2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMore on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges
Many people have asked, what crimes exactly would the FBI find the former Secretary of State violated? This and previous posts linked below provide a detailed picture of Hillary Clinton's violations of her signed Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, and the primary federal statute referenced within it, specifically, the three felony crimes specified at subsections (e), (f) and (g) of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
While Hillary Clinton has characterized it as a "mistake", the evidence shows she set up and operated her email server as an end-run around information security requirements. She signed her security oath on January 22, 2009 and in the the following days received explicit warnings from NSA about the vulnerability to hacking of her hand held device. See, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/
Not only did she continue to use the Blackberry in spite of this warning, she operated it for official Department messaging connected to an uncertified server, which made her communications even more vulnerable to interception. She operated this unauthorized system for the rest of her term in office knowing that she was defying NSA. That provides the element of guilty knowledge, or mens rea, that some courts have held is a requirement to conviction under Sec. 793(e) for unauthorized transmission or retention of classified information.
Subsection (e) makes the following acts a felony. Note that the courts have held there are two types of classified materials referenced, tangible documents and intangible information. The distinction is important, as will be explained below:
(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;
Her actions show general mens rea, or guilty knowledge, that what she was doing could "be used to the injury of the United States." Note that is different from a more specific intent to injure the United States, which is not a requirement under this subsection. Nonetheless, mens rea is a requirement under one line of legal interpretation for conviction for sharing intangible (unstamped) classified information under 793(e). The same line of interpretation distinguishes marked documents from unmarked (intangible) information in the following fashion, according to a government Motion filed in a recent Sec. 793 case: US v Hitzelberger, Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 51 Filed 04/05/13, .pdf
Meanwhile, this same reasoning is reflected in a filing in the Manning case. A Government brief observed on the topic of what it takes the phrase "reason to believe" to mean, as used in Sec. 793(e): http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/715582/ae-509-government-targeted-brief-reason-to.txt.
required to prove that the accused had reason to believe the
information "could be used to the injury of the United States"
when the accused had unauthorized possession of any "document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or
note relating to the national defense." See 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). In
other words, the "reason to believe" scienter requirement only
applies to intangible information relating to the national defense,
not the tangible items listed above. See United States v. Kiriakou,
2012 WL 4903319, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1 6, 2012) ("Importantly, §
793 [e] differentiates between 'tangible' NDI, described in the
'documents' clause ( 'any document, ... or note relating to the
national defense'), and 'intangible' ND I, described in the
'information' clause ('information relating to the national
defense')." ; United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 612
( E.D. Va. 2006) ("Second, Congress expanded the category of
what could not be communicated pursuant to § § 793(d) and (e) to
include 'information relating to the national defense,' but modified
this additional item by adding a scienter requirement...." .
However, the courts have differed on the strict scienter requirement for a 793(e) conviction as found in the 2006 Rosen decision. According to the Congressional Research Service: Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information, Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney (September 9, 2013):
the Rosen case cast doubt on the district judges interpretation).
Furthermore, HRC should have reasonably known that she was violating Sec 793(e) by willfully allowing her email system to be a conduit for the swapping and storage of classified materials in violation of the terms of her Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement signed by her on January 22, 2009, which states at Paragraph 1:
Given the sheer volume of classified materials found on her uncertified server, more than 2000 with 104 originating with her, and that 22 were classified Top Secret, she meets the standards for prosecution under USDOJ and JAG guidelines.
In addition, this pattern of willful evasion of the law in concert with others establishes scienter, or willful intent, for an additional conspiracy charge under 793(g), the next relevant subsection of 793:
Please see previous installments in this series: (Clinton's violation of her signed Security Oath and her Sec. 793(f)(2) violation, failure to report classified information violations of others, (May 2, 2016) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1883154); and, the original Sec. 793 analysis, "Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server", (August 28, 2015), http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Exclusive: Before the Democrats lock in their choice for President, they might want to know if Hillary Clinton broke the law with her unsecure emails and may be indicted, a question that ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern addresses.
By Ray McGovern
ConsortiumNews, April 30, 2016
EXCERPT...
Prosecutorial Double Standards
Merited or not, there is, sadly, some precedent for Clintons supreme confidence. Retired General and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, after all, lied to the FBI (a felony for lesser folks) about giving his mistress/biographer highly classified information and got off with a slap on the wrist, a misdemeanor fine and probation, no jail time a deal that Obamas first Attorney General Eric Holder did on his way out the door.
We are likely to learn shortly whether Attorney General Loretta Lynch is as malleable as Holder or whether she will allow FBI Director James Comey, who held his nose in letting Petraeus cop a plea, to conduct an unfettered investigation this time or simply whether Comey will be compelled to enforce Clintons assurance that its not going to happen.
Last week, Fox News TV legal commentator Andrew Napolitano said the FBI is in the final stages of its investigation into Clinton and her private email server. His sources tell him that the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming, and that the FBI has enough evidence to indict and convict.
Whether Napolitano has it right or not, it seems likely that Clinton is reading President Obama correctly no profile in courage is he. Nor is Obama likely to kill the political fortunes of the now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Yet, if he orders Lynch and Comey not to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for what in my opinion and that of most other veteran intelligence officials whom Ive consulted amounts to at least criminal negligence, another noxious precedent will be set.
Knowing Too Much
This time, however, the equities and interests of the powerful, secretive NSA, as well as the FBI and Justice, are deeply involved. And by now all of them know where the bodies are buried, as the smart folks inside the Beltway like to say. So the question becomes would a future President Hillary Clinton have total freedom of maneuver if she were beholden to those all well aware of her past infractions and the harm they have done to this country.
CONTINUED...
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/30/hillary-clintons-damning-emails/
Ever hear of Frank Church? Someone at NSA said he knew too much.
Frank Church was a patriot, a hero and a statesman, truly a great American.
The guy also led the last real investigation of CIA, NSA and FBI. When it came to NSA Tech circa 1975, he definitely knew what he was talking about:
I dont want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.
-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, of course, he narrowly lost re-election a few years later.
And what happened to Church, for his trouble to preserve Democracy:
SOURCE: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frank_church_1
From GWU's National Security Archives:
"Disreputable if Not Outright Illegal": The National Security Agency versus Martin Luther King, Muhammad Ali, Art Buchwald, Frank Church, et al.
