HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary's Email Scandal f...

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:04 PM

 

Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:19 PM - Edit history (3)

Okay, it looks complicated - you have questions. Let's walk through this gently!

1) Is the Email scandal important?
Yes, it is a very big, very real scandal. Worst case scenarios: people involved might go to jail, pay fines or lose future security clearance/never be able to work in government again.

2) Will it impact Hillary’s Presidential campaign?
That depends on the results of the currently ongoing FBI investigation, with rumors saying it will be completed “soon” (April/May). If the FBI says “nothing to see”, Democrats will be expected to shut up, but realistically the Republicans will mention it frequently during a General Election campaign, and of course convene committees to investigate until the end of time if they are the Majority Party in Congress if Hillary should win.

3) How many FBI agents have been investigating?
At one point the number was publicized as “147” but is now “currently less than 50/maybe a dozen full time.” It is assumed that the “147” number was “everyone who has ever been involved, from the tech geeks to the secretary to the field agents to the intern who did coffee runs”. The investigation has spanned multiple states, and been going on for more than a year, but the FBI folks have been threatened with Dire Consequences for tattling, so all most of us really need to know is “however many they feel it needed”.

4) Is this just a Bernie thing to get Hillary out?
No. Bernie is not a member of the FBI community, nor did he help Hillary set up her email system. Even if Hillary drops out of the race for “personal reasons”, he is not automatically the nominee unless he has enough delegates. If he doesn't, Hillary can “give” her delegates to someone else (even if they haven't been campaigning), and a behind the scenes “brokered” convention could give us a candidate fill-in-the-blank.

5) What exactly did Hillary do?
Lots of stupid stuff: She put government records (her work email) in her basement. She did not hand them over when she left her job. Later, she did not hand * all * of them over when they were subpoenaed. She made the government “break the law” because they could not turn over stuff they did not have when citizens used the “Freedom of Information Act” and requested it. And she did not make "super sure" bad people (“hackers and spies”) could not see the government records that were about national security.

6) Didn't Hillary say there was nothing confidential or top secret in her emails that spies would care about?
She said that, but she lied. Normally, a polite person would say “mistaken” but deliberately telling a falsehood is called “lying” so let's stick with that word.

7) How can you call her a liar?
The first batch of emails contained over a thousand confidential documents, as well as 22 super secret where-are-the-nuclear-weapons (not a joke – we know at least one is about North Korea and their nukes) burn-your-eyes-out-before-reading types. This makes sense because the nature of the job of Secretary of State involves dealing with that stuff, and she herself wrote over a hundred emails we don't want spies to see.

8) Why would she do this?
She says she didn't like to use a “super secure” desktop AT WORK because she liked to use her Blackberry, especially because she traveled a lot.

9) What's wrong with a Blackberry? Or an iPhone? They are awesome!
Ever seen a television show or movie where the hero “clones” a phone and then uses it to spy on people? Turns out that isn't just a plot thing – the spy folk really do that to each other, so emails like, “hey, Barack, let's meet at Starbucks for some Java” would be bad because assassins and stuff. Plus, nukes, etc.

10) How do you know her email wasn't safe? It was on a server, right?
It was on two different servers (more on that in a minute), actually, and neither was being monitored by the IT Anti-Spying Team that the government uses. Keeping hackers away from government secrets is a little more complicated than remembering to upgrade your anti-virus protections – if you are viewing this on the internet, you know what I mean.

11) Two servers? I am so confused!
She used one for several years, then decided to upgrade. She gave the old one to a small company in Colorado to copy files to the new server. They did not know this was a job that dealt with government secrets that they weren't authorized to view, so they treated it like a normal job (like “Best Buy” would, only they were a small company).

12) I have heard about thousands of emails – sometimes 60,000 and sometimes 30,000. Explain?
There were over 60,000 emails on the “basement” servers. When someone FINALLY noticed her email wasn't ".gov" and subpoenaed her during the Benghazi investigation, she printed out 30,000 or so and deleted the rest because she said they were “personal”. A freak out began when it became obvious “classified” and “confidential” stuff was included in that basement stuff. Then, when someone finished sorting through the papers, they realized she had “deleted” work emails/not just personal stuff when she was subpoenaed about it. They got really mad about it.

13) How do they know she deleted work emails/didn't comply with the subpoena?
Other people turned in emails that she didn't. At least one guy (Sidney Blumenthal) did not work for the government, so it looks like she was hoping he would also “forget” to turn things in and no one would ever know.

14) So what is the FBI investigating?
The FBI has been able to retrieve the deleted emails. (The mom-and-pop shop in Colorado kept backups.) We are waiting to see if they think she broke any laws. Plus see answer to #5.

15) What kind of laws?
There are two types: not taking care of government records in the right way (keeping secret stuff safe, for example) and saying/doing stuff that was against the law (based on what is in them). An example of the second would be “not reporting foreign government lobbying by Blumenthal”. The FBI is working with the Justice Department to determine if laws were broken, and what should happen if so.

16) Don't all Secretary of States do this? Albright, Rice, Powell?
No. Albright never used email, Rice didn't do business in email (personal account was just personal), and Powell used a super-secure-no-spyware-allowed desktop at work for business emails. To be fair, these folks didn't have the modern toys we all take for granted now – Powell’s personal account was an AOL account – but no, they never kept stuff in their basement, let alone ALL of their work records.

17) Shouldn't someone have noticed she never used her “.gov” email?
It is reasonable the IT Geek team thought she was just “afraid of email” once they told her she couldn't have a smart phone in the area, but yes, someone should have noticed. There is a guy who took care of things for her that she got a job in the IT department, but his bosses say they didn't know what he did. The FBI has granted him immunity so it is assumed he is going to be testifying in front of a grand jury (if he hasn't already done so).

18) Isn’t this just another Right Wing Attack on Hillary? (Everyone knows they hate her.)
No. The “Republicans Cry Wolf Again" syndrome is strong, but this time they have nothing to do with any of her problems. No member of the Right Wing assisted Hillary in setting up her email systems. No Republican made her sign documents saying she had turned in her work stuff when it was still in her basement. Not even the hate radio folk helped her write her emails. She made all of those decisions on her own. To be fair, her problems mostly began when people found out what she did during the Benghazi hearings/wasn't complying with the subpoenas, but there were already lawsuits in place because of the FOIA stuff, so she will be deposed under oath in those two civil cases per the Judges. She did this on her own.

I hope this helps - please keep in mind this is my translation of everything I have been reading for the last several weeks (and I may have gotten things wrong). I have deliberately NOT included links for ease of reading, but will reference them in Replies/ask that those with other evidence to help with clarification in those sub threads.

198 replies, 12995 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 198 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People (Original post)
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 OP
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #1
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #4
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #27
FourScore Apr 2016 #69
Gothmog Apr 2016 #101
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #114
Gothmog Apr 2016 #124
leveymg Apr 2016 #139
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #72
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #129
tex-wyo-dem Apr 2016 #90
Gothmog Apr 2016 #97
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #120
Gothmog Apr 2016 #123
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #136
Gothmog Apr 2016 #140
leveymg Apr 2016 #151
Gothmog Apr 2016 #193
leveymg Apr 2016 #194
Gothmog Apr 2016 #195
leveymg Apr 2016 #196
leveymg Apr 2016 #160
Gothmog Apr 2016 #174
leveymg Apr 2016 #183
Gothmog Apr 2016 #184
leveymg Apr 2016 #185
Gothmog Apr 2016 #187
leveymg Apr 2016 #188
Gothmog Apr 2016 #189
Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #163
leveymg Apr 2016 #145
Gothmog Apr 2016 #149
leveymg Apr 2016 #154
Gothmog Apr 2016 #158
leveymg Apr 2016 #161
Gothmog Apr 2016 #159
procon Apr 2016 #178
shawn703 Apr 2016 #176
Name removed Sep 2016 #198
chervilant Apr 2016 #2
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #8
Gothmog Apr 2016 #102
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #138
Gothmog Apr 2016 #143
AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #3
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #6
GeorgeGist Apr 2016 #5
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #7
nolabels Apr 2016 #99
mak3cats Apr 2016 #9
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #13
global1 Apr 2016 #10
Tarc Apr 2016 #11
rachacha Apr 2016 #16
Post removed Apr 2016 #33
rachacha Apr 2016 #35
Madam Mossfern Apr 2016 #67
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #44
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #80
JudyM Apr 2016 #84
rachacha Apr 2016 #12
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #22
Gothmog Apr 2016 #103
jmg257 Apr 2016 #36
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #39
jmg257 Apr 2016 #41
spin Apr 2016 #89
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #100
spin Apr 2016 #157
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #42
JudyM Apr 2016 #87
jeff47 Apr 2016 #14
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #18
jeff47 Apr 2016 #24
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #30
jeff47 Apr 2016 #37
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #38
questionseverything Apr 2016 #77
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #88
PatV Apr 2016 #132
awake Apr 2016 #15
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #19
Punkingal Apr 2016 #17
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #20
rbrnmw Apr 2016 #21
dana_b Apr 2016 #23
berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #25
gordianot Apr 2016 #26
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #29
Tarc Apr 2016 #34
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #45
Tarc Apr 2016 #61
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #64
Tarc Apr 2016 #68
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #70
Tarc Apr 2016 #75
frylock Apr 2016 #79
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #81
frylock Apr 2016 #83
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #92
frylock Apr 2016 #93
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #94
frylock Apr 2016 #104
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #105
frylock Apr 2016 #108
Jackie Wilson Said Apr 2016 #109
frylock Apr 2016 #112
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #86
Gothmog Apr 2016 #115
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #117
Gothmog Apr 2016 #121
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #133
Gothmog Apr 2016 #141
Gothmog Apr 2016 #137
ebayfool Apr 2016 #156
FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #76
Gothmog Apr 2016 #134
TM99 Apr 2016 #51
gordianot Apr 2016 #52
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #54
gordianot Apr 2016 #55
azmom Apr 2016 #28
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #31
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #32
amborin Apr 2016 #40
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #63
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2016 #43
snooper2 Apr 2016 #46
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #47
snooper2 Apr 2016 #49
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #50
gordianot Apr 2016 #56
frylock Apr 2016 #82
global1 Apr 2016 #59
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #66
Gothmog Apr 2016 #107
slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #48
chillfactor Apr 2016 #53
frylock Apr 2016 #85
TheFarS1de Apr 2016 #57
rbrnmw Apr 2016 #58
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #60
rbrnmw Apr 2016 #62
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #65
rbrnmw Apr 2016 #153
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #71
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #73
jack_krass Apr 2016 #74
Herman4747 Apr 2016 #78
WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #91
rbrnmw Apr 2016 #95
WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #98
Gothmog Apr 2016 #96
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #106
Gothmog Apr 2016 #110
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #131
Gothmog Apr 2016 #135
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #142
Gothmog Apr 2016 #150
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #113
Gothmog Apr 2016 #111
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #116
Gothmog Apr 2016 #119
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #125
Gothmog Apr 2016 #130
CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #144
Gothmog Apr 2016 #146
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #165
Gothmog Apr 2016 #171
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #177
Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #118
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #166
Land of Enchantment Apr 2016 #182
Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #122
Gothmog Apr 2016 #126
Gothmog Apr 2016 #127
Gothmog Apr 2016 #128
grasswire Apr 2016 #147
George II Apr 2016 #148
KMOD Apr 2016 #152
Bob_Roony Apr 2016 #155
jfern Apr 2016 #162
Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #164
msanthrope Apr 2016 #167
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #169
msanthrope Apr 2016 #170
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #175
msanthrope Apr 2016 #179
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #180
msanthrope Apr 2016 #181
mainer Apr 2016 #168
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #172
mainer Apr 2016 #173
Gothmog Apr 2016 #190
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #191
NorthCarolina Apr 2016 #186
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #192
Gothmog Jul 2016 #197

Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:12 PM

1. Brava!

 

Note to regular folks:

A communication may contain sensitive, even top secret, material and not be marked "classified".

The lack of a classification makes it no less important to be handled appropriately.

It is the duty of the Secretary of State and all who serve under them to KNOW HOW TO tell what is or should be classified, marked or not, and to act accordingly.

Thus, lack of classified marking do not exonerate the people who sent messages around haphazardly. To me, all involved are guilty of negligence and should, at the very least, be disqualified from any possibility of future service in any sensitive capacity.

Never mind operating all of this out of the basement of your private home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralCoaster (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:33 PM

4. Thank you! It is actually complicated stuff (as is to be expected

 

from her job description). It pleases me that it makes sense to someone who actually knows the real world difference between the different classifications. (I have no training on that/rely on the "keyboard kommandos" who do!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:43 PM

27. It's actually unbelievable. Keystone Kops in a way. Secretary of State, FFS.

 

I suppose had it been the Attorney General we could be slightly more shocked.

The Secretary of State handles tons of very sensitive information.

"Oh, I'll just create my own email domain and server, and I'll run all the official business through that, AND I'll keep the equipment that hosts all of that in my own house.

In the basement!"

Seriously, is that the kind of judgement we should accept as AOK, no big deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:26 AM

69. IdaBroggs, this is a concise explanation! Well done! However, I think you should add...

something about the pay-to-play. As is so often the case, one investigation can open the door to completely other crimes. As I understand it, the pay to play is now it's own separate legal issue, but was discovered in the emails.

Thanks for posting this.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:11 PM

101. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not 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:

"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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #101)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:24 PM

114. With respect, that is pure speculation based on incomplete data.

 

The people responsible for determining whether a crime has been committed are the FBI working in concert with the Department of Justice.

I refer you to Questions 2 and 15 in the original post:

2) Will it impact Hillary’s Presidential campaign?
That depends on the results of the currently ongoing FBI investigation, with rumors saying it will be completed “soon” (April/May). If the FBI says “nothing to see”, Democrats will be expected to shut up, but realistically the Republicans will mention it frequently during a General Election campaign, and of course convene committees to investigate until the end of time if they are the Majority Party in Congress if Hillary should win.

and

15) What kind of laws?
There are two types: not taking care of government records in the right way (keeping secret stuff safe, for example) and saying/doing stuff that was against the law (based on what is in them). An example of the second would be “not reporting foreign government lobbying by Blumenthal”. The FBI is working with the Justice Department to determine if laws were broken, and what should happen if so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #114)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:41 PM

124. Diane Feinstein-There is nothing new here

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #101)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:05 PM

139. That is not a good analysis. You can get ten years for leaving secret docs on a bar stool.

You or I, if we had security clearances, would get a long vacation in Club Med simply for negligently losing classified information, even without any intent to harm the U.S. Furthermore, if you or I learned that classified information were lost or compromised and didn't report it, we would get up to 10 years. That's precisely what Hillary did by setting up an unauthorized server and sending and receiving classified information, back and forth, and back and forth over an unsecure system.

Dan Abrams doesn't even mention the fact that Hillary signed a security agreement upon entering office on 01/22/09. That oath states a number of important warnings, including enumerating the applicable statutes and penalties for violating the agreement. Among the statutes is 18 USC Section 793. There are a number of charges that can brought under that law. In particular, subsections (e) and (f) each carry ten years imprisonment for conviction. Contrary to Abrams "analysis", neither of these sections require proof of intent to harm the national interest or even intent to break the law:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
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.


And then there's her response to to Sidney Blumenthal's emails containing obvious classified material about Libya. Did she report Sid to the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) or any federal authorities. Hell no, her response was, "Keep 'em coming." That seems to fall under subsection (g) of the same statute:

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralCoaster (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:22 AM

72. Here's something I learned . . . there are NO government documents marked "classified"

 

That was a Hillary 'hide the truth' word game. They are marked "confidential", "secret" or "top secret". I think those were the examples but in any case, nothing is marked "classified".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #72)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:46 PM

129. Oh, that's very interesting.

 

And typical for the candidate.

It's clever, careful wording that I have to think is managed by staff during meetings.

People paid to figure out how to lie without actually telling lies.

Damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralCoaster (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:24 PM

90. This is exactly why the government...

Wants official communication over email to be done on secure government servers where email can later be reviewed for classification. The way Hillary was running the show, there was no oversight, no review for classification and all those emails were sitting on a private relatively insecure server that could be (was?) compromised.

This whole investigation and possible legal actions were all Hillary's doing...no one to blame but herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralCoaster (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:08 PM

97. Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

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

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s is likely to be.

There will be no indictment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #97)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:38 PM

120. As credible as a Psychic Call to Ms. Chloe & Her Tarot Hotline.

 

We don't know what the FBI is investigating. We don't know what evidence they are pursuing. Your opinion AND MINE aren't going to be the ones that matter. The people who actually KNOW what is going on are all employed by the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Please note I am going to repeat this every time you post "psychic" nonsense. I have attempted to provide FACTS and why they matter. There can be no predictions about what is or isn't going to happen until ALL of the facts are made public.

We aren't there yet, and won't be until the FBI finishes their investigation "soon" (rumored to be in April/May).

This is not a Bernie thing. It is not a Republican thing. It is at a very minimum a Very Stupid Series of Decisions that belong 100% to Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #120)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:40 PM

123. How about Senator Feinstein as a source

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #123)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:00 PM

136. See Reply #70.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1650151

Wikipedia shows their sources. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Official_statements

The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016. In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn declaration that "several dozen emails (had been) determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels." Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced by the emails.(64)(65)(66)


The numbers at the end reflect reporting sources from The New York Times, NBC News and The Washington Post. But we already know those sources are NOT adequate for you, so let's go one deeper. You won't like this one.

It's a PDF of the Inspector General's LETTER TO CONGRESS and the Faux Bots managed to get a copy of it. It says EXACTLY what the Wikipedia says it does:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:05 PM

140. "Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike

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 official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

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 it’s 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:35 PM

151. No. Much of the TS classified material was NSA information dealing with events in Libya.

Hillary's response was, "Keep 'em coming." This was information that Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA Officer working with Blumenthal and a consortium of US security contractors in Libya had obtained. It was word for word TS/SAP information that the NSA had posted on a classified system just a couple days earlier.

Hillary read it on her own unsecure email system, as did anyone who could hack into it. Guccifer hacked it off Bluementhal's AOL account and published it. Hillary neglected to turn it over to the State Department for two years after she left Mahogony Row, even though it had been subpoenaed by the House Intel Committee. That was how all this started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #151)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 12:51 PM

193. CIA: Trey Gowdy Altered Documents To Frame Hillary Clinton

It is so sad that this rather sad and false claim is based on documents altered by Howdy Gowdy that some were silly enough to believe. Your reliance on altered documents from Howdy Gowdy amuses me http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey-gowdy-altered-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/

In the letter, Gowdy referred extensively to Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time confidante and adviser to the Clintons, who served as assistant and senior adviser to Bill Clinton from August 1997 until January 2001.

In addition to Sidney Blumenthal’s business interests, Secretary Clinton also apparently received classified information from Blumenthal- information she should have known was classified at the time she received it. In one email, Blumenthal writes “Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods].”1 This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives. Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague–debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address.1 There may be other instances as well where Secretary Clinton passed on classified information she received from Sidney Blumenthal. [emphasis added]

However, as Newsweek reported on Sunday, the CIA informed the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Saturday that Gowdy’s claims were false:

Indeed, according to committee correspondence reviewed by Newsweek, the CIA did tell the panel on Saturday that it had reviewed 127 emails between Clinton and her close friend and outside adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, and none of it was deemed classified.

“The CIA reviewed the material in question and informed State that it required no redactions,” the agency informed Susan Sachsman Grooms, staff director and general counsel for the panel’s Democrats, on October 17.

On Sunday, Cummings sent a letter to Gowdy to correct the public record in light of the fact that the CIA had debunked Chairman Gowdy’s accusations.

Cummings began, writing that: “On October 7, 2015, you sent me a 13-page letter making a grave new accusation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Specifically, you accused her of compromising national security and endangering lives,” adding that, “The problem with your accusation—as with so many others during this investigation—is that you failed to check your facts before you made it, and the CIA has now informed the Select Committee that you were wrong. I believe your accusations were irresponsible, and I believe you owe the Secretary an immediate apology.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #193)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 03:31 PM

194. What I see: of 127 Sid emails, only one appears to have been partial redacted by the Comm.

at some places to delete a name, which in all likelihood was Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA agent who was working with Bluementhal trying to obtain State Dept. contracts in Libya.

