system was first revealed, she told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” At other points, she has said that none of the emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them — a point she reiterated Friday in a CNBC interview.

But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.

The State Department has sidestepped the question.

[stonecutter357]

1. DOJ Exonerates Clinton's Handling Of Email.

[leveymg]

2. Link? Or just making stuff up?

Not going to happen. Sorry for your loss.

[stonecutter357]

4. look it up.

[leveymg]

11. Thank you for kicking my thread again.

[UglyGreed]

169. The one who does not back up

their sources.....................

[krawhitham]

18. So just making stuff up?

[stonecutter357]

19. you can use Bing just like i did.

[tazkcmo]

31. Then post it.

You make assertions, you back them up. How about I do it like you?

Clinton being prosecuted for sending classified emails. Go look it up.

[stonecutter357]

33. i am not your slave look it up,

are don't i don't give a crap.

[tazkcmo]

38. lol

You don't give a crap yet you give a crap enough to post that you don't give a crap. Still don't get the "rules" about providing evidence for your claims either. Just like your candidate when she says, "I'm a progressive who get's things done." when she can't point to a single piece of progressive legislation she "got done" and when she's not saying "I plead guilty to being a moderate". Priceless.

[madokie]

126. I'm not sure how this one

escaped my 'I' filter

[Human101948]

40. Sounds like you have no evidence...

And for someone who doesn't give a crap you spend a lot of time and effort replying.

[CoffeeCat]

65. There's a gaggle of them erroneously spreading that the DOJ exonerated HRC. They're being silly.

They've dusted off a Sept 15 article from Crooks and Liars. The article only addresses the issue of Clinton deleting emails. The DOJ said that HRC did nothing wrong when she deleted some of her emails.

So, they've taken that tiny sliver of the investigation and extrapolated it out to suggest that Clinton is completely exonerated on everything.

You have to laugh.

Here is the quote they misunderstood and are dancing around the maypole about:

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” write the Justice Department attorneys, representing the State Department in the brief. ----Sept 15 Crooks and Liars

[Motown_Johnny]

70. Sounds like you have been using Bong

Because if you honestly believe that you must be high.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

72. Sigh...

PM me so I can tell you where to send the new keyboard that you owe me

[stonecutter357]

74. How do you know did you look it up?

[Motown_Johnny]

97. I knew what you were refering to and that was from last September.

I didn't need to look it up.

The DOJ also just gave immunity to her former staffer who set up the email for her.


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271580-justice-department-grants-legal-immunity-to-state-department-worker-in-email

^snip^

Former Clinton staffer who built email server strikes immunity deal with FBI: report

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a State Department employee who helped build former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, according to The Washington Post.

A law enforcement official told the Post that Bryan Pagliano has agreed to work with the FBI in exchange for not facing any possible criminal charges.

The new development is not a good sign for the Democratic presidential front-runner, though there is still no indication that any criminal charges will be brought against Clinton.

Sources also told the Post that Clinton will likely be interviewed by agents involved in the FBI’s investigation.




If you honestly believe this is over then you really must have been hitting the bong.

[AzDar]

174. ...

[awake]

114. Was that the same "Bing" that projected that Bernie would only win VT. on supper Tuesday?

[brush]

129. Why are we dems doing repug dirty work by continuing to broadcast this non-scandal?

This only benefits republicans to keep it going that she's a liar and corrupt and on and on and on with more repug talking points.

And frankly, IMO, they're keeping it up to damage Clinton so much that she doesn't get the dem nomination.

If they are successful, they'll immediately come after Sanders 24/7 with "socialist, communist, welfare state taxes will go up 40%, he went to Moscow, Red, Red, Red. They've got their strategy mapped out.

And we need to stop helping them.

[840high]

136. I want the truth - you should, too.

[brush]

162. Benghazi, Whitewater, Vince Foster and on and on . . .

All repug-pushed scandals and all came up empty.

The email scandal, non-scandal really, is just the latest, and too many on our side fall for the repug-generated hype and keep it going.

If it works, as I said, Bernie will be next. I'm betting they're ready to go with their red baiting strategy.

[Gwhittey]

182. We are already

Fighting the GOP. I mean if HRC camp can use Karl Rove tactics on Sanders like Smearing his Civil Rights records then please don't bitch about this.

[Perogie]

43. why do you lie to protect Hillary?

The DOJ only ruled in her favor in regards to her deleting emails. ONLY in regards to the deleting of emails

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/


The new investigation is in regards to Hillary sending classified emails and trying to circumvent the rules and LAWS bt removing the subject line

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-we-learned-from-52000-pages-of-hillary-clintons-emails/

But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.

[BillZBubb]

55. They lie to themselves. Then they lie to everyone else.

[CoffeeCat]

64. No, the DOJ did not exonerate Clinton

The DOJ said that Clinton did nothing wrong when she deleted her emails.

