A REMINDER-How Hillary Clinton Could Be Targeted Under The Espionage Act

[pinebox]

10 year felony folks if this is the route the FBI takes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-email_n_6841218.html

[Trust Buster]

1. IN your desperation, you have entered the bizarro twilight zone. Why does DU permit such nonsense ?

[leveymg]

11. It's only nonsense because the case against HRC is now far stronger than it was in March, 2015.

See my post below.

Also, who are you to be judge of what's permitted on DU? You don't even have any particular knowledge of this subject.

[Gothmog]

15. Not in the real world

I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. In the real world, there is no risk of this due to a lack of mens rea or culpable mental state.

[leveymg]

19. You repeat yourself, a lot. Did you hit your head when you were a child?

This must be the 12th time you've followed something I post by repeating "I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts." You never say anything more substantial, so this is simple stalking and a personal attack on a DU member.

People disagree on the issues, in fact that is one of the great things about DU. But, enough with the ad hominem attacks.

[Gothmog]

21. Your analysis is simply wrong and shows why it is illegal for layperson to attempt to practice law

Again, lawyers do love to laugh at laypersons when they make really sad mistakes on the law. In the real world, there is no intent and so there will be no indictment.

[leveymg]

27. See #25, below.

[grasswire]

31. Gothmog is not the only one who tries this tactic...

...without ever posting anything of substance.

[brooklynite]

2. "zero chance that Clinton would face a prosecutor"

Punchy ending.

[flor-de-jasmim]

4. Well that was March 2015 - we now know there were classified docs.

[Bob41213]

5. "based on what is currently known...."

You missed the rest of the sentence...

Which I guess is even more damning now since Flor-de-Jasmim pointed out this is a year old. And we also don't know how much classified is in the 30k yoga emails--which we know nothing about except for an email or three which showed up in the OIG report.

[amborin]

23. 4 that specific charge; but there are several other charges that, evidence suggests, do apply in her

case

[NCTraveler]

3. I hope this is what the bottom looks like for you.

I don't see how you can go anywhere but up. I'd have more respect if you went Vince Foster on us.

[Trust Buster]

17. Clap clap clap LOL

[Faux pas]

6. Kickin'

[Tarc]

7. Reaching back to 3/10/15, must be a slow fairy-clapping day

[pinebox]

36. No it must be a time to remind Hillary supporters

of that thing called reality.

Permanently damaged candidates are damaged.

[leveymg]

8. This dates to March 2015, before it was confirmed that NSA and CIA documents were also on her server

The Secretary of State can't legally declassify information originating with other agencies. Here's a statement cosigned by the IGs of DOS and the Intel Community (IC) that states that the Intelligence Community found classified information on Hillary's server originating within the IC member agencies. They weren't "retroactively classified," as the Clinton campaign has continued to claim:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

[IdaBriggs]

32. Wow. I missed that last summer.

Has it been posted recently? Please do!

[Meteor Man]

9. IG's report on the investigation

This could be a big problem:

Hackers attempted to access Clinton’s server on Jan. 9, 2011, and a phishing email message was sent to Clinton on May 13, 2011, that contained a suspicious link. Both attempted breaches should have been reported. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department,” the report said.

Not reporting hacking attempts? How many other hacking attempts were ignored and not reported?

Link to factcheck article:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/#sharethefacts

[madokie]

12. How can anyone not see

Hillary is as crooked as a barrel of snakes. Geeze louse.

[Meteor Man]

18. Move along folks

Just business as usual. Nothing going on here. Nothing to hear. Nothing to see. Nothing to say.

Nope. An IG report is just hearsay and allegations. Not a problem! Just keep repeating "I'm with her!" and everything will be fine.

[840high]

35. It's all rw

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. Monkeys could fly out of my ass

too. But they won't, they don't and this is just more grief over a loss of the wonder candidate. He was a bad choice. You chose poorly and now you have to get over it.

[madokie]

13. Who are you referring to?

[Gothmog]

14. Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy

Here are some facts for you to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

The latest news on the Hillary Clinton email controversy reinforces everything we’ve heard so far on this subject:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

So far no one has found evidence of intent.

[Bob-o the Clown]

16. There was intent, all right.

You just chose to be obtuse about it.

http://bfy.tw/5zfb

[Gothmog]

20. Not that can be proven in the real world

We are fortunate that a DOJ attorney who knows the law will be the one making this initial call

[azurnoir]

22. ah so it's one thing to know and another to show?

[Gothmog]

24. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

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 fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s 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.

Politico’s 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.

TPM’s 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.”

[azurnoir]

26. oh I know that in fact as I have said before if it gets anywhere near that the Clinton machine

will pick it's very own 'Scooter Libby' type character to take the fall

[leveymg]

25. That's an op-ed from Plum Line, and a dishonest one at that.

It doesn't reflect the plain-language of the statute at Sec. 793(e) and (f) or accepted interpretation, and it doesn't conform with the facts.

In those two felony sections of the Espionage Act, there is no requirement for intent to harm the national security, merely knowledge that unauthorized disclosure of classified material could do harm. In the second subsection (f) mere negligent mishandling is enough to convict.

Here's the language of the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Anyone should be able to read and understand the statute. What I and other mainstream interpretation takes out of this is the following:

1) The actual language of (e) says that the defendant merely knows that such action "could" do such harm, not that she intends to do so (as is an element of proof involved in separate charges under subsections (a)-(c) of the same statute.

2) A separate felony offense is spelled out in 793(f). The burden of proof is even lower in that. Mere negligence in losing or destroying defense information is enough for conviction in (f)(1), and the fact of failure to report someone else's theft or abstraction of classified information is enough to be convicted under (f)(2).

I have explained all this, and how the element of mens rea is shown in this crime, at greater length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

[Gothmog]

29. It is so cute and adorable when laypersons get it wrong on legal issues

Again, failed attempts to understand the law show why it is illegal for laypersons to attempt to practice law. thanks for the laughs

[grasswire]

33. there you go again.

You sound awfully like another poster here on DU. VERY similar, in fact.

[pinebox]

37. Trotting out your copy and paste line again?

[Gothmog]

39. Lawyers love laughing at laypersons when they show their inability to understand concepts

It is a source of great amusement

[pinebox]

40. And people laugh at lawyers because they're seen as used car salesmen :)

Just sayin'

[Gothmog]

41. No super delegate is going to change their votes based on the silly claims by laypersons

The premise of this thread is really sad and wrong

[pinebox]

43. Again, "layperson".

You sure like that word, is that your new catchphrase?
Shouting down at us "peasants" are you from your throne of nothing?

SD's will change because of of Hillary's history of lying and being marred in controversy and scandals

[Meteor Man]

28. May 6th?

Here. Let me give you an update:

Here are the most critical parts of the State Department inspector general report on Clinton’s email use

Wa Po link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/25/here-are-the-most-critical-parts-of-the-state-dept-inspector-general-report-on-clintons-email-use/?client=ms-android-boost-us#

[anotherproletariat]

30. Oh Huffpo...your headline screams 'problem', but your article says 'okay, no problem'

"...it does not appear as if Clinton discussed classified matters over email, and the secretary of state has broad latitude to decide what is classified."

"...there was "zero chance" that Clinton would face a prosecutor based on what is currently known,"

[CorkySt.Clair]

34. Tick tock

June 8, the day after, is closing faaaaaaaast.

[pinebox]

38. Yup and the sooner to Hillary going down.

Each and every day it's something new.
Drip drip drip.

[lunamagica]

42. Yawn...I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, which is...never...

[BlueStateLib]

44. Those laws were written to prosecute spies like John Walker

[pdsimdars]

45. I don't get it. What is this BS? Title says it's how Hillary could be prosecuted

and then the text says there is "zero chance" and the link it to an article over a year old. WTF?
This is nonsense.

I'd suggest you do some real research and get some "learnin'" on it here

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

Then get back with us.

[Gothmog]

46. A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'knowingly'

There is no intent here http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Nonetheless, the law on mishandling classified information makes it illegal to "knowingly remove" classified information "with the intent to retain [it] at an unauthorized location." And after leaving office, Clinton hired a company called Platte River Networks in Denver to retain the server with all of her State Department emails.

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