The specifics do not bear up the allegation made in the blog piece of wholesale "altering documents to frame Hillary." The actual Cummings letter states that the CIA did not confirm that the redaction made by the Committee of a name on a single email was necessary "to protect sources and methods." Indeed, all of those CIA-related emails referenced in the article remain classified, and the one that was cited [STATE-SCB0078243] in Gowdy's response letter has, in fact, not been released through the State Dept. FOIA reading room. Look yourself: https://foia.state.gov/search/results.aspx?searchText=*&beginDate=&endDate=&publishedBeginDate=&publishedEndDate=&caseNumber=SCB0078243 There is no way to independently verify any of the information you cited, except for the contents of Cummings letter to Gowdy.

If you read the exact wording of Cummings letter (.pdf linked in Newsweek article), it appears that he is saying that the Committee's redactions of the names on one document were unnecessary. There is no direct statement made by Cummings that there was no CIA-originated classified information sent by Blumenthal to Clinton. Based on a reading of the actual Cummings letter, the blogger you linked seems to have gotten it wrong when one examines the actual letter. Here's the excerpt of the Cummings letter quoted:

To further inflate your claim, you placed your own redactions over the name of the
individual with the words, "redacted due to sources and methods." To be clear, these redactions
were not made, and these words were not added, by any agency of the federal government
responsible for enforcing classification guidelines.
Predictably, commentators began repeating your accusations in even more extreme terms,
suggesting in headlines for example that "Clinton Burns CIA Libya Contact."2
Contrary to your claims, the CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and
Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you
highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that "the State
Depmiment consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and
the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information. "


Also, see, in text of Newsweek article, reference to:
Symbol FOOTNOTE 1: Email from Sidney Blumenthal to Hon. Hillary R. Clinton (Mar. 18, 2011) [STATE-SCB0078243].







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #194)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 03:37 PM

195. It is sad to see people being fooled by Howdy Gowdy

Howdy Gowdy lied and altered documents and there are silly people who are willing to accept such lie. That is sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #195)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 03:45 PM

196. There was one email where a name was redacted unnecessarily. You failed to make your case here.

How am I being fooled? Indeed, it is you based upon a blog piece who seems to have an infirm grasp of the facts. The facts are the facts, no matter who dug them up. Your version aren't factual. You are perfectly free to explain how you arrived at the conclusion you did and why that differs from mine. But, in fact, Blumenthal's 127 emails to Clinton were not made up or fabricated by Trey Gowdy or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:34 PM

160. I'm afraid that "no harm" defense hasn't worked in the courts.

If it's classified, and you mishandled it, you're convicted. It may be unfair, but under existing law that's the way it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #160)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:50 AM

174. You are wrong again

Thank you for the laughs. Your understanding of the legal concepts involved here amuses me. You have been wrong in every claim that you made. Again, this is a matter of over-classification and under the law the articles about drones published in the NYT are not sufficient for an indictment. No DOJ attorney or attorney who understood the concepts would be silly enough to make that claim.

Under your rather amusing theory, reading the NYT and talking about articles in the NYT is illegal. That is so very amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #174)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:44 PM

183. You're just a broken record, a tape on a loop, a gif. Same scrap

Over and over again, but no matter what I say or how many different ways I explain this to you, your comeback lines are always the same. Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #183)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:40 PM

184. I am amused that you actually think that you understand the legal concepts being discussed

There is no proof what so ever of gross negligence or knowing violation of the law. Without clear evidence of such knowledge, then there is no violation of the law. No DOJ lawyer is going to bring an indictment based on e-mails discussing NYT stories on drones. That information is in the public domain and the fact that some idiot considers NYT stories on drones to be sensitive will not change that fact.

Again, Petreaus got a misdemeanor for giving his mistress binders of materials that was marked classified and everyone know was classified. There was far more evidence in that case than in this case. There will be no indictment but I have enjoyed laughing at your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #184)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:14 PM

185. Delighted you are amused. But, again you err. Petraeus' binders weren't marked classified, but

that didn't make any difference. Paragraph 1 clearly states, " As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information." Petraeus signed the same security oath that Hillary Clinton did, and they both clearly understood the terms and consequences of violation. Yet, they both violated their agreements. Paragraphs 1 and 2 and 4 of that standard nondisclose agreement state:

CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

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.

. . .

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 United 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..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #185)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:43 PM

187. Do you tire of being wrong?

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 thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials. ....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #187)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 06:52 PM

188. Nowhere does that state that his books were marked classifed; Sec 1924 and 793 r different statutes

Gawd, you should be glad nobody is reliant upon your ability to understand legal materials. Others are surely glad, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #188)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:20 PM

189. There are remedial reading courses that could help you on this

You should have someone read and explain that filing to you. General Pretaeus knew that the material was classified which satisfied the mens rea requirement of the statute. Only a layperson would claim that there is no need to prove intent and no DOJ lawyer would be silly enough to bring a case based on e-mails discussing New York Times articles on drones.

Keep up the good work. I enjoy the laughs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #123)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:51 AM

163. I thought DiFi was busy lying to the American people about the wretched effects legal weed is having

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #97)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:21 PM

145. This is one of those bait and switch analyses. Doesn't mention Sec. 793 the statute most

mentioned in Hillary's signed Security Agreement. I discussed subsections (e) and (f) of that statute at #139, above. Here's the wording of her signed oath (by the way, also notice what it says about "unmarked classified information":

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
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) 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, will 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 classifled 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.
NSN 75C0.01..2B0-5499

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #145)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:33 PM

149. You are Wrong again

It is fun watching laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. There has to be a culpable mental state which is called mens rea. The are no strict liability crimes and your attempt to claim that there is one is amusing but wrong.

In the real world, one looks at similar cases. Here there is no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified at the time. In similar cases where there absolute proof that the defendants knew that the material was classified, there are some interesting results http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Laypersons are amusing when they try to understand legal concepts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #149)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:46 PM

154. I make a living parsing federal and state statutes for things such as intent and mens rea.

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

If you read the plain-language of the statute, you will see that there are a number of separate grounds stated for charges, and that sections (a)-(f) express several different thresholds for intent. Sections, (a) and (b) differ from (e), and that differs from (f) in terms of the level of intent that has to be proved.


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or


That is clearly different from (e):

(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.


Please read the information provided, and try to keep up. I have a conference call in ten minutes, but I'll be back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #154)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:33 PM

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

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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #158)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:58 AM

161. There are six separate crimes under 793. (e) and (f) do not require specific intent

Tompkins oped appeared last August. She failed to mention that the Petraeus charging document included violation of felony 793 but she allowed him to plead down to a misdemeanor. Essentially the same crime as Clinton has committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #154)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:34 PM

159. Brit Hume is a fox news reporter but he is not a total idiot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #159)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:49 AM

178. LOL This is the perfect subtitle for this whole thread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #97)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:21 AM

176. I was required to take training on proper handling of classified information

And have to refresh that training every year. Playing dumb isn't going to help her if she received the required training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralCoaster (Reply #1)


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:15 PM

2. Thank you for this compilation.

Hi11ary's cavalier attitude about this email imbroglio is off-putting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:45 PM

8. Most welcome and thank you for the kind words.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:13 PM

102. Why no sourcing of these amusing but false claims?

Why will you not post the links to your sources? I wonder why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #102)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:04 PM

138. I have posted many links to sources in numerous comments, and explained why

 

I did not add them in the original (very information heavy) original post. Either this comment from you is from a different reply/you didn't have a chance to read it yet, or you don't know how to follow the links provided, or you just don't want to trust the sources because they are factually stating that Hillary Clinton has both outright lied and deliberately misled the public about this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #138)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:15 PM

143. The links you are using are sad but funny

The fact that you think that the falsehoods in the OP were information heavy is simply wrong. Again, your sourcing here is very weak and wrong in most cases. The facts do not support most of your claims. Again, it is sad that your desire to find a way to overcome Clinton's massive delegate and popular vote lead is causing you to make claims that are simply not true.

None of the e-mails discussed were classified at the time they were sent and under the applicable legal standard that is controlling. There will be no indictment and your hopes for an indictment will not come true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:31 PM

3. Excellent summary

 

as a techie I have to admire the skill in translating technical details to plain English

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgerolanAmerican (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:38 PM

6. Thank you - three decades as an IT geek translating for my innocent users --

 

who just wanted to push a button to get a report that makes sense -- pays off.

You should hear my speeches on "yes, relationships matter in databases, too" and "field types are important - we do not put text in number fields!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:36 PM

5. The 147 was pulled out of Grassley's ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:44 PM

7. My guess is someone pulled a report against a cost center code

 

and summarized a count against anyone who ever billed against it. Or they may have seen the same ten people "every month" and added wrong. We haven't seen the report, and honestly, most of us don't care/its minutiae that ignores the big issue of whether or not there was a crime committed, which is what really matters, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:10 PM

99. When was the last time that you or someone you knew had just one FBI agent investigating personaly

Yea, scoff all you like, but not playing square is what gets people into these situations.

Hubris is word the greeks had coined over two millennia ago

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:46 PM

9. Do you think having no permanent Inspector General in place at the time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mak3cats (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:00 PM

13. That may have to do with how she spent the budget money --

 

which is a concern for the second part of Question #15.

If one of the emails is from the Clinton Foundation saying, "hey, our good buddies in little old Terrorist-Supply-Depot-Country just donated three million to our get-rich-quick fund, so would you mind selling them some weapons?" that would be a problem a good quality Independent Inspector General might have caught.

Again, we don't know, so we have to wait for the FBI to tell us.

But great question!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:49 PM

10. Thank You For This Non-Techy Account Of This.....

We hear all the time on the news and read in the newspapers of people having their computers hacked and their identities stolen. We hear of major corporations that have been hacked and their customers data stolen. Recently I read about a hospital that was hacked and its data being held for ransom.

As a computer and e-mail user - I'm freaked about my computer being hacked and my identity stolen. I still don't do any banking or paying of any bills by internet because I don't trust it. I think I'm using good judgement here. I bought into the meme that once one puts something in an e-mail - it's out there somewhere for all to see it and access it - if one really tried hard enough.

That brings me to wondering what the hell was Hillary thinking? What kind of judgement was being employed by her to set up her own server and bypass the government system and turn up her nose to the NSA, CIA and other government agencies?

I mean - she was the Secretary of State and she was dealing with more highly sensitive information then just paying a bill or doing banking over the internet like me. She was dealing with foreign governments and people's lives.

