Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: More on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges [View all]Gothmog
(168,249 posts)63. Laypersons are cute and adorable when they make legal claims
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
In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:
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.
"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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
282 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

More on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges [View all]
leveymg
May 2016
OP
Thanks, but I did read it. I was posting extra information about the reliability of the source in
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#207
In my opinion it did have relevance and I correctly called credibility into question. Please Proceed
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#210
Some are paid to do it. Right wing conspiracy, which exists, spends hundreds of millions on this
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#101
naaah, more likely a cut and paste from Reddit. to long to be a tweet, LOL.
bettyellen
May 2016
#112
Convince of what, right wing propaganda? You do understand what this is, I hope.
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#103
You are absolutely right, and justifying the use of it only strengthens your initial
still_one
May 2016
#252
That is what I feared. So why are you here posting non stop predictions like this and attacks
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#120
That is a FUCKING lie - I wish there was a punishment here for lying
Jackie Wilson Said
May 2016
#197
Has she been charged? Has she been convicted? Stop with the felonies claim, use alleged felonies.
TheBlackAdder
May 2016
#10
If you look at posts, Bernie people aren't really the angry ones. You're making stuff up.
pdsimdars
May 2016
#187
DOJ told the FOIA court last week that a referral is being prepared about her use of her server.
JudyM
May 2016
#62
Republicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can’t say so.
Gothmog
May 2016
#93
So by not reporting her to the DOJ, Sanders is an accessory after the fact?
brooklynite
May 2016
#14
Indictment is not the goal post. A finding she violated her security oath makes her unviable
leveymg
May 2016
#38
We'll see what the FBI says. Comey will tell us whether she violated her security oath
leveymg
May 2016
#147
Unfortunately, there's a 10-year statute of limitations on these crimes. They couldn't be prosecuted
leveymg
May 2016
#244
This really stands out: " revocation of her security clearance and the agreement that she will not
leveymg
May 2016
#148
The White House, DOJ, FBI and Intel Community IGs are all stakeholders and have to sign off on
leveymg
May 2016
#175
I am not in favor of this type of explosive situation being played out in front of the whole world
Samantha
May 2016
#250
I reported in at least one post FOX News reported it; observer.com backed up the story
Samantha
May 2016
#258
If she digs her heels in, she might be the Democratic nominee when the FBI report is issued
leveymg
May 2016
#238
MY computer is scrolling a lot. Could you read my reply to you right below this one?
truedelphi
May 2016
#259
From Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA officer who was working with defense contractors in Libya
leveymg
May 2016
#53
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
May 2016
#73
The other poster is also inaccurate. A number were NSA documents that covered political military
leveymg
May 2016
#239
Juror #5 - There's plenty of "important information" just like this on rightwing blogs.
Sparkly
May 2016
#20
Why go to the Free Republic when Sanders supporters will bring Freeper material to DU?
Gothmog
May 2016
#75
Some seem to be unaware of Comey's role in stopping Ashcroft's reauthorization of "The Program"
leveymg
May 2016
#245
As Secretary of State Hillary should have known, in that position she or anyone else is held to
Uncle Joe
May 2016
#98
Hillary knew some of those e-mails were marked classified when she sent them
Uncle Joe
May 2016
#123
If you are going to rely on RWNJ sources do not be surprised when they are wrong
Gothmog
May 2016
#141
If you don't approve of right wing news sources don't post corporate media conglomerate propaganda
Uncle Joe
May 2016
#146
We'll see what the FBI says. They will have the final word whether she violated her security oath
leveymg
May 2016
#22
What part do you think has no merit. They are as clear as day. It's hard to see where you'd
pdsimdars
May 2016
#191
Increasingly desperate insistence that Clinton is guilty of felonies---everyone mock!
Orrex
May 2016
#56
If you think that the FBI, the Obama judicial system, the Department of state, ABC, CBS, NBC
pdsimdars
May 2016
#193
Man did you ever get it backwards. . . .he is judging from what he reads right here.
pdsimdars
May 2016
#198
Nope, former USAF. This is a matter of public record that I have talked about here and on TV. nt
stevenleser
May 2016
#280
Truth is always a defense in libel claims. The post says she violated her security oath in specific
leveymg
May 2016
#106
Anyone objective can see that there is plenty of ambiguity in the laws & regulations.
randome
May 2016
#90
You have commented quite a lot by using other's analysis. Could you please break out one of the...
xocet
May 2016
#96
Two things: 1) HRC's security agreement states "classified information is marked or unmarked"
leveymg
May 2016
#134
Dan doesn't even begin to accurately address the actual standards for intent in various sections of
leveymg
May 2016
#145
Felonies? not even a fucking charge levelled and you already decided on Felonies? how Democratic
Sheepshank
May 2016
#74
Since the e-mails were never classified or marked classified when sent, that will be hard to prove
Gothmog
May 2016
#110
Gross negligence is not nearly as difficult to prove in this case as you pretend
leveymg
May 2016
#170
Seriously, nobody, that we need to trounce all over Trump, cares or will care. nt
BootinUp
May 2016
#111
i expect her to have a more substantial answer than that but that's why she's the candidate n/t
0rganism
May 2016
#155
Confronted by NSA with obstacles to her insecure communication, she created a bigger vulnerability
leveymg
May 2016
#247
The Groundwork: The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in
bobthedrummer
May 2016
#270