Newly Declassified History Divulges Names of Prominent Americans Targeted by NSA during Vietnam Era
Declassification Decision by Interagency Panel Releases New Information on the Berlin Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Panama Canal Negotiations
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 441
Posted September 25, 2013
Originally Posted - November 14, 2008
Edited by Matthew M. Aid and William Burr
Washington, D.C., September 25, 2013 During the height of the Vietnam War protest movements in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the National Security Agency tapped the overseas communications of selected prominent Americans, most of whom were critics of the war, according to a recently declassified NSA history. For years those names on the NSA's watch list were secret, but thanks to the decision of an interagency panel, in response to an appeal by the National Security Archive, the NSA has released them for the first time. The names of the NSA's targets are eye-popping. Civil rights leaders Dr. Martin Luther King and Whitney Young were on the watch list, as were the boxer Muhammad Ali, New York Times journalist Tom Wicker, and veteran Washington Post humor columnist Art Buchwald. Also startling is that the NSA was tasked with monitoring the overseas telephone calls and cable traffic of two prominent members of Congress, Senators Frank Church (D-Idaho) and Howard Baker (R-Tennessee).
SNIP...
Another NSA target was Senator Frank Church, who started out as a moderate Vietnam War critic. A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee even before the Tonkin Gulf incident, Church worried about U.S. intervention in a "political war" that was militarily unwinnable. While Church voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution, he later saw his vote as a grave error. In 1965, as Lyndon Johnson made decisions to escalate the war, Church argued that the United States was doing "too much," criticisms that one White House official said were "irresponsible." Church had been one of Johnson's Senate allies but the President was angry with Church and other Senate critics and later suggested that they were under Moscow's influence because of their meetings with Soviet diplomats. In the fall of 1967, Johnson declared that "the major threat we have is from the doves" and ordered FBI security checks on "individuals who wrote letters and telegrams critical of a speech he had recently delivered." In that political climate, it is not surprising that some government officials eventually nominated Church for the watch list.[10]
SOURCE: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB441/
[font size="4"][font color="red"]I wonder if Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA) also got the treatment from NSA?[/font color][/font size]
I think that the report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards, and I think the people who read it in the long run future will see that. I frankly believe that we have shown that the [investigation of the] John F. Kennedy assassination was snuffed out before it even began, and that the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was not to use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up. Senator Richard Schweiker on Face the Nation in 1976.
Lost to History NOT
For those new to the subject, it's like stepping outside Plato's cave for the first time.
Try harder.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)After all, Law is way too important to be left to the lawyers - now, any layperson with a PC and access to Wikipedia is a Constitutional scholar.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Ignore list ticks up one. Five shy of the century mark.
amborin
(16,631 posts)dchill
(38,546 posts)We're still here.
Response to leveymg (Original post)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)This attack is really sad and bogus http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."
"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."
Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Example: Feinstein-Burr is an abominable unconstitutional mess.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Feinstein is the ranking member (vice chairman) of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the subject of her observations pertains to the so-called secret status of the e-mails in question. You may want to read the post in question before making comments.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)matters of legal concern.
P.S.: alleging that someone who disagrees with your point of view has not read the post is considered uncharitably rude in some parts of the internet.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Your post had no relevance to the thread in that Senator Feinstein was commenting on what is or is not top secret. If you are proud of posting material that is not relevant to the issue, then go ahead and be proud. I find this to be amusing
Senator Feinstein's expertise in intelligence matters is not affected by your amusing post
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)dchill
(38,546 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)She is still an expert of securities issues
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you'd like to ruin the week of someone with a security clearance, email them something Manning leaked.
The person with the clearance does not have to send the email to cause a problem. Storing the classified in an unclassified environment is its own problem.
Also, as has been covered many, many times, the lack of markings does not make the information unclassified. In fact, that gets drilled into you during your in-briefing.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)They like to learn. A few also are good enough to share.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)...anyone who does not want to listen.
They have completely shut down listening.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)They assume the media tells the truth so they believe the media when they shove the guilty lie down our throats. Down our throats.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)Is not right wing propaganda.
Evidence of a criminal act...
....is not right wing propaganda.
There are Democrat police officers, detectives, district attorneys, FBI agents... all over America.
Actor
(626 posts)And no, she wont be indicted.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)-A proponent of democracy, or democratic government, rule of the people or rule by many.
-A member of a Democratic Party
Actor
(626 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)as well as hidden agenda, escapes me on this one.
I just thought it had to do with fitting it into a sentence properly.
still_one
(92,422 posts)impression, and I agree with you
Actor
(626 posts)that is the impression I am getting in my short time here.
amborin
(16,631 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)And just because we are not hearing much in the MSM yet, the rumble is out there like a tsunami a-coming.
"Buckle up" is not even adequate warning to what lies ahead in the next few months.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Get some fresh air or something. Nothing you say will change the outcome.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)of Hillary?
What is your agenda?
panader0
(25,816 posts)Your pose as a Bernie supporter was exposed long ago.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)given your posting history?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Run along now.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)...I hope it doesn't stop!
Hill is dripping with guilt, how can this be swept under the rug when the
whole world is watching?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Bush and Cheney are still walking around...
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)One crime leads to another... and another.
All recorded in hand e-mail form.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)and then I think of Bush, Cheney, et al
Sickening the dual system of justice.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Here is a good legal analysis as to why Hillary Clinton will not be indicted http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.
The statute also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: [C]lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for restricted dissemination.
Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clintons server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.
Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified documents or materials and knowingly removes such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such materials at an unauthorized location.
Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having knowingly removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.
But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer......
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clintons optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clintons is likely to be.
There will be no indictment
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Not relevant.
TheBlackAdder
(28,222 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)This looks like the anger stage
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)For most it will pass
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)JudyM
(29,280 posts)Unless you think they misstated the status of the investigation in a court filing... FBI is preparing the lawsuit for DOJ to prosecute.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Here are some facts for the Sanders supporters to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules, as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
.......But if youre a Republican pundit, you know that the idea of Hillary Clinton being led away in handcuffs is just too tantalizing for your audience to resist. And so when the Fox News Sunday panel (consisting of two conservative Republicans and two objective reporters, which is their idea of balance) had the chance to weigh in, the conservatives Karl Rove and The Posts George Will expressed the proper degree of faux outrage at Obama. Whats most interesting about their comments (heres the transcript) is that neither one of them even tried to make a case that Clinton should be indicted. Instead, they both brought up former IRS official Lois Lerner, to argue that the Obama Justice Department engages in cover-ups of criminal behavior. They implied, without saying outright, that the Justice Department would never issue indictments that would damage Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton).
For the most part, the Clinton email story has been a disappointment to Republicans. They were desperately hoping that the emails would reveal some kind of ghastly malfeasance on Clintons part, some smoking gun that would make all Americans realize that she should never be elected president. When that turned out not to be the case, they pinned their hopes on the idea that she would just have to be charged with a crime eventually. I have no doubt that people like Will and Rove now understand that that isnt going to happen either.
But having gone this far, they need to keep up appearances, and they also know that just talking about her emails serves to convince people that something scandalous must have happened. So they are laying the groundwork to argue, if and when she doesnt get indicted, that it must only be because Barack Obamas corrupt administration quashed the investigation and hid the truth from the public.