Even if it is determined that very few e-mails were actually classified - the content of the e-mails going back and forth between her and her people had to be sensitive and have some value to hackers. Hackers that deal with foreign governments and terrorists. When you think of it on these terms - Hillary was putting us all at risk here.

Your non-techy look at this - what I call a major scandal - has caused me to think about it in these terms - as a person that iw worried about having my identity stolen.

One really has to question Hillary's judgement here. What she did cannot be glossed over and swept under a rug. And I question if I want a person that has such poor judgement being the leader of my country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:51 PM

11. 1) is a flat-out "no", which renders the rest moot

The official response it laid out here; https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

And one of many in the recent will-never-be-indicted analysis pieces;

Why Hillary Clinton Is Unlikely to Be Indicted

This is a political whinefest, not an actual criminal case. Right-wingers pursued it because they are obsessed with All-Things-Clinton, and the Sanders camp lapped it up because they have nothing else to grasp at as their primary run fades into mathematical improbability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:04 PM

16. That depends on what your definition of "gross negligence" is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachacha (Reply #16)


Response to Post removed (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:44 PM

35. The standard is indeed high, but whether an action meets

the "gross negligence" threshold is ultimately for a jury to decide, and it very much depends on the context of the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachacha (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:09 AM

67. She knew that she was going to run for POTUS

At the very least it shows horrible judgement in that she thought that this would never come out or that if it did, it wouldn't make a difference in her campaign - or worse yet - she just didn't think. When the story of the e-mail SERVER came out, I knew right then and there that I could never support someone with such poor judgment and arrogance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:07 PM

44. Ooh! Boy, is that "official" response full of bald faced lies!

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Okay,
consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State
= not true (see #16) and
State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work
= not true (she put out an email to her staff telling them they couldn't use personal email for business, so that is pretty funny, since it's on the wiki leaks already) and the stuff about "wasn't classified at the time" is hysterical ("born classified" is a thing - she was chatting about nukes, for heaven's sake) and --

Well, I can understand why uninformed people might take some of that malarkey at face value, but most of it is either factually incorrect, deliberately misleading or just plain silly. 30,000 emails she deleted were about yoga and her daughter's wedding? Um, except we know that isn't true...

At the end of the day, the FBI is going to tell us whether her actions were CRIMINAL or just plain STUPID. I will trust them; she is definitely lying and spinning like crazy.

Thank you for the laugh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:29 AM

80. GOP created this story, and did so to try and destroy Hillary Clinton's chances to be president.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #80)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:37 AM

84. They didn't create *the facts* of what she did, which apparently warrant investigation, at a minimum

They uncovered it, but that is also a good function of a 2-party system, even when it hurts dems; we should not be acting illegally (if that's what the investigations turn out) or unethically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 12:57 PM

12. And here's the specific law she could get dinged on:

18 USC 793 (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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachacha (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:09 PM

22. Thank you - hopefully that makes sense to people.

 

Much appreciated (because people do like links).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:14 PM

103. There is no specific intent or mens rea here

Here is a good explanation as to why the silly but funny hopes of the conservatives that the FBI will find a criminal violation by Hillary Clinton are so funny http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

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.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

I am enjoying watching the conservatives keep on claiming that Hillary Clinton broke the law. Such claims are really funny. Keep up the good work.

Are you claiming that one can violate the law without having to prove any intent or knowledge? That is very funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachacha (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:35 PM

36. Wow - "removed from its proper place of custody"...would that include

Placing such documents on a private server in your basement?

If so, doing it wasn't negilgent, but done purposely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:47 PM

39. There are multiple people whose careers included high level security

 

clearances who are having fits because people just DON'T keep records off premises in unsecured locations without expecting jail time, especially when dealing with issues of national security. There have been numerous posts expressing contempt at the idea this was acceptable.

If she gets away with it, that is going to make it very difficult to prosecute people in the future or keep the ones currently in jail because of this stuff morally reprehensible.

Either national security matters, or it doesn't: pick one.

They seem pretty incensed about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:58 PM

41. Thanks for bringing that up...thoughtful stuff. Its appreciated! :). Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #39)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:21 PM

89. I held a government security clearance for many years before I retired. ...

If I would have been caught mishandling classified information I would have most likely spent time behind bars and been forced to pay a significant fine.

In any well functioning representative democracy the rule of law is extremely important and should apply equally to everybody including those at high levels in the government. When it is ignored and certain privileged people have a gold plated Get of of Jail Free card then you live in at best an oligarchy or at worst a banana republic.

I hope that if the FBI does feel that the evidence proves Hillary mishandled classified email and recommends she be indicted that the DOJ agrees. If not I will lose whatever pride I have left for my country and will realize that our founding fathers' dream has ended in failure.

In many ways Hillary reminds me of Richard Nixon. Nixon also thought he was above the law.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #89)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:10 PM

100. Thank you for your service!

 

I don't know what you did, but I have to assume it was "challenging and intense work" if it involved a clearance, so let me say this (just in case no one else ever did):

Thank you for your service to our country!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #100)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 05:07 PM

157. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:00 PM

42. Yes...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rachacha (Reply #12)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:56 AM

87. "Gross negligence" basically = reckless disregard, as opposed to inadvertence.

I haven't looked at the case law with respect to how it may have been interpreted for this USC provision, maybe someone else has?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:02 PM

14. There's a flaw in #12

It wasn't part of the Benghazi investigation.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for a ton of State Department emails, trolling for something they could use to attack Clinton. It was not connected to the Benghazi crap.

When Blumenthal's email got hacked and revealed the existence of clintonemail.com, Judicial Watch got to sue because State failed to turn over those emails as required by FOIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:06 PM

18. I thought her server was subpoenaed under Benghazi authority?

 

And Blumenthal showing up with more emails than she revealed was part of the big issue, while somewhat simultaneously the FOIA stuff was going on because of the hacker?

Can you help me clarify the timeline there? I thought it was sort of going on at the same time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:18 PM

24. Nope. It's completely independent of the Benghazi crap.

Timeline:
- Judicial Watch files FOIA request
- State responds with emails
- Blumenthal hacked, Clinton's email address revealed
- Judicial Watch sues the State Department because they did not properly respond to the FOIA request (they didn't have the emails)
- Judge orders Clinton to turn over her emails
- Clinton eventually turns over "non-personal" emails. State starts normal FOIA review, which involves the DNI's office looking for classified
- DNI's office says "Holy shit! There's TS in here!!". Gets DNI IG involved.
- DNI IG says, "Yep, classified". Calls FBI.
- FBI starts investigation.
- FBI seizes server to protect classified (standard procedure, actually. Doesn't indicate anything)
- Congress starts making noises about forming a committee. Clinton's IT guy takes the 5th in response.
- Benghazi committee makes some noises about looking into it....doesn't actually do so.
- Non-classified emails released to Judicial Watch*. Judicial Watch turns around and makes public anything vaguely embarrassing (their original goal)
- FBI recovers deleted emails, finds more that should have been turned over in that FOIA request, resulting in the judges in both FOIA lawsuits granting a larger fishing expedition.
- And here we are today.

Now, that * up there is to talk about one email that was not released. It was not classified, but the FBI had it withheld as part of their investigation. That's rather interesting - it might mean the investigation is not just about classified emails. It might be about pay-for-play via the Clinton foundation too. Or it might be something like the "take the markings off" email that has already come out and thus not mean anything special.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:32 PM

30. Okay, here is why it is confusing (and I am not sure I agree with you)

 

But keep in mind that sources are everything.

The attacks took place on September 11, 2012.

Everybody and their brother started forming committee to investigate - the FBI on September 13, 2012; October saw a "State Department Accountability Board", the House subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations scheduling interviews, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is conducting its own investigation, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs also investigating, and blah, blah, blah: all Benghazi, all the time. Details here -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_investigation_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack

All of the people involved were investigating, interviewing and asking for documents for several months but none of Hillary's emails were showing up because they were on the private server.

From Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Investigation
The conservative foundation Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request to the Department of State on December 19, 2012. An acknowledgement of the request was received by Judicial Watch on January 4, 2013. When the State Department failed to respond to the request by February 4, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit, which resulted in seven photographs being delivered on June 6, 2013.

(snip)

On May 30, 2013 it was reported that the Republican National Committee filed a FOIA for "any and all emails or other documents containing the terms 'Libya' and/or 'Benghazi' dated between September 11, 2012 and November 7, 2012 directed from or to U.S. Department of State employees originating from, or addressed to, persons whose email addresses end in either 'barackobama.com' or 'dnc.org.'"


So the Judicial Watch people were being ignored/locked out, and no one yet knew about her private email account.

Then this happened in the summer of 2014 (because no one took the Guccifer stuff seriously in 2013?):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to her from Sidney Blumenthal, obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account. The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address. Blumenthal did not have a security clearance when he received material from Clinton that has since been characterized as classified by the State Department.

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton's personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A request by the State Department for additional emails led to negotiations with her lawyers and advisors. In October, the State Department sent letters to Clinton and all previous Secretaries of State back to Madeleine Albright requesting emails and documents related to their work while in office. In December, more than 50,000 printed pages of emails from Clinton's personal email account were delivered to the State Department, and the State Department subsequently transferred the Benghazi-related emails to the committee.

A March 2, 2015 New York Times article broke the story that the Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law. At that point, Clinton announced that she had asked the State Department to release her emails. Some in the media labeled the controversy "emailgate".


And the bold sections are why it tied into the Benghazi investigation to me. Judicial Watch wanted more, but until the State Department lawyers figured it out, all searches were coming up blank.

Thoughts on the logic chain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:47 PM

37. There's more than one FOIA lawsuit.

Judicial Watch had two lawsuits. The one that "found" the server is not connected to Benghazi - it is a far broader lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:42 PM

38. That still doesn't jibe with the official reports about the "discovery"

 

of the emails - remember, the FOIA lawsuits were being totally stymied.

From the New York Times on March 5, 2015

WASHINGTON — As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton.

(snip)

But it was the review of Benghazi-related documents last summer that, within the State Department, set off the chain of events leading to the public disclosure this week of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email account, according to the current and former department officials.

(snip)

Beginning in August, senior State Department officials held negotiations with Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers and advisers to gain access to her personal email records. At one point, her advisers met face-to-face with department officials in Washington.

(snip)

Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department. Those documents were then examined by department lawyers, who found roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.