They were talking specifically about that tiny sliver of the investigation.

They did not "exonerate" her on the broad level that you are suggesting.

Nice spin though. I give you a 7.8 for form.

[morningfog]

90. The FBI has not yet. Nor has the FBI made its recommendations.

Not out of the woods yet.

[Logical]

120. LOL, the typical Hillary supporter! No facts, just opinion!

[stonecutter357]

121. How do you know did you look it up?

[Logical]

123. Real posters provide a link.

[stonecutter357]

124. well be real and google it.

[Logical]

127. LOL, nice try. We get it. You are making shit up. nt

[ebayfool]

128. Geebus! Only have to look at the thread YOU posted on in the Hillary Ward to see it!

Said thread spells it out clearly, as well as the date of 9/15 - but all you can come with is "How do you know did you look it up?". And reat it? What's next - neener, neener?

[Blus4u]

132. This post was alerted

Voted 0-7 to let it stand.

[ebayfool]

134. Bwahaha! Figured it would be - yay, jury system! Somebody doesn't get to push the button ...

for 24 hours. Dayum, that's 3 unanimous jury alerts I've seen or heard of in less than 24 hours. I think the alert swarm is getting jumpy! They could always try responding instead of trying to erase the opposing points of view, but oh well.

TY for the heads up, it's good to know when things in the rear view mirror are too small to see! And I do love a good chuckle.

[Blus4u]

135. No problem

I have my guess as to your nemesis.

Peace

[ladjf]

3. Whenever Hillary is accused of anything, she just tells whatever lies

come to her mind. And then, everyone quits talking about the accusations as though her denial is always sufficient to squelch any accusatory information.

[leveymg]

8. So do some of her supporters on this thread. nt

[ladjf]

13. Hillary and her supporters are basically the same public

persona that have been fabricated by the "Clinton Company of Disingenuous Political Tactics", a leading company in the business of political manipulation.

[840high]

137. yep

[DCBob]

5. Its still a matter whether she knowingly & willfully sent classified emails via her private server.

If it was just mistakenly or accidentally then its not a crime.

This is still a fake scandal no matter how much you, the GOP and the RW media hope it isnt.

[leveymg]

6. Sorry - The felony statute, 18 USC Secs. 793 (e) and (f) do not require intention to cause harm.

The mere fact that she transmitted classified materials over an unsecured system is enough, under the law, to send her and half her staff away for 10 years. That's been explained repeatedly. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[DCBob]

7. Nonsense.

Then thousands of federal wokers would have to put behind bars. Its a violation but it happens frequently. If she gets charged then that will open up a huge can of worms. They simply wont go there.

[leveymg]

10. None of those thousands set up their own unsecure email system and required staff to use it.

Nice try, but this is many orders of magnitude worse than anything any high official has ever done. She's incriminated her staff and many others, who hopefully won't be held to account for her criminal action.

[DCBob]

14. Dont worry this will all soon be over.

And I am sure Madam Secretary will come out this clean.

[leveymg]

16. Right. It's looking more like she's going to actually be indicted.

She's due her day in court. A federal Grand Jury can decide and then she gets another opportunity "to come out clean" during an actual criminal trial in DC.

[DCBob]

17. You can keep praying for that along with the GOP but..

you will all be very disappointed soon.

[leveymg]

21. Actually, I personally feel this is ruinous to the Democratic Party, and wish I were wrong.

But, nobody has been able to convince me that she didn't break the law, and worse, she refuses to acknowledge it despite the worsening consequences to others. The longer and deeper she continues to dig in, the worse this becomes in November for the rest of us.

[DCBob]

22. Be patient.. this will soon be all over and then you wont have to worry about it anymore.

Thank goodness.

[leveymg]

27. Did James Comey tell you that? nt

[NWCorona]

44. I don't have a crystal ball so I won't say what will happen

But you can't compare Clinton to rank and file employees. As SoS, Hillary was an originator. Meaning that she had the training and duty to spot and report classified info along with being able to classify any document herself.

[panader0]

62. Whether or not she is indicted, she will NOT "come out of this clean".

[Impedimentus]

29. Please name those "thousands" of federal workers.

You know nothing about security clearances and making stuff up simply negates your post as your ignorance negates your credibility.

[Human101948]

45. An informed person could draw the conclusion that the clearances are a joke...

Since they are given out like beads at Mardi Gras and are worth about as much...

As many as 4 million people hold "top secret" security clearance, of which 500,000 are private contractors. One reason for this trend is that the U.S. government has become so reflexive about classifying information, much of which is not nearly as sensitive as an NSA spying program, that clearance are required even for totally banal work.