And down where the conservative rank and file get their information the talk radio rants, the right-wing blogs, the breathless chain emails these two contradictory ideas are both widely circulated. Clinton is about to be indicted, and Clinton wont be indicted because the fix is in. The assumption in either case is that of course she committed crimes, even if no one can say exactly what they were. Because shes Hillary Clinton, right? What more do you need to know?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)'Lawsuit' is for civil law: 'a legal course of action between two private parties.'
You are thinking of 'indictment.'
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Your contribution to our understanding here is priceless.
Ignore, DU, at your own peril.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Here are facts for the Sanders supporters to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586
The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News.
The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."
As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.
In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.
The amusing but wrong analysis from the layperson is that there is DOJ attorney stupid enough to charge based on e-mails discussing articles in the NYT. The premise of these charges are both funny and wrong
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)brooklynite
(94,745 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Besides, he doesn't have an active security agreement. She did. She failed to report Blumenthal's continuous flow of what was obviously classified materials (he even told her repeatedly the materials were classified). Sorry, but Sec 793(f)(2) makes failure to report classified information violations of others a felony. Read that part of the statute, and keep in mind her response to Blumenthal, "Keep 'em coming."
A "mistake"? Bad judgement? Criminal inducement to conspiracy.
Of course, this raises interesting questions about how by operating an uncertified system with the assistance of her aides she inevitably entrapped those around her who held security clearances in this criminal undertaking. Guess that makes her a really shitty boss, in addition to involving all involved as co-conspirators in separate violation of subsection (g). Punishable by ten years in federal prison, it is.
Go find another candidate. We're going to need one.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)and disqualifies her from continuing to pursue the nomination and election as President. Gawd help the Democratic Party if somehow she continues to run, regardless.
BTW: Actual indictment is several steps further down the road, and that's a decision the Attorney General must make. If historical precedent is a guide, look to what happened to ex-CIA Director John Deutch, who in 1996 took classified laptops home and hooked them to his home internet. The CIA IG and the FBI recommended indictment under 793, among other potential charges, but AG Janet Reno ran out the clock. On his last day in office, Bill Clinton pardoned Deutch along with Marc Rich and a number of others.
If the President finds she should be pardoned, that's his call. I'm sure it will not please him to do so.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)You or Bernie decides that? stop carrying water for Trump. It won't work and it just makes me dislike Bernie more and more.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Guess again...you think that Condi and Colin will be indicted also? They used their own emails with no additional security...shocking.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)today for acts that took place prior to May 5, 2006, anyway. That may seem unfair, but that's the way the law is written.
panader0
(25,816 posts)The same info in the OP is available to anyone with a computer. Seeking the truth is not carrying water
for anyone. And it's not Bernie doing this, it's the FBI, okay?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)No matter where it takes us, or for whom the tide of justice comes.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I have completely separated the political from the national security arena. To me, this has nothing to do with the Sanders campaign, as people seem to like to imply. This is something more important than our politics, and that is our national security. I have read a lot on this subject and there are a couple more provocative issues not mentioned here at DU. The FBI has all of the evidence. But from some of the emails I read, and I stayed up late at night to do a lot of reading, I came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton being in charged of this Country's national security would be a disaster.
My personal opinion is that her attorney will try to negotiate a deal on her behalf, the terms of which I am not sure will be publicly revealed. But one of those terms I do feel strongly about will be the revocation of her security clearance and the agreement that she will not seek public office again. I also think the issue of public corruption is on the table from some of the transactions executed by the Clinton Foundation.
Sam
grasswire
(50,130 posts)We know that DoJ prosecutors have been added to the FBI working the case.
I, too, have put in many many hours reading and watching all manner of video commentary as well.
Yes, the Clinton Foundation is under examination as well.
HRC is simply too careless, too reckless, and too corrupt to be trusted as the Commander In Chief as well as the head of state.
Just the fact that she is imminently blackmailable is enough to send her home.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)seek public office again. " I think that's exactly how it will end up, with a pardon to follow.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)any out of court settlement. Of course, the solution found has to satisfy all of them, or else knowledgeable people in the agencies will start to rebel and hemorrage secrets and locations of bodies like never before. It also has to be on terms that Clinton will accept. This is the only deal that I can think of that might pass out of this process.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)I do not think she belongs in prison, and I really do not want to see her humiliated (I am not a fan but a deal such as this would be better than some of the alternatives and it would make it possible to settle it on a quiet note. In other words, does the whole world really have to know?)
But Comey and some of the FBI agents who feel they have an unquestionable case against her are rumored to be probably quitting if the FBI recommends an indictment and the DOJ does not pursue it. They will assume the decline to pursue will come from political pressure. President Obama has publicly said he could guarantee no politics will be involved. I believe him. But I think the most important thing to Comey would be to have the security clearance revoked and he and the agents might be satisfied with a substantial fine in lieu of jail time. She could drop out of the current race for undisclosed health reasons....
I don't want to see any more damage caused by these events. The damage already in place has been more than enough. Let the healing begin.
Sam
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)She should be held to EXACTLY the same standards of justice as any other American. If she broke the law she should suffer the normal consequences.
I'm so tired of influential people getting treated with kid gloves while average Joe can go rot in jail.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Too much harm has already been done. If she can negotiate a deal, and the wreckage which has ensured over this can start to be healed, I think that is what this Country needs. I am not a Hillary fan by any means. But the whole thing is so explosive, a negotiated deal which includes losing her security clearance, a huge fine, and a promise to seek government employment again throws water on the flames.
I don't know what will happen with the public corruption allegations because not as much info has been leaked here. So I am just going to wait and see what the FBI finding is in that regard. That to me is a separate issue with a separate penalty.
The part of the true identities of covert agents being exposed is a bomb that cannot be walked back. I just cannot believe the whole list was left on that server for agents both here and abroad. It is just astounding, and the Intelligence Community must have been more than outraged (I do not know the appropriate word here).
I do understand your feelings on this, and I cannot say you are wrong. I just want the harm addressed and the Country to heal.
Sam
antigop
(12,778 posts)Samantha,
What is your source for this comment?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)did you see that?
antigop
(12,778 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)If she didn't take a deal offered her, the penalties should she lose at a court hearing are rather harsh, aren't they?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That outcome of a damning report coming out in the middle of the GE is highly undesirable to the White House. She has a lot of leverage to obtain lenient terms.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Ford pardon of Nixon helped to put Carter in the White House.
Even decades ago, people resented the powerful helping out their "ought to be convicted" powerful friends.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And thank you for your posting this information. It is extremely important info.
antigop
(12,778 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Her staff. Incriminated, as well. In deep. In federal jeopardy.
radical noodle
(8,013 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Blumenthal and Drumheller both worked for Hillary's 2008 campaign.