In English, she was not allowing the government to comply with multiple FOIA lawsuits because they were in her basement and no one at State had copies of them with a BONUS: all of the records were under subpoena from the House "Benghazi" committees who had never seen them and were totally pissed off because this was two years later AND she had signed documents saying she had turned in all of her work stuff in February of 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:12 AM

77. blumenthal didn't "turn over" e-mails , did he?

just asking for clarification...i thought he was hacked

i thought the hack was how we knew hc did not turn over all of them?

or am i mistaken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #77)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:57 AM

88. He brought approx 150 emails when he was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.

 

His testimony was closed door and hasn't been released. He had already been hacked, so not being stupid, one assumes he brought all of them (and a compare/contrast by the lawyers was mentioned when they were trying to sort through all the paperwork involved).

It has been widely reported the emails contained information he wasn't authorized to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #88)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:53 PM

132. Also regarding Blumenthal's emails:

 

State Department: 15 Emails Missing From Hillary Clinton Cache

WASHINGTON — The State Department cannot find in its records all or part of 15 work-related emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that were released this week by a House panel investigating the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, officials said Thursday.

The emails all predate the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility and include scant words written by Clinton herself, the officials said. They consist of more in a series of would-be intelligence reports passed to her by longtime political confidant Sidney Blumenthal, the officials said.

Nevertheless, the fact that the State Department says it can't find them among emails she provided surely will raise new questions about Clinton's use of a personal email account and server while secretary of state and whether she has provided the agency all of her work-related correspondence, as she claims.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-politics-of-stifling-speech/2015/08/10/724d2a62-3f9c-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

***

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:04 PM

15. Thank you well done clear and to the point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:07 PM

19. Thank you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:04 PM

17. You are amazing, and this is a wonderful op!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:08 PM

20. Thank you!

 

I am so glad it is helpful! I will take that compliment with a happy !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:10 PM

23. bookmark!!

thank you for all of your work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:19 PM

25. Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:32 PM

26. So anything on this server even emails turned in is a liability?

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences. I recently made this assertion and was given the opinion that was not correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:44 PM

29. TRUE: "The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences."

 

If she has a note from Obama saying it's okay/she has his permission, then "everyone and their brother" would have copies of that note, and the IT Security Geek Team would have documented procedures to make sure it was "up to date" with anti-virus stuff, backed up religiously, and checked for anti-spyware/hacker issues.

They didn't have any record of it in their system, and she says it was "private" - she used the same account for work and play, so she didn't follow protocol. She conflated her WORK EMAILS as being HER PROPERTY instead of her employers (aka The Government). No one has done that before (or at least they haven't been caught.)

The best analogy is the "Watergate Tapes" - Nixon thought they were "just his" but since he was recording government business, they belong to the National Archives. Same thing here - work emails belong at work.

In theory, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:47 PM

34. The degree to which you are completely full of crap on this is mind-boggling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:12 PM

45. Now that is just rude.

 

I understand you are a Hillary supporter, but there is no reason to insult ME - I didn't set up her stupid emails, I did not fail to comply with congressional subpoenas, I did not endanger national security, I am certainly not being investigated by the FBI and I am not lying about issues which are matters of public record, so save your ire for the woman who did.

Good day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #45)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:21 AM

61. She did none of those things either, so hop off your goddamned high horse

If there is any topic that Sanders supporters know precious little about, it is national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #61)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:51 AM

64. Factually incorrect. You keep voicing AN OPINION as if your wishes

 

will make it true.

She set up a private server. It had classified material. Email she sent from it was screen shot by a hacker in 2013 and posted for the world to see. She signed a document saying she understood her responsibilities about keeping classified material "secure" regardless of whether it was marked. She did not turn over work product when she left her job but signed a document saying she did. She prevented the State Department from complying with FOIA and did not provide documents in her possession while under congressional subpoena in a timely fashion. SHE PERSONALLY is the target of an FBI investigation into these matters. She had government records deleted but they have been recovered. She has publicly lied and misled the public about these issues.

Those are not opinions - those are documented FACTS. The question we are all waiting to have answered is whether these actions were CRIMINAL IN NATURE, or JUST PLAIN STUPID.

This has nothing to do with Republicans or Bernie. This is 100% an UNNECESSARY Hillary Clinton Screw Up, and OBAMA is the one with the tough decision to make about HIS legacy because she worked for him.

The FBI will either exonerate her from criminal behavior (in which case all Democrats will be obliged to shut up/just wince at what will be non-stop Republican jibes - "just email it to me!", or recommend appropriate indictment. Behind the scene deals will most likely be cut if they decide there was prosecutable crimes because she's old and a former First Lady.

Stick to the facts. It's the safest course for all of us at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:20 AM

68. You can carry the conservative Republican water all you like, won't make this issue more palatable

No material that was sent from the server was classified at the time, nor was there a law or rule that prevented private servers at the time. Your opinions and analysis of this matter are shoddy, ill-informed, and outright dishonest.

You do not actually care one bit about secure email in the State Department, this is just a political football for you and your ilk.

If you could at least admit that, I might muster up a smidgen of respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #68)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:05 AM

70. ARGH! Okay, I am going to try one more time -

 

because I can only waste so much of my time "because someone on the Internet is wrong."

You currently BELIEVE that "nothing on the Server was classified AT THE TIME."

This is actually TWO separate "beliefs" -

1) "Nothing WAS Classified" (factually untrue)

And

2) "AT THE TIME" (again, factually untrue)

Now, if I waste my time giving you links to wiki leaks with obviously redacted documents, you can then respond "well, it is classified NOW" and then you can bolster your belief in Hillary because NEITHER OF US HAS THE SECURITY CLEARANCE OR SKILLS TO KNOW IF IT WAS CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME.

Then I can give you links to people who are experts on this stuff, whose career experience will cause them to say, "yup, TOTALLY CLASSIFIED" and even "Omg, who let that out of the secrets room?"

But you won't trust or believe those sources because you will automatically assume they are Not Credible (which you currently believe is the case with not only the New York Times but also The Wasington Post and The LA Times, or the lawyers from the State Department serving under John Kerry.

So, who do you believe? Not me, obviously. So let's stick to facts. You are fully capable of doing your own clicking, but I am going to get you started.

Wikipedia shows their sources. The link is ON EDIT: forgot link - doh! - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Official_statements


The IC inspector general issued another letter to Congress on January 14, 2016. In this letter he stated that an unnamed intelligence agency had made a sworn declaration that "several dozen emails (had been) determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SAP levels." Other intelligence officials added that the several dozen were not the two emails from the previous sample and that the clearance of the IC inspector general himself had to be upgraded before he could learn about the programs referenced by the emails.(64)(65)(66)


The numbers at the end reflect reporting sources from The New York Times, NBC News and The Washington Post. But we already know those sources are NOT adequate for you, so let's go one deeper. You won't like this one.

It's a PDF of the Inspector General's LETTER TO CONGRESS and the Faux Bots managed to get a copy of it. It says EXACTLY what the Wikipedia says it does:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

So we know she lied because the server did have classified information on it, and it was classified at the time, and the people telling us that are not Republicans - they are the most trusted people in the country who deal with issues of national security because that is their JOB.

Does that help? Remember "Question 1" from my original post? "Is this a big deal?" The answer is YES. I don't tell lies. And you owe me an apology for implying that my knowledge of the facts of this matter was "shoddy, ill informed or outright dishonest" because I am not the one guilty of those crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:07 AM

75. Right now, you are lying

No classified email was sent improperly by Clinton from her server. Period, full-stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:29 AM

79. You are so out of your fucking league on this.

All you have in your corner is blind faith in Madam Secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #79)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:31 AM

81. No, TARC is a liberal, a Democrat who supports the party and is aware

that the other side has orchestrated a campaign for 20 years with the sole agenda of destroying the Clinton's, Hillary especially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #81)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:36 AM

83. Blind partisanship isn't going to save Mrs. Clinton.

The so-called VRWC didn't set up the server, didn't send secure communications over unsecured channels, didn't lie about providing ALL emails, didn't involve Sid Blumenthal in State business, despite Obama strictly FORBIDDING such involvement. Nobody gives a fuck about your Democratic Party bona fides except for Democratic Party flaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #83)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:46 PM

92. So you openly have hatred for the Democratic Party, noted. I know why

some folks say the stuff some folks say, but not everybody has figured it out yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #92)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:55 PM

93. I have an open dislike for conservative policy.

You and your precious Party cohorts are the people with hatred in your hearts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #93)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

94. That is ludicrous. Which of us will vote to prevent women from dying from self abortions?

Me...not you.

I could make a long list of reasons why decent people will vote for Hillary even though they dont want to, like myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #94)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:14 PM

104. Hey, guess what? I live in a blue state, so my vote is of ZERO consequence.

So I'm afforded the luxury of not voting for some shite candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #104)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:16 PM

105. That is not the point, is it. Your attitude is carried with you everywhere you go.

Your mate, your siblings, coworkers, all hear from you I bet where you stand and ultimately you can dissuade otherwise Democratic Party voters from participating, right?

Not trying to argue with you, trying to reason with you because if you are a liberal, that is what we do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #105)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:20 PM

108. I don't proselytize to family members or coworkers.

Maybe you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #108)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:20 PM

109. Really, your very negative attitude about Hillary is only expressed here on DU?

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:22 PM

112. Pretty much everyone I associate with has a negative view of Hillary.

That negative view has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with Hillary's negativity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:51 AM

86. Sent or received, it was ON THE SERVER per the Inspector General

 

Of the Intelligence Community, and attested to by people of impeccable reputation.

That makes YOU WRONG.

You can repeat lies as often as you want, but that isn't going to make your wishes come true.

The facts are clear. The interpretation as to whether it was CRIMINAL or JUST STUPID remains to be seen.

Either way, you are not dealing with reality (sort of like a brainwashed Faux News watcher who doesn't know what to do when a warped view of reality is proven false), and I can't help you with that.

Good luck. I'm done with you now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:24 PM

115. Your sourcing of this amusing collection of falsehoods is sad

I know that Sanders supporters are sad that there is no way that Sanders will be the nominee without this indictment but that does not excuse using RWNJ sources

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #115)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:29 PM

117. You now consider the Inspector General a right wing source?

 

Plus The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, John Kerry's State Department, Wikipedia AND Hillary Clinton's ACTUAL emails as visible on Wikileaks - all right wing sources?

Those are some good drugs - you should share!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #117)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:38 PM

121. The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained

Here is a good explanation of the issue that even some laypersons should be able to understand http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?

Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.

The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."

But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The e-mails were not marked classified when received and so later reclassification is meaningless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #121)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:56 PM

133. Again, categorically false, per the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

 

You have been given links to refute this multiple times.

See reply #70. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1650151

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #133)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:07 PM

141. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s 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 email—a 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:02 PM

137. Read post 119

Your claim is false. The material was not marked classified at the time but was later re-classified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 03:00 PM

156. Wishing I could rec your post ...

but I CAN reply to it as a way to bookmark it! TY, IdaB!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #68)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:10 AM

76. How did you know

we sit around all day trying to figure out how we can get Tarc to muster up a smidgen of respect for us?







































Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #64)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:57 PM

134. Sticking to the facts is a great idea-why don't you provide the sourcing for your so-called facts?

There was no violation of the law here and that claims that this will affect the primary race is a case of projection on your part. The Sanders supporters know that Clinton has a delegate lead that his greater than Barack Obama's lead and that there is no way under the Democratic Party rules to overcome this lead.

Hoping for an indictment to given Sanders the nomination is a case of wishful thinking without any facts cited. Many if not all of the claims in the OP are not true and do not hold up when challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarc (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:59 PM

51. The degree to which

 

you are exception rude is mind-boggling.

Facts are in evidence. Produce disputing evidence or go away. Pretty simple really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:59 PM

52. All one has to do is read this executive order.

Not just a techie but an attorney would help.

Executive order 13526

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #52)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:15 AM

54. It's complicated, especially for those of us who don't have the training.

 

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526
Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.
(a)   Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1)   “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2)   “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3)   “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(b)   Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.
(c)   If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.


Simple plan: leave work stuff at work! Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #54)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:59 AM

55. Simple enough you need a government server not one in your basement.

I too want to label my email top secret. Erase it and you have violated the FOIA. Darn those right wing conspiracies picking on a fragile ego.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:43 PM

28. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:17 PM

31. K&R

Very well done, except Albright has only one L.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:19 PM

32. Thank you and misspelling fixed!

 

I can't believe I did that - doh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:54 PM

40. this needs to be a campaign flier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #40)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:31 AM

63. Bernie has been keeping well clear of it, as he ought (in my opinion).

 

There is no win for him here because this isn't about him - at the end of the day, it will be about Hillary and Obama.

If the FBI find nothing wrong, Democrats rightly will be expected to "let it go" because she will have been STUPID ABOUT TECHNOLOGY (which most of us have been - when was the last time you backed up your system, for example?) which wasn't in common use 25 years ago/is still evolving as we type.

If the FBI recommends ANY form of indictment to her OR HER IMMEDIATE STAFF, she needs to be toast for a multitude of reasons.

But this isn't about Bernie or even the Republicans. This is a Democratic mess because Obama was in charge of her, and she pulled this stuff on his watch. He has to decide if his legacy will include holding her accountable for it, or letting it go.

The problem is that career people know exactly how egregious this would be if it were them, plus the Blumenthal stuff, plus a few other things I didn't go into because it is a freaking rabbit hole and while my intuition is good, I am doing "keyboard kommando" just trying to wrap my own head around it, so "how serious are national security issues" has to be brought up.

She is a former First Lady. That might actually hold more weight than "Senator" or "Secretary of State" in the history books - none have ever been indicted before EVER. Does Obama want that on his watch? Or worse, does he NOT want it on his watch?

Let the FBI finish and then the facts will speak for themselves. Keep Bernie out of it. It's complicated and most people don't like complicated. Nuance is a difficult thing: heroes and villains are easier to understand, which is why we end up "rooting for the laundry" with team sports.

My fifty cents, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:01 PM

43. I'm ready for it to wrap up. Surely they have enough of whatever they're looking for. Let's do this!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:14 PM

46. Does non-techy-people include those who can't do a bank transfer?

 

It's not like we are asking if she used a POP3 or IMAP mail server LOL- (google that)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:30 PM

47. Well, we know she didn't set up the system --

 

She just used it. As an IT professional, I find it infuriating she is trying to "play dumb" about what she did wrong. The server was in her basement. Did she think the magic Internet fairies were sprinkling it with anti-hacker pixie dust and running duplicate backup processes through their magic wands?

The brain boggles: "I'm just the Secretary of State, so when I told someone to copy/paste classified data without the annoying headers, I just meant to add glitter and ribbons for decoration because I can use a blackberry but not read what I sign when I PROMISE to be careful with classified material!"

Oh, and her psychic ability to KNOW if her boss or peers or any of her work buddies (heads of state and all) were going to EVER send her anything CLASSIFIED via email under the MISTAKEN IMPRESSION she was using the systems set up for it...

The brain boggles...is she really that stupid, or does she just think everyone else is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:34 PM

49. To her defense she doesn't have a bunch of common sense, most people don't

 

There are fools on DU who still think Snowy was correct saying "Every Call Is Recorded" LOL

Hillary is ignorant on technology,IE why she would say I can only have one email account on my phone...


But- GD-P will still battle, so continue!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:39 PM

50. Truth! Most people think the IT team is just MEAN -

 

And Hillary was surrounded by people who wanted her to be happy AND were used to pulling off difficult/impossible things AND no one wanted to tell her NO.

Bad leadership makes for big lawyer bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:11 AM

56. She wanted a custom ultra secure BlackBerry like Barak's and they would not give her one.

WAAH. BlackBerry envy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordianot (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:31 AM

82. Who does he think he is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:23 AM

59. Maybe She Bought In To Lifelock And Thought...

she was secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:07 AM

66. O. M. G.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:18 PM

107. Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

In the real world, one looks at similar cases. Here there is no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified at the time. In similar cases where there absolute proof that the defendants knew that the material was classified, there are some interesting results http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Non law review types are amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:33 PM

48. Thank you and bookmarking :) - Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:02 AM

53. in case you bernie people missed it..

THERE IS NO EMAIL SCANDAL! GOT IT NOW!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #53)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:39 AM

85. Bernie people have been listening to that refrain for a year now.

JUST CLAP YOUR HANDS AND IT WILL ALL GO AWAY!!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:33 AM

57. K&R

An excellent read , easy and to the point . People need to know this is not a Republican conspiracy but an actual case of national security .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:11 AM

58. ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:16 AM

60. Thank you for sharing this!

 

It was a nice morning wake up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:22 AM

62. this one is my alarm every morning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #62)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:03 AM

65. Truthfully, I have a different preference for Frank...

 

I love him when he was hanging with Gene!



How could a woman resist either of those two? Swoon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #65)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:40 PM

153. Dean Martin was fine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:20 AM

71. I've seen a number of videos on this and this looks like a great job. . . THANKS!

 

Kind of a "one stop shopping" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:27 AM

73. Seriously, I looked through the comments and there were ZERO thanking you

 

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

for spreading this RW conspiracy against poor, helpless Hillary.
Where are the Hillary supporters in her time of need? Not very Christian of them if you ask me.

Woops! I just realized, I have so many people on "ignore" that they may be here fighting back all over the place but I can't see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:43 AM

74. Thanks for this (NT)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:15 AM

78. Hillary, please withdraw, and WITHDRAW NOW!!!

 

For once in your life stop being selfish!! Forget the presidency -- you pose too great a risk!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:31 PM

91. 3 counts already set

 

Forget about Benghazi, The Clinton Foundation, Classifications, the sever in the basement, etc.

Hillary Clinton generated about 60,000 emails.
She then divided those emails roughly 30,000 work and 30,000 personal
She then printed out and handed over the 30,000 work emails and deleted the 30,000 personal emails.
Unfortunately, Sydney Blumenthal's email was hacked and the contents posted and it turns out work correspondence between Hillary and Syd was discovered and yet those emails were not part of the 30,000 work emails Hillary turned over and instead were deleted.

Count 1: Destruction of government property

It is completely obvious why Syd's emails were deleted rather than turned over. And no, it was not an honest mistake. No single honest juror would believe that.

Count 2: Obstruction of justice

Hillary has admitted she did not personally sift through the emails to determine work vs. personal and she did not personally hit the delete key. She assigned someone else to actually perform those tasks. That's a conspiracy.

Count 3: Conspiracy.

These 3 counts are "indictable", "convictable" and "sentenceable" all by themselves. It's over.

I do undertand that the actual jeopardy goes faaaaaar beyond these 3 counts, but these 3 have already been proven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhenTheLeveeBreaks (Reply #91)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:57 PM

95. Welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbrnmw (Reply #95)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:09 PM

98. Thanx very much

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:05 PM

96. The OP is sad and is full of falsehoods

The OP is collection of falsehoods from RWNJ websites that have been proven false. For example, the rather sad and false claim that 147 FBI agents were investigating this issue is simply false. There was never 147 agents involved. You got to be kidding http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

Sources close to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email are knocking down suggestions that 147 federal agents are working on the case, a figure first reported — and now revised — by the Washington Post, citing a lawmaker.

The Post updated the figure on Tuesday, stating that while the "FBI will not provide an exact figure," there are "fewer than 50" FBI personnel involved in the case.

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.

"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

There was no national act of terror and it is sad that false claims are being used on this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #96)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:17 PM

106. I gave an explanation of why that number was used because it came

 

from multiple credible sources, and stick by the assertion that at the end of the day the answer is as many as the FBI deemed necessary.

The fact you do not find the sources (including the State Department and the Inspector General) credible is simply sad. I do have links to each factual claim and many of them are referenced in this comment section already.

I have already dealt with a "True Believer" on this thread, and will not be wasting my time with you. You can read my response to that poster here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1650151

Have a nice day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #106)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:21 PM

110. The fact that you are not disclosing your sourcing is all anyone needs to reject this sad OP

Your post is so full of falsehoods that I enjoyed laughing at it. Again, it is clear to me why you are not sourcing these claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #110)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:52 PM

131. Here's the thing - I have sources for ALL of the claims.

 

I started collecting them about three weeks ago, and have bookmarked them like crazy.

But this stuff is COMPLICATED and it is very difficult for eyes not to glaze over so I have put this together for the non-anal retentive crowd who really don't have heart failure when you start discussing the frequency of security inspections on call logs, etc. I am not a hardware guru (my expertise is software) and I still know that nightly offsite back ups are standard protocol everywhere, but so far it looks like just one guy was touching stuff, and I haven't seen word one about what happened if had a sick day or went on vacation.