One effect of this classification of nearly everything, and subsequent granting of clearances to nearly everyone, is that all it takes is one or two loose cannons among those 4 million clearance-holders to spill out government secrets. Whether or not you think Edward Snowden was morally right to release the information about U.S. telecommunications monitoring to the public, he represents what is becoming a significant problem for U.S. intelligence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/12/top-secret-clearance-holders-so-numerous-they-include-packerscraters/

[Recursion]

149. Not to mention the fact that the existence of a CIA drone program is TS

So, basically, the entire country violates the law any time they mention that (though generally information per se isn't classified, just documents; it's yet another way our system is byzantine and out of date).

[Motown_Johnny]

69. But won't it be grounds for impeachment?

The (R)s will still control The House and possibly The Senate.

What is to stop them from beginning Impeachment hearings as soon as the new session begins?

That keeps those thousands of federal workers out of it and it seriously damages Hillary's administration and even possibly ends it. You know they hate her and will do it if they can. A technical violation which is a felony under the law seems like more than enough for them to act on.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

148. do they all have private servers?

[Recursion]

151. No, classified is not strict liability in most cases

I don't know where you get your information, but there are almost no strict-liability electronic files (child porn comes to mind, and that's about it). Classified physical documents can be strict liability, though (but even then most aren't).

What's really entertaining is that some physical documents can be completely unclassified but the same words once typed into a computer are classified.

[awake]

12. It is a crime even if she did so with out being aware of what she was doing

The fact that she had classified info on a home server is the crime, it seems that some how info that can only be viewed on a NSA network ended up on Hillary's Home server.

[DCBob]

20. No it isnt.

Its a violation of policy but not a crime.

[leveymg]

23. Here's the felony statute. Read it yourself, and then come back:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

[DCBob]

24. No thanks.. I will let FBI Director Comey deal with this.

Gotta go. Ciao.

[randome]

56. He has 100 agents reviewing tens of thousands of emails.

How many people do you think that should take?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Kip Humphrey]

57. Way to stand up to 104 felonious acts and then rely on the FBI directore to cover it up! Reveals a

TON about you.

[awake]

28. Thank you

Game, Set, Match it is only a mater of time (hopefully the charges come before it is too late to nominate someone else)

[leveymg]

35. She has already disrupted the Dem primary process and obtained delegates by fraud and deceit.

By fraud and deceit, I point to the fact that she claimed publicly that she never sent classified material over her private server. If that central fact were known a year ago when she made that claim, she would never have gained a single delegate (one hopes). Apparently, the government has found she did.

The only question now is who does she give up her delegates to, or will there be a do-over?

[aspirant]

47. Can she actually give up her pledged delegates to someone else

without the people voting for that someone else?

[leveymg]

52. The Party can change its own rules to do that. The courts probably wouldn't interfere.

[aspirant]

58. In todays climate, that would be the end of the DNC.

[leveymg]

60. As I said, the outcome for the Party only gets worse the longer this gets dragged out.

At this point, the burden shifts to her to explain why she shouldn't drop out of the race and give up her delegates.

[Major Hogwash]

103. I agree.

Her campaign is a travesty.

[aspirant]

46. It's amazing how these people run for cover when the facts slap them in the face.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Oh, come on.

She was only Secretary of State, you can't expect her to know when what she's writing is or should be classified!

[Barack_America]

15. Wait, classified when they were SENT?

Whoa.

[fbc]

76. Does it really matter?

She was keeping her sent items. They found these emails on her server. So, even if the emails were classified later, she wasn't destroying them after they became classified so she was illegally storing classified information.

[Barack_America]

78. In terms of intent, yes.

[leveymg]

93. Intent really has nothing to do with these sections of the Espionage Act. The statute is posted

on the thread at #23. You should read the plain-language of the sections conveniently highlighted for you.

[Jarqui]

25. "The State Department has sidestepped the question. "

They tried to. At first, they were in denial - even when the facts were obvious - as the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community complained in correspondence released to the media.

As her non disclosure agreement outlined, it was ultimately Hillary's responsibility to mark material classified when she encountered it so Hillary claiming she never emailed stuff that was marked classified is disingenuous - a deliberate attempt to mislead the public on what her true responsibilities in this were.

But on Feb 4th, at a press conference, the State Department basically admitted materials were sent that were classified at the time of transmission. That debate is over. Clinton and/or her staff did that. Intelligence Community agents have provided depositions to that effect - evidence that is very difficult to refute. And Clinton can't blame the GOP for this one. It's all on her.

Further, storing classified information on a server at home unauthorized is also a crime. It too is not the GOP's fault. Bill Clinton's Director of the CIA plead guilty to that and was criminally convicted for having classified material on his home computer. Bill pardoned him before leaving office so Bill knows all about that law.