There is an extremely valuable resource available that lays out the entire Timeline of events. That is Paul Thompson's timeline, here: http://thompsontimeline.com/IS_CLINTON'S_EMAIL_SCANDAL_FOR_REAL%3F
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985
The information in the emails was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered per se classified because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.
The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.
Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level, the official said. The ICIG maintains its position that its still codeword classified.
The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was top secret because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of parallel reporting that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW
E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.
Thank you for the laughs
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Everything Manning and Snowden leaked is public, and easily available on the Internet.
People with security clearances get in trouble if they download any of the documents. Because the documents are still classified.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)events such as coup plotting in Sudan, and interception of communications and conversations by leaders of friendly countries. http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthals information came from their reports. Its word-for-word, verbatim copying, one of them explained. In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)On Wed May 4, 2016, 10:18 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
More on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling the likely nominee of the Democratic party a felon is over the top.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 4, 2016, 10:29 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: filled with word salad
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This doesn't seem to violate the TOS.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe the OP should have used "alleged felon" but this is important information for anyone delusional enough to still think that a Clinton nomination will be anything but a disaster for the democratic party.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Since you're interested.
You're welcome.
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)Looks like juror #5 was talking specifically to you.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)No, just rightwing spin from rightwing sources paid for by rightwing organizations and propagated on rightwing websites.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I implore you to look at this objectively. It is not going to go away. It is real. Just because the MSM is not yet covering it, don't be falsely comforted. It is coming like a tidal wave. We will be lucky if it doesn't take the Democratic Party down as well. Obama's legacy is likely to be damaged whichever way this goes, and the fault will be Hillary's for going behind his back in a reckless manner -- going against his express instructions and hiding things from him.
I'm more sorry than you can imagine -- sorry for all of us that we must endure the drama that is just weeks away.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Jokerman
(3,518 posts)When Clinton's real problems stem from her arrogant dismissal of the left.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Please. She's endorsed by people like Elijah Cummings, Maxine Waters, Lilly Ledbetter, Cory Booker, Human Rights Campaign, Equality Pac, CBC Pac, Jim Clyburn, Cecile Richards, Hazel Dukes...
But I guess they've all "dismissed the left," too.
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)Yes, she is supported by many, main-stream, established democrats, I never said that she wasn't. The problem is that the democratic party, mostly thanks to the Clintons, has moved so far right over the years as to be virtually indistinguishable from moderate republicans of the past.
I suspect you know this already as you know that Clinton is arrogant and dismissive of Sanders and his supporters but that's exactly what you want in a candidate, so you deflect.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)are right wing sources? Which of them are right wing websites? Is the OP a RW operative?
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)An explanation of the law written by a lawyer is now called "word salad."
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)for those with reading comprehension issues.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Skinner said he'd be taking people out of jury duty. Hope he saw this one.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The decisions I think are bad are like the person who said that Howard Dean had sold out. That was all and they decided to hide it. COME ON!!
This, on the other hand, is an issue that really should be dealt with, and thought about. It is important.
Maybe they should have used "alleged" felonies. . . but that is not the main issue, that is a technicality. You should deal with this issue and not hide from it. It will make you stronger.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's no more real than white water.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)and in coming forward to describe the efforts of his boss at the time, AG Gonzalez, to keep the most illegal parts of the Bush Adminstration's NSA mass surveillance program going. He has a well-deserved reputation as a straight shooter. Not a partisan hack.
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)We certainly can't go around letting EVERYBODY vote, that sounds a little too much like democracy!
Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)Thanks for the thread, leveymg.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Here are some facts for the silly conservatives to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to knowingly remove classified information without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clintons emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.
Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there, he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.
In Clintons case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.....
The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such gross negligence by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its proper place onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, gross negligence is a nebulous term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.
My point here isnt to praise Clintons conduct. She shouldnt have been using the private server for official business in the first place. Its certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldnt be alone, especially given rampant over-classification.
The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. Thats a far cry from an indictable offense.
Ruth Marcus is hardly a Clinton supporter and these facts are consistent with the analysis posted elsewhere on this board that are not from Fox
Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)a higher standard.
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
As the nations 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.
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation, the agreement states.
(snip)
The State Department said in September that Clintons private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.
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 Clintons 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.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Why go to the Free Republic when you get to see the RWNJ material here.
The execution of NDA does not relieve the DOJ of the burden of proving Mens Rea. In the Petraeus case, the general signed a dozen or so NDAs and the prosecution still had to prove that Petraeus had the culpable mental state. In that case, the binders given to the general's mistress were marked Top Secret and the general knew that the material was top secret. Even then, all of the general got was a slap on the wrist.
Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)or authorized them to be sent over a non-approved system, and this wasn't just one or two e-mails everything that went through her server was not authorized by the SCI.
Hillary didn't bother to attend security briefings regarding the classified transmittal of information that were specifically set up for her.
Hillary tried to get a specially secured blackberry such as the one President Obama has when that was denied she still used it without regards to the risk of hacking or interception.
When all this is said and done, Hillary may only get a "slap on the wrist" from the DOJ but she did President Obama no favors with her actions.
Only time the FBI investigation, and DOJ followup will determine the level of Hillary's culpability but I see nothing encouraging from her actions.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Again it is sad that material that belongs on the Free Republic is being posted here.
Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)such as you did with the Washington Post.
The article that I posted actually had a link to the PDF of the document which Hillary signed, if you bothered to read it.
Your post was nothing but opinion from people not connected to the actual investigation.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Not much.
None of these have held up as applicable. This issue has been thoroughly and completely investigated, parsed, documented, scrutinized, examined and there is NOT a SCANDAL there.
The right-wing "Judicial Watch" will keep at it, I'm sure, if only to keep the words in the headlines, as Elijah Cummings and others have pointed out.
It's sad to see the same attacks posted here, on a Democratic forum.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and broke the law. The Intelligence Community Inspector General, CIA IG, and DOS IG will also submit separate reports. They may or may not all agree in their findings, but the facts will out. In the meantime, we should try to understand the issues to the best of our abilities, and plan for the possibility that we may need to find a new candidate or support the one still in contention.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)in comparison to resources launched to smear Hillary. Knock yourself out.
procon
(15,805 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)You seem to delight in being wrong and I am really having fun laughing at your posts. First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf
Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924
This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.
Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf
18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....
In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.
The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.
Remember that the Special access material being discussed are e-mails discussing New York Times articles about droned. Material published in the NYT is not classified and no DOJ attorney will be silly enough to bring an indictment based on that claim.
Keep up the good work. Your posts are really funny. Lawyers enjoy it when laypersons make obvious mistakes on legal questions
Response to Gothmog (Reply #79)
SwampG8r This message was self-deleted by its author.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I'm sincerely sorry for the pain that is coming. You are a good person. You don't deserve to endure this.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)..the reality about the FBI investigation. It has been under reported thus far. It isn't going away. It is real. And I am sorry for that because good people like you who believe in your candidate in good faith are going to hurt a lot.