There are multiple links in the comment sections of this thread. I recommend you do the easy thing - go to Wikipedia, type in "Hillary Clinton Email Scandal" and start following the links. If you have specific questions, I will be happy to answer them, but keep in mind that I am not a lawyer or a political operative, I don't have security clearance, and I am sticking with the "we need to wait for the FBI to finish their investigation because everything until then is speculation."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #131)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:59 PM

135. I like complicated which which is why I sourced each and every one of my posts

This is a complicated issue and it is clear that you are not a lawyer and that many of the claims in your OP are simply wrong from a factual and legal standpoint.

The fact that you are not sourcing your material is very telling to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #135)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:09 PM

142. Parsing your sentence:

 

Yes, this is complicated.

True, I am not a lawyer.

False: the claims in my OP are not wrong from a factual standpoint.

Mostly False: I make no claims about legal issues, so I can't be wrong about something I didn't say; I continue to insist we need to wait for the FBI to finish their investigation and then rely on their analysis of the situation as to whether or not a CRIME has been committed or just some SERIOUSLY STUPID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #142)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:35 PM

150. There was never any doubt about you not being a lawyer

Your factual claims are simply false and fall apart when challenged which is why you failed to source your claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #96)


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:22 PM

111. The lack of culpable mental state renders the sad attempts at analysis false

I hope that you are aware of the concept of intent or mens rea http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html

Can Clinton face criminal charges?

Law enforcement officials have said Clinton is not the target of any criminal investigation and so far, no one has produced evidence that she violated any law.

The FBI has received a "security" referral from the inspectors general and is looking at whether people who sent emails to her may have violated security regulations and whether they exposed U.S. secrets to potential spying by foreign powers. If Clinton received secret information from staff over her personal email, that may have violated security rules, but it might be difficult to show she knew any of the information was classified at the time she received it.

Even a relatively low-level misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location." But she could argue that she didn’t know the information was secret at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #111)


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #116)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:35 PM

119. You are wrong

The IG said that they should have been classified but these e-mails were not marked http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

IG Memo On Classified Information In Emails: "None Of The Emails ... Had Classification Or Dissemination Markings." A memo from the ICIG clearly stated that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings":

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]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #119)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:42 PM

125. You Are In Denial...

 

In the military, a senior NCO or even more importantly, an officer...

Is responsible for everything...

A First Sergeant MUST be an unqualified expert in promotions, demotions, military law, civilian law, counseling, discipline, leave & passes, evaluations, inspections, public speaking, billeting, PCS moves, TDYs, pay problems and procedures, child and family support, bad checks, budgeting, loans, requisitions, dress and appearance, awards and decorations, unit history, parades, ceremonies, family advocacy, medical benefits and requirements, re enlistments, retirements, weight control, professional military education, ID card privileges, off limit areas, restrictions, etc.

So now you are trying to get me to believe that a Secretary of State does not have to know what information is important?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #125)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:48 PM

130. Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent.

They are retroactively reclassifying these e-mails http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):

The Justice Department said Friday that it has been notified of a potential compromise of classified information in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

A Justice official said the department had received a "referral" on the matter, which the inspector general of the intelligence agencies later acknowledged came from him.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information....

Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent. But a new inquiry would prolong the political controversy Clinton is facing over her un­or­tho­dox e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 7/24/15]

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/criminal-probe-sought-into-clinton-private-e-mails-for-suspected-sensitive-content/2015/07/24/b90bf598-31f8-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #130)


Response to CompanyFirstSergeant (Reply #144)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:28 PM

146. The facts and the law are against your claim

The legal standard is clear and the fact that the information was retroactively classified is controlling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #146)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:31 AM

165. My favorite part of your position is how you trust

 

Media Matters and Vox but not the Inspector General or Kerry's State Department.



You sound like a lawyer. That means you are going to argue in favor of the person giving you money (or in this case, your candidate-client). Just like Scalia, your bias shows.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can deal with objective reality. As a computer geek, I follow logic and don't use wishful thinking to accomplish my job/rely on my ability to verbally berate others to bully them into changing their points of view. Lying and misrepresenting words are kind of against everything I need to accomplish my goals.

So I thank you for your input on this thread. It has been educational!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #165)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:47 AM

171. The fact that you have no sourcing for your silly and false claims is sad but amusing

Citing Fox News as a source is really funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #171)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:25 AM

177. Sigh. You *must* be a lawyer - you ignore any answer you don't like.

 

Fox News got an exclusive copy of the letter to the Congress Critter from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. I sent you to that PDF. I am not using any Faux News generated OPINIONS. Your attempt to imply otherwise is hereby noted and seen as the insult it is.

I have also provided numerous links to legitimate ORIGINAL sources. Yes, I could have done a better job of organizing them. My time is worth money, and as soon as someone sends me a check, I'll make sure to do it to their satisfaction.



Wait-a-minute! I'm not an employee of anyone on this message board, my participation is voluntary, and I am free to tell lying bullies LIKE YOU where to go and how to get there.

Because any such direction would undoubtedly be seen as rude, and I don't want to get locked out of my own thread, I am going to refrain. I am confident anyone reading our exchange can tell the difference between your partisan rhetoric and my attempts to share information in a reasonable way regardless of who one supports.

In fact, it is in the OP -

4) Is this just a Bernie thing to get Hillary out?
No. Bernie is not a member of the FBI community, nor did he help Hillary set up her email system. Even if Hillary drops out of the race for “personal reasons”, he is not automatically the nominee unless he has enough delegates. If he doesn't, Hillary can “give” her delegates to someone else (even if they haven't been campaigning), and a behind the scenes “brokered” convention could give us a candidate fill-in-the-blank.


And now, I'm done with you. Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:34 PM

118. Thanks for the concise and readable post. I spent

a lot of time Saturday reading the 25 page link posted about a 'summary' of what happened until my eyes glazed over. It did mention the hacker--Guccifer-- who is being extradited to testify---can you address how that affects the narrative here?
Thank you for your time to do this.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #118)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 08:36 AM

166. Guccifer took screen shots/made copies of Hillary & Sidney Blumenthal's email.

 

Blumenthal somehow got copies of reports that were word-for-word direct from super secret sources. He did NOT have authorization or clearance to have it. He sent it to Hillary, and instead of activating the NSA/CIA/FBI about a leak, she responded with "keep them coming" (which is a whole other angle on the "Obama said don't involve him" because she should have been worried about HOW he was getting the classified information/breach in security).

Guccifer posted the emails, but used a pink background and (no joking) "Comic Sans" as a font, so people naturally assumed he was spoofing/ignored it. Eventually someone figured out it was real (coincidentally about the time they discovered the "secret" server) and he fought a battle against being extradited but lost.

It is presumed he is going to be testifying about "chain of custody" of the emails, and providing copies of the stuff he didn't post. We own him for 18 months, then he goes back home to finish facing charges of hacking there.

It's a fascinating story - he should be the star of a movie before it's over.

Does that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #166)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:24 AM

182. Yes, it helps a lot. What a bizarre twist to an already convoluted

story. Even the name, Guccifer, is bizarre. You certainly have an excellent grasp of the subject and I so appreciate your thread. This had to have taken some serious time to put together. I'll bookmark it so I can come back and refresh my memory. Thanks again IdaBriggs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:39 PM

122. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IdaBriggs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:43 PM

126. The claims about Sec. Powell are false

Collin Powell did the same thing? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-the-shoe-was-the-other-foot

The problem in this case is that Cillizza isn’t necessarily pointing to a hypothetical. Politico published this report in March: “Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.’

MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald added at the time:

Colin Powell, George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, wrote in his memoir about how outdated technology infrastructure at the State Department led him to install a personal laptop in his office to use a personal email account to “shoo[t] emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues.”

Powell, who served from 2001-2005, apparently did not keep a record of personal emails, unlike Clinton.

As best as I can tell, no one ever cared about the Republican secretary of state using a personal email account. It was, to borrow a phrase, a non-story.

Clearly, Republicans and some of Clinton’s media critics see an opportunity here. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), still hoping for some modicum of attention, has even begun telling people that Clinton might go to jail. I haven’t seen anything to suggest Clinton is guilty of any wrongdoing at all, but the probe is apparently still ongoing and we’ll see if anything of interest turns up.

But to suggest Democrats would pounce if the shoe were on the other foot doesn’t appear to be true. We already know how Dems would respond to a Republican secretary of state using a private email account: with indifference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:45 PM

127. Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails

Here are some more facts for the silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned.

In an interview with NBC News, Powell challenged the conclusion, saying nothing that went to his personal account was secret. Rice did not initially respond to an interview request.

In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State's archives contained national security information now classified "Secret" or "Confidential." The letter was read to NBC News.

Two of the messages were sent to Powell's personal account, and 10 were sent to personal accounts of Rice's senior aides, the letter said.

None of the messages were marked classified when originally sent, and none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document....

Linick's findings will be seen as helpful to Clinton, because they show that past secretaries of state and senior officials used personal accounts to conduct government business and occasionally allowed secrets to spill into the insecure traffic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:46 PM

128. Powell, Rice received sensitive info through private emails

This is amusing http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/powell-rice-received-sensitive-info-through-private-emails

“But wait,” Clinton’s critics in the media and Republican circles protest, “what about emails that were later deemed to include sensitive information?” NBC News reports today that both of the Bush/Cheney-era Secretaries of State fall into the same category.
State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned. …

In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State’s archives contained national security information now classified “Secret” or “Confidential.” The letter was read to NBC News.

According to the report, of those 12 emails, two were sent to Powell’s personal account, while the other 10 were sent to personal accounts senior aides of Condoleezza Rice’s senior aides.

None of this is to suggest Powell or Rice’s office is guilty of wrongdoing. In fact, Powell told NBC News the messages in question include information that’s “fairly minor.”

There’s no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

The political salience of news like this, however, is that Clinton’s critics would like voters to believe she’s at the center of some damaging “scandal” because of her approach to email management. These new details suggest Clinton’s practices were fairly common, and unless Republicans and the media are prepared to start condemning Powell and Rice with equal vigor – an unlikely scenario – it’s starting to look like this entire line of attack lacks merit.

Or as the NBC News report put it, the new findings “show that past secretaries of state and senior officials used personal accounts to conduct government business and occasionally allowed secrets to spill into the insecure traffic.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:29 PM

147. Chapter Two: Intent and Design

Intent of and design for Hillary's personal server and evasion can only be predicted until the FBI releases its report.

