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]Octafish
(55,745 posts)261. Ever hear of David Petraeus?
Hillary Clintons Damning Emails
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/
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:
That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesnt matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
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.
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:
In 1980, Church will lose re-election to the Senate in part because of accusations of his committees responsibility for Welchs death by his Republican opponent, Jim McClure.
SOURCE: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frank_church_1
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.
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