Hillary's best chance to avoid prosecution might be to get elected before they indict her so she can pardon herself. Unfortunately, I don't think the authorities are going to wait that long. I think the FBI and Justice Department are going to call Hillary's bluff on this shell game of public deception fairly soon.

[leveymg]

30. Thanks. That is all correct, except she can't potentially pardon herself. See, Nixon v US.

[Jarqui]

32. Technically, I thought as president that she can pardon herself.

What Nixon couldn't do was avoid impeachment.

[leveymg]

50. There is a minority view that the president cannot pardon herself.

This question has never been fully litigated. Maybe it will now. In any case, that would make a great bumper sticker:
"President Clinton in 2016 - She Can Pardon Herself (maybe)"

Source(s): Majority view: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20001208.html

Minority view: http://www.princeton.edu/%7Etsclark/pardon.pdf

[Jarqui]

53. I once asked my history professor how the US legal system

gets so screwed up sometimes when it was largely created by lawyers?

He said the question was rhetorical.

[leveymg]

54. I would say the question has to be litigated.

But, I'm not a professor.

[PoliticAverse]

77. Or Obama could just pardon her and end the matter. n/t

[RiverLover]

26. The whole thing should be a complete & utter embarassment to the party. But no, she's being

coronated by the party instead. With underhanded anti-democratic tactics as well. Almost every member of congress backs this person who was the first person EVER to go to the extreme of setting up a private SERVER so that she could avoid FIOA and hide things from the govt she worked for & the American public.

Of course she sent out classified info on her undersecured private server. Her job everyday involved classified information. Then think of her foundation accepting money from the very countries & corporations she was dealing with as SoS. Saudia Arabia bothers me the most. But there are many others.

When did we become not only the party of Wall Street, but the anti-Democratic corrupt secretive party?

[marew]

34. Excellent and accurate post! Thank you!

Hillary has never believed rules applied to her.

As Bernie said last night, he releases all his transcripts of private meetings- there were none!

But Hillary won't release her's unless GOP candidates do! Then she should join the GOP party!

[randome]

36. She's being elected by voters, you mean. Slight difference.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Jarqui]

37. "Remember, I'm the one who asked that all my emails be made public. ...

... I've been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it's also true that when something is made public, everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that's what's happening here. And we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-resolution/index.html

That's more than a little disingenuous when
a) she deleted about half the emails before anyone could see them
b) she knows full well that they cannot publicize classified material.

The Clinton shell game of deception with the public on this continues ...

[EndElectoral]

39. If the Inspector General is correct then it is in fact a HUGE issue.

[vdogg]

41. Sigh...

From your own article.
Regarding Clinton’s role in writing 104 of the emails, Fallon said the classification determinations “were after-the-fact . . . for the purposes of preparing these emails for release publicly.”

[randome]

42. The daily wringing of hands will continue until morale improves.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

48. What else are her spokesmen and lawyers supposed to say?

But, as has been pointed out by others in the thread above, and as the statute states, under the law it doesn't matter if she intended to cause harm by transmitting classified materials. The mere fact of the transmission is enough to convict.

There is no "retroactively classified" in the applicable law, there is only deemed and presumed classified. As originator of classified materials, when she wrote information that is classifiable, it is classified automatically at the time of writing, and must be protected. If she obtains classified materials from another agency, as he did in this case, she may never release it without authorization of the classifying official. That is the way the classification system works.

There is no "retroactively classified" - that's a PR term created by Hillary's publicists and lawyers to confuse a public unfamiliar with the technicalities of the classification system.

[BlueMTexpat]

81. +1! eom

[Press Virginia]

131. The SAP information wasn't classified after the fact. That's the BIG problem she has

it requires one to physically access the secure system to obtain it.
There is no "I didn't know" defense

[Dem2]

59. Banghazi!!!

Automatic trash.

Pushing of right-wing talking points is not needed. Fox news doesn't need any help.

[leveymg]

61. Sorry. Misused and overused, that innoculation has lost it's potency.

She's reached a tipping-point here. She would never have gained delegates if she had told the truth a year ago when she falsely claimed, "I never sent classified materials". Burden is now on Clinton to explain why she shouldn't be disqualified and have to give up her delegates.

[Dem2]

63. Misused and overused

I couldn't agree more.

Nobody gives a flying f*** about this story any more due to it being a committee dedicated to trashing Hillary.

Good thing no Democrats are helping with this mindless "get Hillary" game.

[leveymg]

66. They say denial is part of the first stage of recovery. You have a ways to go.

[Dem2]

68. They Say People’s Political Passions Distort Their Sense of Reality

study finds that deeply held beliefs can undermine rationality: When confronted with solutions that challenge deeply held values, people may be inclined to disbelieve the problem.

[leveymg]

92. Sounds like you should give that study another read. nt

[Orsino]

67. Swing and a miss.

I see a lot of FUD here, but the story again weasels out on the central point: was classified or sensitive material mishandled by Clinton or people who worked for her?

After-the-fact classifications or declarations of sensitivity are not likely to impress me. What, exactly, is supposed to be important about this particular story?

[leveymg]

71. When the classifying agency finds it was classified, it's classified. The CIA has found classified

info on her server, and that information was created and classified by CIA before it was posted on Clintonemail. com. She and those other government officials who traded that material across an unsecure, noncertified system have violated Sec. 793. It's really as simple as that, no matter how much later the document the classified info was incorporated into is eventually found, examined and deemed classified by DOS. There is a 10 year statute of limitations, however, and that explains why they can't go after Powell and Rice now for the same sort of act.

It doesn't matter whether you are more or less impressed. The decision has already been made by the CIA that they found their own classified info on Hillary's non-secure server. Since intent to harm the US really doesn't enter into it under Subsections (e) and (f), she violated the law. Open and shut case.

[Orsino]

84. These are weasel words again.

"Later" is indeed a key point.

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution...

An agency can classify retroactively, but Sec. 793 provides a clear loophole.

[BlueMTexpat]

82. Thanks for your comment.

[fbc]

73. Also, if this was an Exchange email server, it kept a copy.

Unless she deleted her sent items, which people never seem to do. And since they have her sent emails, it sounds like she wasn't deleting them.

So she was apparently storing classified information on her private server, not just sending it as email.

[avaistheone1]

75. If Hillary had behaved like this at a large U.S. corporation her azz would be fired pronto.

In addition the more valuable the information mismanaged, the more likely she could be sued or even jailed.

[leveymg]

80. Given that she was a US Gov't official with a security clearance, she merely committed a felony

subject to 18 USC Sec. 793 (e) and (f). See above.

She's already being sued in a civil case for avoiding FOIA requests - a federal judge granted Discovery in that case a week ago. As for criminal charges, the AG will have to decide when and whether to take the politically difficult step of convening a Grand Jury. Even if a Grand Jury indicts, the Attorney General can seal the indictment and act or not act, or just wait for the President to pardon. That last step is, if history is any indication (the case of CIA Director John Deutch who resigned in 1997) I believe the most likely.

[avaistheone1]

85. Okie dokie... in other words Hillary Clinton is another case of too big to fail.

[leveymg]

88. That's one way to look at it. ;-)

[BlueMTexpat]

79. If the material was not "classified" when

she sent it, regardless of what anyone says now, tough toenails to all those who want to nail Hillary on this issue.

To be guilty of a crime related to sharing of classified material, the material must in fact BE classified in accordance with classification rules at the time it is shared and one must knowingly have shared it in spite of its classification.

It is interesting to see so many here who call themselves "progressive" who are, in effect, arguing - and gleefully so - for application of ex post facto laws. These are prohibited by the US Constitution.

Ex post facto laws https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

Please proceed.

[Ellipsis]

83. yup.

[leveymg]

87. It was already classified by the CIA. See #71 above

[EndElectoral]

107. My understanding by the IG is material was "classified" when sent, but not marked as classified.

If an email is "sent" on a public server containing classified information (regardless of whether it is marked classified), what are the legal ramifications of that?

Also, if an email is "received" on a public server containing classified information (regardless of whether it is marked as such), what are the legal ramifications of that?

This doesn't enter into whether information was later classified, but is about whether information was deemed classified at the time of being sent or received (regardless of whether it was labeled as such).

[BlueMTexpat]

117. Sorry, that is not the way it works.

At least, not when I was an attorney for the DoS. And mens rea is a specific requirement.

But you will see for yourself as the "scandal" continues to dribble away. It's just another GOP-created attack on Hillary ... and too many DUers all too willing to believe every word because of CDS.

[leveymg]

159. The burden is now on you to explain how the law and the facts exonerate her.

Because it sure as hell doesn't look that way to me now that we know she, herself, sent many classified documents over the unauthorized, unverified server. That she has violated fundamental security protocol is clear. Seems to be a prima facie case for prosecution under Sec. 793 (e) and/or (f), perhaps (g). Read the statute.

[Nitram]

89. We're sick of hearing about the damn emails. Just another non-scandal.

It is a non-issue. Colin Powell has stated that he used a private server and he disagrees with the retro0-active classification of his emails. He should be in a good position to know. EVERY Secretary of State used private email for official business because the State Department email system sucks. You think you're going to get anybody to change their vote to Sanders because of the email issue? Guess again.

[leveymg]

91. There's a 10 year statute of limitations on these violations, so Colin and Condi get a Get Out of

Jail Free card. Unfortunately for Hillary and her staff, there is no such easy out for them. Get used to hearing about this, because the American legal process moves with a terrible slowness.

It has nothing to do with Sanders. In fact, it seems likely that HRC may have a lock on delegates before a decision is made by the Attorney General whether to convene a Grand Jury. The interesting question is: what happens with her delegates?

[Nitram]

94. If it jhsa nothing top do with Sanders then why is it that Bernie supporters

just can't stop bringing this up at every opportunity? If the punishment meted out to Petraeus for an intentional illegal release of classified material is any guide, I don't think Clinton has much to worry about.

[ebayfool]

133. Quit conflating private emails with private server. Powell did NOT have a private server ...

Clinton did. You think you're gonna get anybody to change their vote to Clinton because you try to change the dialog with 'they did it too?'? Guess again.

[840high]

141. I want the truth to come out.

[Nitram]

95. Right. Which branch of governent calls them classified?

The different branches often disagree on what should be considered classified and what shouldn't. What they are saying now is that they weren't marked as classified, but Clinton should have known they should be classified. Right. According to Clinton Powell, they are retro-actively classifying emails he sent or received on his personal server that he does not believe should be classified, and he should be in an excellent position to know. The government is notorious for over-classifying documents, often ones that are already publicly available.

The emails are just another anti-Clinton non-scandal. If there is evidence, as one anti-Clinton poster alleged in another thread on DU, that Clinton's server was hacked, that would make me sit up and pay attention. Otherwise, let it go.

[leveymg]

99. The originating agency makes that determination. In this case, the CIA.

Having the DOS review the materials (after the fact of another agency identifying the material as classified) merely confirms that the communication by Department employees involved classified information. The DOS determination is actually just a procedural step that advances the process toward administrative sanctions or criminal prosecution. In this case, since Hillary is no longer a DOS employee, there are no administrative remedies, and there can only be one outcome - a DOJ decision to prosecute.

[Nitram]

102. Only one outcome? What about dismissing the charges?

The material was not marked as classified.

[leveymg]

111. The documents the information came from were marked secret.

Doesn't matter if you only transmit the information in the classified document without the stamp. It's the same crime.

[Nitram]

112. Well, we'll see. Will you email me with an acknowledgement if the "only" outcome doesn't...

...come out that way?

[NCTraveler]

96. Republicans are desperate as hell.

Amazing how low they will go. They have become brilliant and using LIV's to carry their message. This one is so pathetic that only the lowest of LIV's will even come close to buying it. People just aren't stupid enough to buy into their distortions when they are this bad.

[leveymg]

98. So now the WaPo's desperate? Along with 2 federal judges, 150 FBI agents,the IGs of the IC and DOS

Who's desperate here? HRC and her campaign are. So desperate that they can't even come up with a reasonable response, beyond "classification run amok" and "classification was on an upgrade, so it can't be true." http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-camp-emails-report-more-overclassification-run-amok-n532851

How can anyone still cling to excuses this skimpy? Just continue ignoring that cliff. Happy landings.

[NCTraveler]

100. Preach it from the rooftops. Your work here is appreciated. nt.

[leveymg]

105. More than anyone else, her supporters need to understand the serious consequences of her actions

So, as a lifelong Democrat, I'll take that comment literally.

[bigtree]

106. desperate is right

...you really have to wonder about a campaign that promotes so much right wing bullshit.

[leveymg]

110. You really have to wonder about a campaign that creates this sort of problem for its Party

If this were just so much right-wing bullshit this would all be over. But, no, her campaign has to dig in and drag it out until the primaries are almost over. So, if the FBI recommends prosecution, then what? Does she wait for the Attorney General to seek a Grand Jury? Then, what? Do we wait for the AG to actually release the indictment? Then what, does she stay in the race until the criminal jury votes? What then . . . ? If by some perverse outcome, she's elected, does she pardon herself?

[bigtree]

115. you're digging into this for purely political reasons

...in support of another politician.

I think that's despicable.

[leveymg]

119. The problem with such accusations is that you are easily wrong.

You can't know what my motives are because that doesn't really matter. The facts speak for themselves in this case, but only one of us is speaking to the facts.

Hillary is only in this for herself and she doesn't care about what you or I are doing. We don't count in her world. She doesn't deserve your allegiance. She'll humiliate her supporters without a second thought if she thinks it buys her time. She's running out of time.

[bigtree]

139. what you wrote there

....is so dishonest and false that it actually makes me support her more.

The more I think about his supporters (who feed us this hatred) as the base if his 'revolution' the more I'm determined to send him home to Vermont.

[leveymg]

147. As I said you have no idea what my motives are.

But I will tell you that my criticism and distrust of the Clintonites and Bushes long predates this election. They have been working opposite sides of the same street advancing the interests of neoliberals and neocons for decades. Both are dirty tricks experts who apply foreign money and intelligence techniques to gain and hold political power. None of this is really a secret and they are now so confident that they barely bother to even cover up the enormity of their corruption and lawlessness. For my own part, what I think of them is also no secret. Just read my DU diaries going back 12 or 13 years.

[840high]

142. Fail.

[NCTraveler]

160. Agree. Republicans are failing/flailing on this on. Nt

[Major Hogwash]

101. She's the only Democrat on the ballot being investigated by the FBI.

Bye-bye Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PonyUp]

108. ...

[silenttigersong]

125. Lol

[840high]

143. ha!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

150. This is such a weird election

[Jitter65]

104. "Classified" after the fact. nt

[leveymg]

109. No. The information was classified by the CIA before Hillary and her aides put it on the server

The "classified after the fact" characterization misrepresents the way the system works. Hillary's case is at step 6-7.

The 10-Step Road to Indictment:

1) An origination agency (e.g., CIA) classifies information;
2) An official of another agency with a security clearance, either
a) keeps that information secure, or
b) obtains declassification permission from the originating agency, or
c) violates the law by mishandling (retaining, transmitting, revealing or losing it);
3) the mishandling is discovered;
4) the document created with classified information is sent back to the originating agency for identification;
5) the document is reviewed by the agency that employ(ed) the official who did the mishandling to determine that it was, in fact, mishandled (e.g., repackaged and sent as an email over an unsecure server);
6) the matter is referred for investigation;
7) the investigating agency (FBI) makes a report;
8) the head of the FBI decides whether to recommend prosecution;
9) the Attorney General decides whether to seek a Grand Jury;
10) the Grand Jury votes whether to Indict.

[Arazi]

113. Thank you for your patience with this erroneous talking point over and over and over

[bigtree]

116. prediction

...jackshit is going to happen to Hillary over this.

Critics will be left where they stand, with the republican opposition; looking to bring down, not only a candidate by then, but a Democratic president. Shameful.

[leveymg]

118. The truly shameful act is Hillary putting you in a position where you have to defend her

for her felonies and misdemeanors instead of more normal campaign work you and I would rather be involved with. She did this to herself and to the Party. She doesn't care for us and she isn't worth it.

[bigtree]

144. I can't wait to send Sanders packing

...and the day where republican politics adopted by his supporters is put in its place.

It really has no place here.

[840high]

145. What's shameful is the fact

that you don't want to know the truth.

[silenttigersong]

122. Hillary Clinton

Would be the one to mark them on the recieving end ,part of her job.She has caused this problem ,simple .Collin Powell lied before the UN.

[chillfactor]

130. and no one seems to get excited about it....

except Bernie supporters

[leveymg]

138. and 2 federal judges, 150 FBI agents, the IGs of the IC and the DOS and

a partridge in a peartree. Talking sense to talking points gets tiresome after a while, so sing!

[840high]

146. FBI is excited.

[Kuot420]

140. Once again, classified after the fact

We realize that Sanders chances are getting pretty bleak, especially on the verge of an 0-fer Tuesday, but dragging this non-story thru the mud everyday is getting silly.

[randome]

154. Oh, they have a new mud-dragger now.

Now it's the theory that someone has recordings of her banking speeches and is only waiting until she gets nominated to release them, thereby destroying our chances forever!

We can't take the chance! We have to cower and run and hide!

After all, it's the 'revolutionary' thing to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

156. That is a campaign talking point, neither fact nor a legal defense.

You guys are going to have to do better than that to keep up with the case against her as it moves toward indictment.

[leveymg]

163. Like Trump, she could shoot one of you on Times Sq and you'd elect her anyway. That's sad.

There's no resorting to "this" - I'm reporting facts. You're ignoring reality and in deep denial about the seriousness of the situation and the likely consequences for the prospects of the Democrats holding onto the White House. You're clinging to hope that she gets away with multiple felonies. Who's run out of ideas?

[leveymg]

165. The Intelligence Community, DOS, 2 federal judges, the FBI consider this a "genuine investigation"

I'm sorry, but you're deluding yourself if you think the Sanders campaign or the RW have caused this to happen or are the only ones interested in the outcome.

[leveymg]

167. Due Diligence in law enforcement doesn't mean putting a criminal case "to bed."

The FBI actually has very little discretion in how it treats an investigation. On the other hand, the Attorney General has almost total prosecutorial discretion as to whether this thing goes before a Grand Jury or, if it does, whether the Grand Jury decision is unsealed. I actually think the most likely outcome is that, like former CIA Director John Deutch, the AG will simply drag this out to the end of the present Administration, and that on the last day, Obama will pardon her. However, that doesn't mean she's going to be exonerated in the eyes of the majority of the American people. The contents of the FBI report are already set in place.

We already know the essential facts - on the day of her Senate Confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton ordered the installation in her home of an illegal server -- one that was not certified, as required by the DOS regulations found at 8FAM, to hold or carry classified data. She apparently did this to avoid releasing her communications as Secretary of State, which was itself an illegal act, thus creating the element of mens rea, or bad intent.

During the next four years, she proceeded to personally send at least 104 emails containing classified information -- information that had already been classified by another agency, including at least 22 emails originating with containing information originating with the CIA already classified at the TS/SAP level. She also sent and receive numerous emails that contained "foreign government" information across that server that was presumed classified to recipients including non-US government persons. These acts were felony volations of 18 USC Sec. 793, as reproduced above. She later transferred that noncertified server to the physical custody of a private internet hosting company that was not certified to handle classified materials. At some point, she ordered part or all of the contents of that server erased. After her resignation from the State Department, she did not timely turn over the server or data to the Department for forwarding to the Archives. This was a violation of the Federal Records Act. Some 30,000 documents she characterized as "private" were withheld from the State Department. The disposition of those documents, or whether they can ever be recovered, is unclear.

Yes, this will all be in the FBI report. She is not going to be exonerated, even if in the end she evades prosecution.

[leveymg]

170. The RNC is irrelevant to this case.

The TS/SAP classified information that somehow ended up on Hillary's servers were originally CIA documents. That information was classified before being placed in emails that flowed across the noncertified server. The bit about "classified after the fact" has to do with a later examination of these emails by the DOS. The offending information in the mails belonged to the originating agency, and was most certainly classified before it went across the server, where it was stored and retained.

[leveymg]

172. The report I reposted above is from The Washington Post. Your ad hominem attack is utter BS

I don't rely on suspect sources for this, nor do I mischaracterize events, as you do.

To clarify one point - this case has nothing to do with either the RNC or the Sanders campaign. Love how you don't respond to facts, but instead impugn personal motives. You're a real class act.

[leveymg]

175. Thanks for kicking my thread, bro.

[MFM008]

152. senator Sanders and I agree

Neither of us give a crap about her emails.

[Lil Missy]

153. they were only made classified after the fact, by partisans against Hillary.

[rjsquirrel]

155. Oh. My. God.

That's it, it's all over. No one will vote for her now.

In all seriousness it's really necessary to provide a positive reason to vote for your candidate. Prospective and possible negative reasons not to support someone don't really work on any but the truly undecided. Look at the GOP flailing trying to talk people out of voting for Trump.

Your only other hope is to create negativity sufficient to keep voters disgusted enough to stay home. Problem is that usually spills over to your own supporters.

No Clinton supporter I know is about to be talked out of voting for her because of the vague threat of her email server possibly becoming a legal problem later.

When and if it is, get back to me. Otherwise Occam's razor suggests it's just wishful thinking that the DoJ would indict a frontrunning candidate and former SoS for anything that's being floated lately.

[leveymg]

158. When she broke the law she set in play a process even more powerful than herself

That's what happened with many politicians, and let us hope that has not changed.

[rjsquirrel]

177. If she broke the law

Or do you have secret knowledge of a conviction?

[leveymg]

178. Prima facie case. Once the CIA identified materials on her server as its own classified info.

Now that we know she wrote more than 100 of 2,000 emails containing classified information, case closed. There is no exonerating her now. She also lied repeatedly about that. If she had come clean and we had learned what we know now a year ago, she would not have gained delegates. That means the ones she has were gained by fraud and deceit. She's managed to subvert the Democratic Party's nominating process.

Thanks for everything, Hillary.

[rjsquirrel]

183. Funny

You're a lawyer huh? I've never heard of someone convicted on the basis of a prima facie case.

Cool Latin bro. Too bad it has no legal meaning. Go ahead show us the part about prima facie conviction in the constitution. Or is that Trey Gowdy law?

Your guy is losing so you lash out. I understand.

[aspirant]

157. K&R

[Avalux]

179. Hillary KNEW what she was writing was either classified or not.

I would love someone to try to defend this. If she's that incompetent to not know better, she should definitely NOT be leading this country.

[AtomicKitten]

180. On this, she has no defense and nowhere to hide.

She instructed an aide to remove classified headers and send via unsecure channel - a federal crime.

[leveymg]

181. It's actually two felonies.

Violation of Sec 793 (e) and/or (f), and (g) conspiracy to do same.

[VulgarPoet]

184. Well, how 'bout that? nt

[leveymg]

185. Hillary's signed TS/SCI Nondisclosure Security Agreement here

References EO 12958 (1995) and Sec 793, link at: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/15/the-comey-plan-what-an-indictment-of-hillary-clinton-would-mean-for-the-obama-legacy/