Yet it seems clear (from her evasive tactics and obfuscations) that her personal, unsecured server and the hiding of it were not simply for convenience or lack of IT sophistication or forgetfulness or other reasonable explanation.

The intent, apparently, was to deceive. Her operation was hidden from the President of the United States and his oversight. Deliberately. Willfully. To run foreign policy (and Gawd knows what else) without oversight by the POTUS.

She used flawed intelligence from a man who had been BANNED from advising her, banned by Obama. Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal, in turn, was getting flawed intel on Libya from a discredited man. Both Blumenthal and this other man were working to gin up private business interests in Libya. Blumenthal was on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation at the same time. Hillary pressured Obama to intervene in Libya against the advice of his other experts.

She hid the correspondence from Blumenthal when turning over her emails. It was only found by the Guccifer hacking of Blumenthal.

More to come. Later...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:31 PM

148. The fact is, "Hillary Clinton" is not being investigated by the FBI.

You don't even bother answering your own question #14, as well as just cursory (and subjective) answers to several others, and some are totally irrelevant to the "email" issue.

I'm sure the FBI will be doing a more objective investigation than this.

People seem to forget that there were several Congressional investigations conducted, led by republicans, and they all found nothing illegal or even improper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:40 PM

152. Ida, as a fellow mom of twins

 

I like you, but this is so full of wrong information.

This link will give you a better understanding.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 02:53 PM

155. Do you remember

the line " I did not have sexual relations with that woman"? He looked into the camera and lied to the whole american people, heck to the whole world. When he was caught red handed he claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex. You see? She is now using the same tactic to deflect responsibility. The e-mails were not "classified" when she sent or received them through her personal server. She is arguing that they are supposed to be "Marked" as classified but they weren't. As a SOS she is arguing that she lacks the judgment to discern if the material is of the top secret kind.

Remember what she said in defense of her husband when he has sexual relations with that woman? She said" ""The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." She will be using the same argument, again. Like husband like wife. Lying dishonest with no principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:53 AM

164. DU Rec for pissing off the right people.

Someone said that, once. I forget who.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:30 AM

167. What's your source for your asserted facts? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #167)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:43 AM

169. Many of them are already listed in the comments (Wikipedia is a favorite).

 

I am now working on putting this together with footnotes to link where I got the information (in my copious spare time - ha!). Don't hold your breath because the kids are on spring break, and I keep getting sucked into spending time with them. (Humble brag, because they are totally awesome/best 9-year olds on the planet.)

This thread has pretty much "everything" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157 along with some fun discussion. Ignore the partisan nature, please. I stick by my assertion that if the FBI says "no big deal" Democrats *will* need to let this go.

I blame DU member "grasswire" for starting me down this rabbit hole - see my post #99 in the thread above for links to several that started me going - did you know Wikileaks lets you search Hillary's email by keyword?

Yeah, I have spent WAY too much time working through this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #169)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:46 AM

170. You posted this without sources? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #170)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:10 AM

175. From the Original Post -

 

I have deliberately NOT included links for ease of reading, but will reference them in Replies/ask that those with other evidence to help with clarification in those sub threads.


My original plan was to do 18 separate replies with the links to the sources in them so people could add and discuss. Then things got busy, and I just started doing the ones that people were specifically asking about.

This is all information that has been publicly reported, and is available here on DU. I tried to make it "make sense" for normal (non-tech) people.

For example, The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html says

...officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.

(snip)

The server was nothing remarkable, the kind of system often used by small businesses, according to people familiar with its configuration at the end of her tenure. It consisted of two off-the-shelf server computers. Both were equipped with antivirus software. They were linked by cable to a local Internet service provider. A firewall was used as protection against hackers.

(snip)

Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.

“For data of this sensitivity . . . we would need at a minimum a small team to do monitoring and hardening,” said Jason Fossen, a computer-security specialist at the SANS Institute, which provides cybersecurity training around the world.

(snip)

Security remained a constant concern. On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by “online adversaries,” a note went out over Clinton’s name urging department employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”

But she herself ignored the warning and continued using her BlackBerry and the basement server.


Became this (using ... To focus on just this bit as an example)

5) What exactly did Hillary do?
She put government records (her work email) in her basement. ... And she did not make "super sure" bad people (“hackers and spies”) could not see the government records that were about national security.

And

10) How do you know her email wasn't safe? It was on a server, right?
It was on two different servers ... neither was being monitored by the IT Anti-Spying Team that the government uses. Keeping hackers away from government secrets is a little more complicated than remembering to upgrade your anti-virus protections – if you are viewing this on the internet, you know what I mean.

I hope that makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #175)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 10:50 AM

179. No....it doesn't make sense to post OPs without sources. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #179)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:04 AM

180. Welcome to a Discussion Board, where everyone is free to voice an opinion.

 

Again, from the Original Post -

I hope this helps - please keep in mind this is my translation of everything I have been reading for the last several weeks (and I may have gotten things wrong).


So far even the Hillary folk have not been able to provide anything except opinion pieces on whether or not a crime was committed, which is marvelous spin for some Epic Bad Judgment (which they don't seem to think was bad judgment at all). At the end of the day (rumored to be soon), the FBI will give their opinion, and I for one will abide by it.

In the meantime, I am not a liar, so if you have specific questions not already answered in the comments, feel free to ask. But be warned: The Washington Post article I referenced earlier was just ONE SOURCE and it was 16 pages of information. Writing an "Executive Summary" of this mess was not easy, especially when trying to separate "speculation" from fact.

I did my best, and I'm proud of the result. Being the Internet, it will be obsolete within a week or so. Back to work for me on my preemie project - diversion time is over!

Have a nice day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #180)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:08 AM

181. Indeed...without citation you've merely expressed an opinion. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:34 AM

168. It's not the emails, per se. It's her refusal to comply with subpoenas.

That's where I think she's most vulnerable. Just being sloppy with secret documents shouldn't be a criminal offense. But trying to fool the FBI and hiding information that they requested is a big, big deal. A criminal deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #168)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:48 AM

172. To clarify, the subpoenas were from the committees investigating stuff.

 

Not from the FBI. And TECHNICALLY it was the State Department that wasn't complying because she had already left when they were asking for them.

Except that is really weaseling because she had signed a document saying she turned in all of her work stuff, but everything was still sitting in her basement so they COULDN'T comply with the subpoenas or the FOIA stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #172)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 09:50 AM

173. Thanks for clarification.

So often in politics, it's not the act itself, but the coverup afterwards that causes people to fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #172)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:22 PM

190. Do you have a link for this silly but amusing claim

There have no subpoenas issued to anyone's knowledge in the real world. I would love to see you attempt to document any of your silly but false claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #190)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:32 PM

191. I don't know why I am bothering.

 

Again, keep in mind I am TRYING to keep things pretty simple here.

Start here:

Hillary Clinton Asks State Department to Vet Emails for Release, The New York Times, March 6, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-asks-state-dept-to-review-emails-for-public-release.html?ref=politics&_r=2

WASHINGTON — As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton.

“This all raised the question to us: What else are we missing, and what do we need to comply” with the request, said one official briefed on the matter.


The "request" that the state department folk were responding to in the summer of 2014 is (in my understanding) a polite euphemism for a subpoena that was served on the State Department. In theory the State Department should have had all work product, including emails, of all previous staff, including Secretary Clinton. As we now know, they didn't because Secretary Clinton's work emails were in her basement. Next, go here -

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails, The Huffington Post, July 8, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?"

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

(snip)

When Clinton on Tuesday said she’d “never had a subpoena,” that appears to be contradicted by the subpoena House Republicans issued her in March. But it depends on what the meaning of the word “had” is. A Clinton campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post that she had already destroyed the emails in question before the subpoena was received. Clinton turned over some emails to the State Department in late 2014 and then wiped her personal server clean — so by the time the subpoena arrived in March, there was nothing for it to act on.


And then to see an actual copy of the subpoena (it even has the heading "SUBPOENA" in all caps) she was served on March 4, 2015 go here -

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf

Keep in mind ALL the government records including the ones she TRIED TO HAVE DELETED have since been retrieved by the FBI.

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands, McClatchy DC, October 3, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

WASHINGTON A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton‘s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

A Republican Senate committee chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, also has asked the firm to provide the committee copies of any data from Clinton’s account still in its possession.


I realize you probably don't consider The New York Times, The Huffington Post, McClatchy DC and staff of a House Select Committee to be credible, but I am comfortable with my understanding of the chain of events.

If you have any other questions, ask politely or learn to use google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 04:22 PM

186. "Hillary can give her delegates to someone else"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #186)

Wed Apr 6, 2016, 11:39 PM

192. Yes.

 

Quora gives a nice explanation -

https://www.quora.com/U-S-Presidential-Elections-If-a-candidate-drops-out-of-the-race-what-happens-to-his-her-delegates

U.S. Presidential Elections: If a candidate drops out of the race what happens to his/her delegates?

While candidates are frequently referred to as "dropping out" in general conversation, note that the candidates themselves usually use the phrase "suspending my campaign." They stop actively campaigning - they get rid of their staffs, stop running ads and giving speeches, etc. - but their campaigns don't legally end, so they keep any delegates they've already acquired. In fact, their names may remain on the ballot in states that haven't voted yet, so it's possible that they could acquire even more delegates despite having "dropped out."

Candidates must receive a majority of the votes at their conventions to receive their party's nomination. In cases where there are three or more legitimate contenders for the nomination - as appears to be the case for the Republicans as of February 22, 2016 - there is always a chance that the votes are split and no candidate receives that 50%+1 majority. If that were to happen, an also-ran who had previously suspended their campaign could come in with their still-held delegates and tip the balance toward one candidate or another - and be handsomely rewarded.

In practice over the last few decades, the primary process weeds out enough candidates that the nominee is pretty obvious by spring. One candidate receives, or clearly will receive, a majority of convention delegates. When this happens, you may hear about also-rans "releasing their delegates" to the presumptive nominee. Technically, this doesn't affect anything if the nominee already had enough delegates to win outright, but the also-ran gets some brownie points for promoting party unity, and it allows the nominee to be nominated unanimously at the convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:31 PM

197. This makes me smile

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

The question now becomes how long it will take for the FBI to conclude its probe.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread