Member since: Wed May 5, 2004, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 35,927
Number of posts: 35,927
- 2016 (24)
- 2015 (35)
- 2013 (73)
- 2012 (62)
- Older Archives
them both and come back and tell us that criminal violation isn't indicated.
1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.
Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653
Posted by leveymg | Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:12 PM (0 replies)
And then there are the thermobaric fuel-air explosives the Saudis have been setting off in populated areas. Who's selling them those lovely mothers that are mistaken for tactical nukes?
We have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.
Posted by leveymg | Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:04 AM (1 replies)
I posted 5-6 times on that thread with a bunch of links on this topic. Here's a live link to Paul Thompson's OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=158157
If you can't find what you're looking for, please respond below. I will come back in a while and try to find it for you.
Posted by leveymg | Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:14 PM (1 replies)
Note Obama's "free rider" comment about Libya, and the coalition partners identified with that problem, and how addressing that was the core of the Administration's policy there (first article) and the "real failure" to reach a deal with Saudi Arabia to deliver everything they now demand (second article)
President Obama, frustrated with allies, calls out the 'free riders'
ERIK ORTIZ Mar 10th 2016 11:46AM
In some of his bluntest comments yet on the subject of foreign policy, Obama told The Atlantic that he warned Great Britain that it would no longer have a "special relationship" with the U.S. if it did not start spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.
It was previously reported that Obama spoke with Prime Minister David Cameron about England's military spending during last year's G7 summit.
"Free riders aggravate me," Obama said in a wide-ranging interview with The Atlantic that was published online Thursday and will be featured in its April issue.
Obama said he has struggled to get other nations to take the lead and pull their weight when necessary on several issues — including terrorism, Russian incursions and Chinese aggression.
Jeffrey Goldberg, who conducted the interview, said the president was especially perturbed when The New Yorker reported, citing an anonymous administration official, that the White House was "leading from behind" amid the Libya crisis of 2011.
"We don't have to always be the ones who are up front," Obama told Goldberg, the magazine's national correspondent. "Sometimes we're going to get what we want precisely because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by design, insisted" they lead during the mission to oust longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. "It was part of the anti-free rider campaign."
Obama held up Britain and France as examples of nations who seemed resistant to stepping up wholeheartedly at that time.
He said Cameron became "distracted by a range of other things," while former French President Nicolas Sarkozy "wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign (in Libya), despite the fact that (the U.S.) had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure" for the intervention.
Obama also questioned America's relationship with the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has played a pivotal role in the Middle East as a U.S. ally — and Iran's archrival.
He said he did not want to throw "our traditional allies overboard," but that the Saudis will need to get along with Iran for the sake of extended peace.
"The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians — which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen — requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace," Obama said.
The Atlantic piece also revealed that Obama has likened the entire Middle East to Gotham, the metropolis in the "Batman" comics, and said ISIS was akin to the Joker from the 2008 movie "The Dark Knight," according to advisers.
"There's a scene in the beginning in which the gang leaders of Gotham are meeting," the president has said, according to The Atlantic. "These are men who had the city divided up. They were thugs, but there was a kind of order. Everyone had his turf. And then the Joker comes in and lights the whole city on fire. (ISIS) is the Joker. It has the capacity to set the whole region on fire. That's why we have to fight it."
The president was also introspective of what he's accomplished in his foreign policy efforts so far. He told The Atlantic that he realizes that historians will one day question his decision to not bomb Syria in 2013 after it appeared Damascus had violated his so-called "red line" against using chemical weapons.
But of that decision, he said, "I'm very proud of this moment. ... The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America's credibility was at stake. And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically."
The White House sought to quash concerns that the withdrawal of four of the six top leaders of Gulf nations from a planned summit later this week at Camp David signals strained relations between the administration and countries in that region.
Of the six Arab states invited, only two of the those countries — Kuwait and Qatar — plan on sending their top leaders. The remaining countries Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are all sending delegates.
"There had been some speculation that this change in travel plans was an attempt to send a message to the U.S. — if so, the message was not received because all the feedback we have gotten from the Saudis has been positive," Earnest told reporters on Monday.
Monday afternoon, King Salman called President Obama and "expressed his regret at not being able to travel to Washington this week" according to the White House readout of the call. Both leaders reviewed the agenda for the summit and discussed Iran, Yemen and the need to work closely to address a range of threats.
The White House hopes the summit will be an opportunity to discuss "our shared concern about Iran's destabilizing activities in the region," and address military cooperation throughout the region, deputy press Secretary Eric Schultz had said previously. The talks will also likely include a potential deal between several world powers and Iran on that country's nuclear program as well as crises in Syria and Yemen.
White House Denies Tension Exists Between Saudi King, Obama 1:01
However, the Obama administration is facing tough questions after King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, one of the administration's key allies, backed out of the summit. Saudi Arabia announced that King Salman will not attend the summit and would instead send Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef to lead the Saudi delegation.
A senior White House official and officials from the State Department told NBC the administration first learned of the King's possible change of plans from the Saudis on Friday night and this was confirmed by the Saudis on Saturday.