Please understand that I say this as a long-time admirer of you and hubby here.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)No candidate is immune from it. The GOP is dragging out their "investigation" to keep scandal-mongering headlines going through the summer, up to November. No doubt we'll have an October surprise, too.
But that happens with anyone. She didn't do anything illegal, so I am not sure what people are afraid of. If anything, the idea could backfire and bring people support her with defiance.
As you said, we shall see.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I wish it were the case now, frankly. HRC is strong enough to fend off swiftboating.
She did break the law. All that remains is to watch this play out. There may be worse than an October surprise.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clintons use of a private server for her emails, but in nearly all instances that were prosecuted aggravating circumstances that dont appear to be present in Clintons case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Politicos examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.
Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.
TPMs Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. To a person, Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is very far-fetched.
There will be no indictment
Response to Sparkly (Reply #19)
Post removed
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)I am saying that the whole brouhaha about her email server came from a rightwing group, Judicial Watch, was made into a spectacle by right-wingers in Congress, and is all over rightwing media.
I resent your attack on me.
revmclaren
(2,531 posts)This is just the death-throws of a group of Hillary haters who are burning their bridges here because thy know that they have at the most, til July 29th to do damage here.
Let them show their their true colors to the us and the Admins.
Note to BSers responding to this post...I wont take the time to respond to you. Have a wonderful day.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...FBI investigation.
The FBI investigation came about when Inspectors General referred the matter to the FBI after seeing a problem that was a matter of national security.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I expected there to be 10+ pictures of the Rock as a fairy in the replies here. Slackers!
Oh, and if Hillary does it, that means it isn't a crime.
Come the GE, Trump will have a lot of fun with this one, but I'm sure pointing out a huge (self-inflicted) weakness is both sexist and righ-wing. We should all STFU and get in line behind Hillary regardless of any "concerns".
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)And he has BILLIONS of his own money to drown out Hillary's denials of wrongdoing.
Plus, WTF are we supposed to do if the FBI recommends an indictment? She needs to step aside. Seriously.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)This non-scandal is also disappointing sad Sanders supporters who have wised up and know that Sanders will not be the nominee absent an indictment https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/
Now lets be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that theres some vaguely-defined scandal that the public doesnt really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words Clinton email scandal often enough.
They may have gotten that. Ive certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, I dont trust Clinton, cause you know, that email thing. Im sure 99 percent of them couldnt tell you what they think Clinton actually did thats so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?
In recent weeks, Ive had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!? The answer is no, but they heard that because its something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long youll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that shes about to be indicted or that she wont be permitted to run for president because shell be on trial. It hasnt happened and it wont happen, but that isnt going to stop them from saying it.
Finally, theres a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: Drip, drip, drip. Sometimes itll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What drip, drip drip means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. Drip, drip, drip is this controversys version of, its out there, meaning, there isnt anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but heres how well justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.
I dont say that to justify Clintons original decision to set up the private server. She shouldnt have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasnt a crime and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it so we shouldnt treat it like it was.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Regardless of whether she's indicted, the issue will sway a lot of people. She left classified information on an unsecured server, and all the denials of Hillary supporters won't make a dent in that. If she isn't indicted, it will be seen as a political "pardon" and won't sit well with people - again, other than Hillary supporters who are emotionally tied to not believing it - who will see it as another favor to the rich and well-connected.
The "opinion" of Hillary supporters is worthless propaganda at this point.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Most of the material posted are from lawyers who understand the concepts as compared to the sad but funny attempts by the layperson in the OP
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I don't trust your "research" not to be guided by the conclusion you want to reach.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)There will be no indictment but if there was, Joe Biden would inherit Clinton's delegates and be the nominee
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)If an indictment doesn't come - quite possible - people will see it as favoritism toward a rich and politically-connected candidate. That will also not go over well. Furthermore, Trump could easily push that. I can hear your cries now about how Hillary has been vetted but again, the opinions of Hillary supporters on issues like this are highly suspect.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)To me Sanders is an unvetted candidate who would be destroyed in the general election. The Clinton campaign has been treating Sanders with kids gloves in part because she wants to make it easier for them to vote for her and in part because there has never been a real need to go negative. There is a ton of material that could be use against Sanders that Trump would have no trouble using.
I have never bought into Sanders electability argument that is based solely on worthless match up polls and I will not risk control of the SCOTUS to a candidate who I believe would be destroyed in the general election
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)There have been times where Hillary did go negative, specifically with red-baiting. Bernie attacked her a couple of times but one could (and did) argue that he was pointing out things she had said. The fact is, in spite of Hillary followers claiming she has been vetted, there are a lot of things she has not been attacked on: e-mails and national security, the Clinton foundation/money laundering vehicle, just to name a couple. Her judgement hasn't been questioned by a serious opponent, specifically the Iraq war, and Trump would destroy her with that (too).
The truth is that all the candidates are flawed. The difference is in the degrees of flaws and how their opponents can use those flaws. In my opinion, Bernie will have an easier time against Trump than Hillary, plus current polling shows him doing better. The "arguments" put forth by Hillary supporters about how she will do better don't hold water.
What material do you think Trump would use against Sanders? I seen Hillary supporters make that claim, but haven't seen what they are referring to.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Is there no end to her evil?
Vinca
(50,310 posts)If the shoe happens to drop, it's automatic President Trump. Now . . . isn't that hilarious?
Orrex
(63,225 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)think they weren't. Explain for us all.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Have charges been filed? Has she been arrested? Tried? Convicted? No?
In other words, you're flinging shit and hoping that it sticks.
Nice of you to carry the GOP's water.
840high
(17,196 posts)Orrex
(63,225 posts)Weird that you'd project that. Not surprising, but weird.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Orrex
(63,225 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Want to join in the betting pool? I will give you ten to one odds of her facing charges or dropping out for "personal reasons" before Memorial Day (with a fifty cent bet on my behalf/$5 for you, with funds going to DU by the loser).
I have several people on this bet already, including a pizza, and am willing to donate $5 total, so will do a max of 10 people. I want to keep it small and friendly -- what say you? My information and prognostication skills against your willful blindness and faith in a Clinton?
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Frankly I find your bet juvenile and petty.
Hillary Clinton has been publicly scrutinized for decades with greater intensity than any other politician in recent memory with the possible exception of Bill Clinton. My disbelief comes not from denial nor from any pseudo-clever allusions you try to stick to it, but rather from the knowledge that she's been down this road many times before.
And when she survives this current round of redundant scrutiny, will you vote for her? Or you the type who'll pretend that some dubiously principled righteousness forbids you to do so?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)the Inspector General are all in some vast conspiracy to get Hillary and she is the only one not in on it. . . if you think that sounds implausible. . .well, that's because it is.
Take head out of sand.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)As long as you vote for her in November, it's all good.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)And, of course there's always the old faithful BEN GAWZI!!!
TM99
(8,352 posts)fail to inform themselves before commenting.
The initial Whitewater investigation was started in 1994 by a Democratic controlled House committee long before Starr's special counsel and the Lewinsky affair.
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton's successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[44]
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy
This is what actually happened beyond the wild imaginings of a vast rightwing conspiracy and blue dresses.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the other would-be scandals that weren't?? Like when she killed Vince Foster?
TM99
(8,352 posts)cutesy little words like Travelgate and such is that they are attempts to trivialize actual things that did occur.
In the case of 'travelgate', it was an ethics issues in the Clinton White House.
Further investigations by the FBI and the Department of Justice, the White House itself, the General Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the Whitewater Independent Counsel all took place over the subsequent years. Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but found not guilty in 1995. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter.
Hillary Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it. In 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate. He sought no charges against her, saying that while some of Clinton's statements were factually false, there was insufficient evidence that these statements were either knowingly false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy
Any idiot can find these summaries on Wikipedia.
Benghazi! may be bullshit but the home-brew email server run illicitly while at State is not. See how this works? One is an attempt by the GOP to score political points and the other is a real thing that gives them the fuel to do so. THIS is why the Clintons have been so destructive. They continue to do stupid unethical and sometimes illegal shit, the GOP uses it to score political points, and the knee jerk response on the left is to defend them from their own narcissistic failings.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)nor Bill were found to have committed any wrongdoing. A classic smear.
TM99
(8,352 posts)They declined to prosecute her but did not say she didn't do anything wrong.
You see it as a smear because of your partisanship and team sport mentality. For others, it goes to questions of integrity, trust, and whether more scandals will appear in the future. Given their history, I would take that bet. Most would.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)they know they can't prove anything. And, at least as far as I know, we still believe in 'Innocent until proven guilty'. So she's innocent.
TM99
(8,352 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)No prosecution (at least in the US) = person is innocent until proven guilty. That's how the system works.
TM99
(8,352 posts)No really, you do. I heard this constantly between 2000 and 2008. Well it is legal and you can't prove it so it is ok.
Some of us also look at ethics and appropriate professional behavior as well.
If this was a single isolated case, sure, Clinton made a mistake and didn't get prosecuted. But it is not. There is a string of such cases and scandals going back to the Arkansas days.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)very polite and responsive to you at all times. I am an attorney. As such I deal in provable facts, not suppositions, not insinuations and certainly not dubious questions of 'appropriate professional behavior'. I believe in our system of justice which is based on the unalterable presumption of innocence. Hillary is just as entitled to that presumption as any other citizen. If you have proof that would convict her of something, by all means have at it. Contact the Prosecutor or Law Enforcement and share your information with them. But the very old and very tired 'Hillary Bad - Fire Bad' is just not persuasive.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and yet you argue that there is no fire where there is smoke and has been smoke.
And I don't care if you are a lawyer. That simply reinforces my point. Republicans were willing to accept the 'rule of law' without any thoughts to whether it was right, justice, appropriate, or ethical. Many Clinton supporters act that way as well. As long as she has not been proven to have done something illegal, then all is ok.
The very fact that a government official had a home-built server off-site to conduct their email correspondences is a gross professional and ethical violation even if it does not rise to the level of a legal one. Remember Nixon was never found guilty of his Watergate involvement either.
I am a psychologist. I do deal with 'appropriate professional behavior.' I deal with those who abuse power. I deal with narcissists and their sense of entitlement. I deal with those facts and they are just as real as legal ones.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Fortunately for our nation the rule of law is not conditioned upon or subject to your particular definitions of "right" and "justice" and most certainly not on your ideas of what is "appropriate" or "ethical". I understand that you believe you can judge Hillary guilty of something based on your conviction that she must have done something illegal, regardless of whether that has ever been proven. But, at least for now, that's not how our system works. In the absence of any indication that there are charges pending throwing around terms like "gross professional and ethical violation" doesn't make them correct or even accurate. What it is is just one person's opinion, couched in quasi-legal terminology in an attempt to try and impart more weight to the charge than it otherwise merits. You deal with facts appropriate to your professional situation. Let the legal system deal with the facts for which it is responsible.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Defense attorney?
I know, I know as long as it is legal it is doesn't matter if it is appropriate or ethical.
You better hope everyone buys that bullshit yet again with the Clintons come fall if Sanders doesn't defeat her.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that time will make it all better.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)have never held a clearance in their life. And those that have, CLEARLY need a refresher on their classified information CBTs.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)And there's enough information out there for people to educate themselves on what is and isn't kosher with classified information.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Interesting.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I don't have a security clearance but I have educated myself on the issue and it is clear as day. But all you hear from Hillary supporters is that it's a 'nothing burger'. Which means they are totally ignorant of the issue.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Sanders supporters are smart and informed, while Clinton's supporters are stupid and ignorant. We've only been hearing that bullshit for about 8 months or so.
Tell you what--I find you boring and not worth the trouble. You can reply or not--whatever tickles your fancy--but I don't be seeing or responding to your tepid bullshit anymore.
frylock
(34,825 posts)that Hillary Supporter has never held a clearance, or has any experience in IT security.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Orrex
(63,225 posts)then that'll net him about .0001% of the electorate. Way to swing for the fences.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Orrex
(63,225 posts)And I'm not being sarcastic.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Love Boston is very photogenic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Try again.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)kind of like Col. Flagg.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)MsFlorida
(488 posts)Above the law. A broken justice system. It will be ok she will just buy her way out. (Sarcasm tag here)
MsFlorida
(488 posts)Bernie met with pres Obama. Perhaps there are other forces at work here. What better revenge, an almost nomination snatched away in indictment.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Obama has to be furious with her for disrespecting him by deliberately going against his instructions and jeopardizing his legacy for her own purposes. He's in a pickle now. Things could go very badly either way, and the pressure must be intense.
He may think the only way to save his legacy is to help her win. But that comes with a terrible price, too.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to appear. Cross you fingers and tap your toes 3 times and he will appear.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)This post is defamation. Hillary Clinton is called a felon. That would be libelous even if someone where indicted and not yet convicted.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)ways that involve violation of three subsections of a federal felony statute, 18 USC Sec. 793. The subject of this particular post is a question that arises under subsection (e) about a guilty knowledge requirement for a showing of mens rea, the factual circumstances in this case that support such a charge, and how the courts have interpreted it.
I describe her as someone who violated one or more felony statutes, which is what the facts indicate. I did not specifically say she is a convicted felon, which would be inaccurate. There was no defamation of character in the OP.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)you have no evidence and are making the whole thing up.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We all benefit here by testing posts by subjecting them to community input and correction of errors. You're input doesn't offer that.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and not just wishful speculation. You are closed minded.
panader0
(25,816 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)I've actually practiced law for three decades. You should stop defaming people willy nilly.
panader0
(25,816 posts)And I did not defame anyone except HRC, and she did that to herself, I just happened to notice.
emulatorloo
(44,187 posts)The "she will be indicted" meme is being promoted only by Fox and their spin-offs.
Nobody knows what the FBI investigation is about other than the FBI.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The above analysis is silly and fun to laugh at if you know the law. There was no crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .
Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.
Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."
In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....
To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.
Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue
randome
(34,845 posts)But objectivity is not what DU's Sanders supporters practice. Your analysis is appreciated.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
xocet
(3,873 posts)punchlines for the DU community so that the laughter over one of the ridiculous misunderstandings of the law can be shared by all?
It would be very informative to be given the correct perspective on the issue.
So, more specifically, could you please elucidate the simplest, nontrivial fallacy that you yourself find so ridiculous that it is funny in the OP?
Thank you for considering this post.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Under the law, one is not guilty of a crime unless they have the culpable mental state which is also called mens rea. You have to know that the materials being released were classified and intend to release these materials. The material in question were e-mails that were not marked classified but were later re-classified. Most of these re-classified e-mails involve discussions of Clinton staffers about stories in the NYT about drones (which shows that the re-classification process is flawed).
The OP's attempt at a legal theory is that the fact that Sec. Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA" means that no culpable mental state is required. That analysis is simply dumb. In the Petraeus case, the general signed a dozen or so NDAs and the prosecution still had to prove that Petraeus had the culpable mental state. In that case, the binders given to the general's mistress were marked Top Secret and the general knew that the material was top secret. Even then, all of the general got was a slap on the wrist.
In the Clinton case, the material in question where not marked confidential
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913
Since the referenced 25 June 2015 notification, we were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton. We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network. Further, my office's limited sampling of 40 of the emails revealed four contained classified IC information which should have been marked and handled at a SECRET level. [Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, 7/23/15]
The e-mails being discussed were retroactively re-classified. It would be impossible for a DOJ attorney to prove that Clinton had the culpable mental state to violate the law.
The analysis by the OP is the type of amusing analysis one sees from laypersons who do not understand the concepts being discussed. Lawyers enjoy watching laypersons get things wrong and here I admit that I have been very amused.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)their preconceived notions about how these things work.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 08:38 AM - Edit history (2)
As far as the terms of Paragraph One of her signed Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement is concerned, she violated her oath. It matters not at all whether the classified information that she traded across her server had been stripped of classification stamps. The mere fact that she violated that agreement by transmitting and retaining classified information over an uncertified system makes her subject to a number of federal felony charges, principally Sec. 793.
Second, with regard to the general element of mens rea, as I've made clear in the OP, her guilty knowledge is clear from the fact that she defied the NSA warning not to continue using her Blackberry. Instead of using a State Dept approved secure phone and the Department's email system, she chose to set up her own unauthorized system with an uncertified server and exchanged classified information in the course of business and what she has characterized as private communications. Notice given is sufficient to show she was damn well aware that the system was unsecure, and her action taken to use the unauthorized server for all of her communications, official and private, is indicative of guilty knowledge. She also knew, having been trained in handling classified materials, that she should not have been communicating classified materials or receiving same over an unsecure system. Her Security oath specified that if she mishandled classified materials, that is a violation of law. The server contained over 2,000 classified communications. HRC, herself, sent 104 emails containing classified information over that unsecure system. Those actions, both sending and receiving classified materials, many of which originated with other government agencies, is a direct violation of Subsection (e) of Sec. 793.
Additionally, she knew they were classified because of their content and because Blumenthal referenced them as classified on numerous occasions. Her response, "keep 'em coming" is by any measure, at the very least complicit and willfully reckless, and she actually failed to report the Blumenthal's use of her server to transmit these classified materials which he had no authority to possess. That meets the requirements for violation of 793 subsection (f)(2). Her setting up the system and willfully operating it with others to trade thousands of separate classified informations is a further violation of the conspiracy section at subsection (g).
The widely-reported facts show she had a culpable mental state to violate the law, and a review of the applicable statute shows how she actually broke the law. To say "it would be impossible for a DOJ Attorney to prove Clinton had the culpable mental state to violate the law", as you just did, merely demonstrates that you are either misinformed or are actively attempting to spread disinformation and misunderstanding.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Keep up the good work. Laypersons are fun to laugh at.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You've also been a surprising help in goading me to further refine my take on these issues and to do further postings.
xocet
(3,873 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)793. He also skips over the fact that Petraeus plead down to a single count of Sec. 1924, which is a different statute, which actually has a higher standard of intent that must be proven than 793 (e) and (f).
The historical precedent for this isn't Petraeus, it's ex-CIA Director John Deutch, whom the CIA IG and FBI found could be charged under Sec. 793 for hooking up classified laptops to his home internet. In the end, he was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day.
The only part of Abrams' article that is accurate and not misleading is:
It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)won't even bother reading the tripe given the heading.
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #74)
MattP This message was self-deleted by its author.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)It's a shame on Democratic website-we have to be bothered with this garbage. Hillary swept Mar 15th, then she wept Apr 26th, has over 2000 delegates. Cruz gone. Kasich about to be gone. Democrats have to see stuff like this knowing Sanders does not have a chance. Majority of Democrats have chosen Hillary Clinton.
840high
(17,196 posts)this on herself.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)Your attempt to understand the concepts here amuses me. There is no intent here http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html
Two former CIA directors ran afoul of that law for moving classified information to an unauthorized location. John M. Deutch faced a possible criminal charge in 2000 for keeping classified information on his home computer, and former CIA Director Gen. David H. Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in April and pay a $100,000 fine for having given several notebooks containing highly classified information to a woman who was writing his biography.
But unlike in Clinton's case, Deutch and Petraeus admitted they knew they had secret information that should have been kept secure. So far all of the Clinton emails in question were not marked as classified at the time she sent or received them, and only later were designated as classified.
Anne Tompkins, a former U.S. attorney in North Carolina who prosecuted Petraeus, disagreed with Mukasey's assessment that the former secretary of State could be charged with mishandling classified information. "Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct," she wrote in a USA Today opinion piece last week, but Clinton said she did not believe she had sent or received classified information by email.
In late July, two inspectors general both Obama appointees said they were troubled to learn that classified information that "should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level" had been on Clinton's email server and had been publicly released this year.
"This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," they said. They referred the matter to intelligence agencies and to the FBI, but added it was not "a criminal referral."
Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.
"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.
Laypersons amuse me when they ignore concepts like mens rea and culpable mental state
jmg257
(11,996 posts)(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..
Though "knowingly" is also possible - she knew exactly what what she was doing, and did so, even though the "authorization" of her server and its multitude of handlers and recipients were highly questionable.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The e-mails here were not marked classified at the time they were sent and so you have to prove that Clinton had actual knowledge. Given that the complained about e-mails were discussion articles in the NYT about drones, that will be impossible to prove. The OP fails to mention that these so-called classified e-mails were summaries of articles in the NYT about drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones
Some of the nations intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clintons private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified top secret.
The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.
....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of HCS-O indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article the officials did not say which article contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.
The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via emaila common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.
It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)garden variety negligence. It is a term generally considered to mean wanton and wilful misconduct, i.e. total and complete disregard for the consequences of his/her actions. It should be clear even to a layperson that this is an exceedingly difficult thing to prove, which is why it is not often charged.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)In fact, "gross negligence" in felony 793(f)(2) is much easier to prove than the intentional violation of law standard that applies to the lesser charge, Sec. 1924, that many originally charged with this crime, including Gen. Petraeus, end up admitting to. Sec. 1924 is a misdemeanor.
The evidence supporting chargeability of Mrs. Clinton for violation of several subsections of 793 is overwhelming in this case.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)to serve her 3 terms as president. As you know back when the amendment was passed to limit the president to 2 terms the additional clause extending it 50% for women was added because the Republicans couldn't see any harm. Ha ha, couldn't see any harm. From here on out the Democrats plan to elect nothing but females for president! Could this be sarcasm?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)0rganism
(23,971 posts)the era of SBS' "we're all tired of hearing about your damn emails" is now officially over. and not because of SBS, either.
this issue is key for the Trump campaign, because they don't have a whole lot of recent scandal to work with -- bringing up shit about Benghazi and Rose Law just isn't going to fly anymore. but this email server thing still has legs. i fully expect an avalanche of Republican attack ads targeting at least 3 aspects of this situation:
1. HRC jeopardized national security while serving as Sec. of State by running her own underprotected email server
2. HRC is so obsessed with information control that she felt the need to run her own private email server
3. HRC is so technologically inept and poorly advised that she didn't see the disconnect between #1 and #2.
this is going to hit hard and it's going to hurt. for damage control, HRC will need to have a simple response that addresses all 3 points in under 30 seconds, and it can't mention the FBI or the DOJ or, really, any agency of the Obama administration. referencing prior SoS for precedent will be acceptable at first, but eventually the difference between having an alt. email address and running a private email server will gain emphasis and such defenses won't fly.
without a really tight response, this is going to put a wedge between HRC and ex-GOP "national security moderates" she'd like to win over to form a lasting Democratic center.
by not abusing this during the campaign, SBS gave HRC many months to come up with a fresh answer to these accusations. it needs to rock hard , or we'll have an actual problem.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)0rganism
(23,971 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)"Before the Democrats lock in their choice for President they might want to know if Hillary Clinton broke the law with her unsecure emails and may be indicted, a question that ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern addresses."
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/30/hillary-clintons-damning-emails
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that's it. Game over!
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Warm regards.
840high
(17,196 posts)Clinton even explained what extraordinary lengths she and her people went to in safeguarding government secrets: When I would go to China or would go to Russia, we would leave all my electronic equipment on the plane with the batteries out, because
theyre trying to find out not just about what we do in our government, theyre
going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. Yes, she said that. (emphasis added)
Hoisted on Her Own Petard
Alas, nearly a year later, in March 2015, it became known that during her tenure as Secretary of State she had not been as diligent as she led the American people to believe. She had used a private server for official communications, rather than the usual official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Thousands of those emails would retroactively be marked classified some at the TOP SECRET/Codeword level by the department.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's apparently what happened.
kevinmc
(3,001 posts)or maybe they already tried and failed.
Response to leveymg (Original post)
Gomez163 This message was self-deleted by its author.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Why hasn't he laid out this argument? All he does now is ramble on about poll numbers.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Let Bernie do Trump's work for him against the Democratic presumptive nominee!
panader0
(25,816 posts)Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)If they do, that would be different. But so far it's all been a big fat nothing. So for Bernie to hit our presumptive nominee with this would be doing Trump's work, which is quite distinct from the FBI or DoJ's work. They are examining the case in order to get to the truth. Trump (and Bernie) just want to see Hillary go down, and truth be damned. Spot the difference?
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Maybe there isn't.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)So I advise that everyone STOP USING EMAIL, IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
MFM008
(19,820 posts)and shes NEVER been charged
ARRESTED
detained
just INVESTIGATED
by REPUBLICANS
She wasnt driven out of politics.
Shes going to be the democratic nominee.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Thirties Child
(543 posts)Nothing nefarious. Simply put, she's a Scorpio, and Scorpios are secretive.
Hekate
(90,829 posts)You know, there's probably a treatment for CDS through Obamacare, formerly known as Hillarycare.
JURY: I know I'm being a bit sarcastic in my rebuttal, but the OP is completely OTT
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)No matter how true your concerns are they are not going to gain traction on this site.
I'm not so sure she's innoculated against the problem of encouraging, which may even involve paying, Blumenthal to keep pumping his contacts for leaks from the CIA.
The Obama administration has dealt pretty harshly with leakers. Seems to me that dealing with that aspect of the mess, dis-entangles Obama and his attorney general from the problem Obama has with his own sending of email to Clinton's private account. There's nothing to suggest that Obama was in anyway involved with encouraging leaks from the CIA.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Therefore no consequences, ever.
SCantiGOP
(13,874 posts)To see an OP like this, now, here.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)
that someone who has committed acts that are clear violations of her Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement and federal felony statutes referenced within is still the presumptive Democratic candidate for President. Just on a political level, as a lifelong Democrat, that level of vulnerability in her candidacy bothers me very much. Then there are the equal justice problems that Law Enforcement's slow response to Hillary's actions raise . . . while I appreciate the importance of allowing time for a thorough investigation, the system appears mortally compromised. And paralyzed.
I would like to be proved wrong.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It's better than usual.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)the White House (Adam Pasick & Tim Fernholz October 2015)
http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign
"stealthy", not any more-Kick
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Kick for Democracy.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)And Honduras.
And Guatemala.
And Panama.
And Colombia.
And Venezuela.
And Libya.
And Syria.
And a whole lotta other places that can use Democracy.
On, and the United States of America.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Well, the bar at the Hilton on Margarita Island is quite nice. Keep 'em coming.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The FBI never found any intent to violate the law and so there will be no indictment http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/index.html
Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.
Sources familiar with the investigation had previously told CNN the Justice Department's aim was to wrap up before the Republican and Democratic conventions later this month. The timing is crucial, because if Clinton were to be indicted before the convention, Democrats could perhaps nominate another candidate.
The law was very clear here