The administration also insisted that the change was not in response to any substantive issue.
"Nothing could be further from the truth that there was some 'snub' — to use the term used by cable news talking points," State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said during a briefing on Monday afternoon, adding that Secretary Kerry left his visit in Riyadh last week after "very positive discussions."
When the summit was first announced by the White House on April 17th, the official White House statement said the president would "welcome leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — to the White House on May 13 and to Camp David on May 14."
Saudi Oil Min: Not worried about Iran crude 1:10
Saudi Arabia's decision not to send its top leader is the most jarring: both because of its role as a key ally in the region, but also because it was such an abrupt change, coming just hours after Schultz confirmed the meeting between the president and King Salman on Wednesday at the White House.
A rare Camp David summit with Gulf leaders could have been both a symbolic show of the president's foreign policy cooperation and a substantive play to boost Middle East allies and persuade nations to embrace a potential nuclear deal with Iran, foreign policy experts said. Instead, the White House spent the entire day explaining why just two of the six top leaders of Gulf nations will attend.
While White House officials insisted this is not a setback for the Obama administration, some foreign policy experts disagreed.
Former Ambassador to Morocco, Mark Ginsberg said Gulf leaders believed there would be progress, if not agreements on a mutual defense agreement, ballistic missile cover and the transfer of F-35 jets, and when they found out they weren't going to get any of the things they were asking for, they decided it wasn't worth their time to attend.
"This was a real failure," Ginsberg said.
An administration official pushed back on that idea, insisting leaders were told weeks ago there would be no formal treaty, and only one nation expressed disappointment in person at a meeting in Paris.
Posted by leveymg | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 02:52 AM (1 replies)
HRC's actions differed from Petraeus. But, it's not what her defenders say. What she did was worse, both legally and ethically.
Far worse. When David Petraeus retained his diaries, "black books" after leaving DOD/CIA, and shared them with his paramour, Paula Broadwell, he put the two of them in legal jeopardy. On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. His indictment referenced a far more serious felony violation of his signed security oath, unauthorized release of Top Secret/Special Access Programs (TS/SAP). Had the former CIA Director not plea bargained down, Petraeus could have been prosecuted under the felony statute, 18 USC § 793, Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.
When HRC set up a private email server the day of her Senate confirmation hearing, and used it exclusively until after she resigned four years later, she never displayed any sort of warning or disclaimer on the system or her messages to caution others that they were communicating on a non-secure, private system. In so doing, she required her aides to use it to communicate with her -- along with hundreds of other federal officials. In so doing, this caused them all significant risk, and some may be prosecuted for transmitting classified information across that unauthorized server.
On at least one occasion, she instructed an aide to strip out classified information from a document stamped Secret and send it to her by unsecured email. After examination by the State Department, the server holds at least 100 documents that contained information that was found by other agencies to have been classified by them as Top Secret or above, TS/SAP.
If the AG decides to prosecute her and/or some of her staff, those found to have transmitted classified information face felony charges under Section 793, which carries with it a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653
But, Hillary may hold a Stay Out of Jail Free card that her staff members don't. As Secretary of State, she gets to classify or declassify her own agency's information. She may be able to claim immunity as head of agency for releasing materials that originated with DOS. But, she could not legally permit information that were originally classified by CIA, Department of Defense, or other originating agencies to be placed on her own server. The server she set up and operated was never certified as secure to contain or transmit secret information.
If her aides are prosecuted, and she isn't, it would be incredibly irresponsible and callous of her to benefit from head of agency immunity for herself and the information she posted that would have otherwise been classified at the moment it was written, while her aides go on trial.
What a shitty boss.
Just wait until she's President and thinks she can claim Executive Privilege for everything she does.
Posted by leveymg | Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:11 PM (15 replies)
Source: Washington Post
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top Clinton aides should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure at State from 2009 to 2013.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request, for information about the employment arrangement of a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. While it was not immediately clear whether the goverment would appeal, Sullivan set an April deadline for parties to lay out a detailed investigative plan that would go extend well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server so far given by department and Clinton officials.
Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin, to return all records related to Clinton’s private clintonemail.com, not just those their camps have previously deemed work-related and returned. “There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, saying that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy create “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.“This case is about the public’s right to know.”
In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan noted that there was no dispute that senior State Department officials were aware of the email set-up, citing a Jan. 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, Abedin about establishing an “off-network” email system. Sullivan’s decision came as Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination and three weeks after the State Department acknowledged for the first time that “top secret” information passed through the server.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
Drip, drip, drip
Posted by leveymg | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:59 PM (185 replies)
Smith, Smith! If you do your exercises with more enthusiasm, you will go from this 98 pound weakling:
To this Hero of Airstrip 1:
Posted by leveymg | Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:19 AM (0 replies)
Vote for your favorite Demoplican celebrity President
(_) The Donald
Posted by leveymg | Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:06 PM (1 replies)
She broke the law by hosting them on her insecure private server. No getting around that.
Posted by leveymg | Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:28 PM (0 replies)
(_) The Donald
Posted by leveymg | Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:43 PM (3 replies)