HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » If the FBI has the 30,000...

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:25 PM

If the FBI has the 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted from her server, and just ONE

is state department business related (1 out of 30,000 is pretty good odds in this situation) then Hillary is guilty of a felony. Anyone in government, (say a Navy Captain) caught sending an email to anyone not authorized to see it, classified or not, is terminated immediately.

And, just because those 30,000 emails were wiped off her server doesn't mean they were wiped off every computer they were sent to.

Here is the point; Why are Democrats willing to take this gamble?

161 replies, 12072 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 161 replies Author Time Post
Reply If the FBI has the 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted from her server, and just ONE (Original post)
rateyes May 2016 OP
rjsquirrel May 2016 #1
Name removed May 2016 #3
rjsquirrel May 2016 #6
Name removed May 2016 #10
rjsquirrel May 2016 #12
Ferd Berfel May 2016 #46
leveymg May 2016 #58
Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #73
dchill May 2016 #78
glitterbag May 2016 #102
HooptieWagon May 2016 #104
Press Virginia May 2016 #105
Fawke Em May 2016 #132
Press Virginia May 2016 #156
grasswire May 2016 #114
glitterbag May 2016 #126
grasswire May 2016 #129
glitterbag May 2016 #131
grasswire May 2016 #147
glitterbag May 2016 #149
Fawke Em May 2016 #133
grasswire May 2016 #148
frylock May 2016 #35
glitterbag May 2016 #103
Press Virginia May 2016 #106
grasswire May 2016 #115
dchill May 2016 #76
rjsquirrel May 2016 #83
Press Virginia May 2016 #107
grasswire May 2016 #2
notadmblnd May 2016 #8
upaloopa May 2016 #17
grasswire May 2016 #18
demigoddess May 2016 #32
frylock May 2016 #36
grasswire May 2016 #39
NJCher May 2016 #30
riversedge May 2016 #4
NJCher May 2016 #31
notadmblnd May 2016 #5
grasswire May 2016 #7
ContinentalOp May 2016 #113
Fawke Em May 2016 #135
cali May 2016 #9
grasswire May 2016 #19
Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #125
cali May 2016 #152
Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #157
NewImproved Deal May 2016 #151
NWCorona May 2016 #11
grasswire May 2016 #20
NWCorona May 2016 #70
demwing May 2016 #40
tazkcmo May 2016 #84
elehhhhna May 2016 #154
onecaliberal May 2016 #57
Merryland May 2016 #65
Shrike47 May 2016 #13
grasswire May 2016 #21
onenote May 2016 #25
grasswire May 2016 #28
COLGATE4 May 2016 #62
hellofromreddit May 2016 #87
COLGATE4 May 2016 #90
hellofromreddit May 2016 #91
COLGATE4 May 2016 #92
hellofromreddit May 2016 #93
COLGATE4 May 2016 #101
grasswire May 2016 #94
COLGATE4 May 2016 #100
grasswire May 2016 #110
COLGATE4 May 2016 #124
grasswire May 2016 #137
COLGATE4 May 2016 #141
grasswire May 2016 #145
COLGATE4 May 2016 #158
grasswire May 2016 #159
COLGATE4 May 2016 #160
Fawke Em May 2016 #138
COLGATE4 May 2016 #140
glitterbag May 2016 #134
grasswire May 2016 #136
grasswire May 2016 #42
onenote May 2016 #55
leveymg May 2016 #61
rusty fender May 2016 #117
grasswire May 2016 #119
rusty fender May 2016 #120
grasswire May 2016 #121
Fawke Em May 2016 #139
insta8er May 2016 #14
grasswire May 2016 #22
RufusTFirefly May 2016 #15
grasswire May 2016 #24
tandem5 May 2016 #16
eastwestdem May 2016 #68
randome May 2016 #23
litlbilly May 2016 #26
scscholar May 2016 #27
BillZBubb May 2016 #59
k8conant May 2016 #29
AzDar May 2016 #33
tandem5 May 2016 #41
grasswire May 2016 #43
tandem5 May 2016 #47
grasswire May 2016 #48
tandem5 May 2016 #50
grasswire May 2016 #52
tandem5 May 2016 #54
Fairgo May 2016 #66
tandem5 May 2016 #67
Fairgo May 2016 #69
tandem5 May 2016 #71
Fairgo May 2016 #72
tandem5 May 2016 #82
Fairgo May 2016 #86
Fawke Em May 2016 #142
tandem5 May 2016 #155
IdaBriggs May 2016 #95
tandem5 May 2016 #97
IdaBriggs May 2016 #98
tandem5 May 2016 #99
IdaBriggs May 2016 #108
tandem5 May 2016 #109
IdaBriggs May 2016 #111
tandem5 May 2016 #112
Califonz May 2016 #34
barrow-wight May 2016 #37
Punkingal May 2016 #38
grasswire May 2016 #45
Hydra May 2016 #49
Punkingal May 2016 #51
grasswire May 2016 #56
trudyco May 2016 #128
grasswire May 2016 #130
Hydra May 2016 #63
farmbo May 2016 #44
IdaBriggs May 2016 #96
Fawke Em May 2016 #144
yourout May 2016 #153
workinclasszero May 2016 #53
antigop May 2016 #60
antigop May 2016 #64
andym May 2016 #74
Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #80
andym May 2016 #85
Fawke Em May 2016 #143
andym May 2016 #146
grasswire May 2016 #118
andym May 2016 #122
amborin May 2016 #75
lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #77
antigop May 2016 #88
AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #79
MADem May 2016 #81
pdsimdars May 2016 #89
Post removed May 2016 #116
John Poet May 2016 #123
Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #127
laserhaas May 2016 #150
MrMickeysMom May 2016 #161

Response to rateyes (Original post)


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #1)


Response to Name removed (Reply #3)


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #6)


Response to Name removed (Reply #10)


Response to Name removed (Reply #3)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:25 PM

46. It might be about the emails if

they include doing Foundation quid pro quo's and laundering $$ - especially on government time.



But it's AT LEAST about how they were handled.

It's like the speech transcripts (if there were actually any speeches), the money she made is one thing, what was said in them, is another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #3)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:44 PM

58. She violated several felony statutes. That is already plain

to the naked eye. What's in the other 30000 emails doesn't matter. There are over 2000 that have already been found to be classified including 104 she sent herself and 22 that are TS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #58)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:21 PM

73. so what does this mean for the future?

As I have said before I am nervous nominating a candidate with this lurking in the background. Her supporters don't seem to be worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #73)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:46 PM

78. Not everything is what it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #58)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:24 PM

102. No its not

It's not plain, that is just something you HOPE is true. You don't sound like someone who has ever had to handle sensitive material. What you are missing, is that IF she sent classified email (and Im not sure thats the case) it was probably to other people who are cleared to receive such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #102)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:29 PM

104. Sidney Bloomenthal wasn't classified.

 

Clinton was exchanging classified material with him. And his email wasn't secure. As the Romanian hacker was able to access it and post the emails. That's how Clintons basement server was discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #102)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:32 PM

105. She not only received it, she stored it. Which is illegal

 

furthermore, she authored classified e-mails and sent them.

She broke the law. Anyone else, with a security clearance, would be facing charges for what she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #105)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:49 PM

132. Not only would they be facing charges, there wouldn't be a need to have a year-long

FBI investigation.

Mishandling national security data is mishandling national security data. There's no need to prove intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #132)

Sun May 22, 2016, 08:08 PM

156. Zactly

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #102)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:22 AM

114. you think that people are going to pay attention...

...to what you say (two days here, 22 posts, named glitterbag) as compared to leveymg who has been here forever and proven his analytical skills through writing serious pieces here on DU and many other places on the Internet?

Time for you to catch up. Fortunately the entire history of the server scandal exists right here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #114)

Sun May 22, 2016, 02:09 PM

126. Catch up

I'm new here, but I'm not new to intel. Frankly, I'm not interested in the opinions of folks who judge their intel skills by how long they have been on a political forum. Maybe it's time for you to smarten up, and stop thinking that because you have been bellyaching about something for eons, doesn't bring you anywhere near the truth. You only know the piece of the elephant you can touch. That being said, it's always possible that you guess correctly after being exposed to 10% of the relevant information. That would make you practically clairvoyant, however since you haven't seen the other 90% you would be better served examining all the info before you come to your conclusion.

I get the fact that some people hate Hillary, no one is asking you to fall in love. But it's troubling to me that opponents hope to destroy someone just because they favor another candidate. We haven't become a Banana Republic yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #126)

Sun May 22, 2016, 03:23 PM

129. IF you are new to intel (whatever You mean by that)....

....then you will know the facts of the trouble that Hillary is in. You will know exactly what she did, and you will know what the penalty is.

Are you claiming that you are privy to 100 percent of the "information" -- and that gives you superior insight? If so, what you doing posting on this low voltage message board?

Or, by "intel" do you mean the stuff that HRC campaign puts out for the minions every day?

Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #129)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:45 PM

131. here's my bottom line

I find it's pointless trying to impress others or people like you. I'm not sure why you see this forum as 'low voltage', but youve been here longer than I have so I'll accept your definition. Political campaigns are not intelligence agencies. I'll grant you this, I know what you hope she did, I think you are a captive of wishful thinking. If Hillary actually was involved in a criminal enterprise while she was SecState, we will find out. I'm content with waiting until the end of the investigation which will either find her blameless or involved in (whatever it is that you think she did). There is a lot of chatter about 'wrongdoing" but nothing specific. And folks, we aint in Salem and I won't participate in a witch hunt. This is America, you don't have to like every candidate, but its sad that we are entering a period that resembles Sen. McCarthy's quest for thought purity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #131)

Sun May 22, 2016, 06:42 PM

147. still showing your ignorance.

You have no idea what the evidence is, or what the timeline indicates.

Ignore at your peril. Wallow in your dream world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #147)

Sun May 22, 2016, 06:54 PM

149. Hmmmm

i think I'll live. But thanks all the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #126)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:53 PM

133. I work for a cyber security company.

And what you're saying is bunk.

You need to bone up on 18 US Codes 793 and 1924.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #133)

Sun May 22, 2016, 06:42 PM

148. lot of hubris in that one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #1)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:10 PM

35. Just because you chose to ignore this doesn't mean it went away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #35)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:29 PM

103. Just because

you are excited to think that SecState is a traitor doesn't mean it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #103)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:34 PM

106. She doesn't have to be a traitor to have broken the law

 

And she broke the law. Repeatedly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #103)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:28 AM

115. you are the one introducing the word traitor to this discussion.

No one else (to my knowledge) has accused her of that, specifically, here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #1)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:44 PM

76. GOOD ANSWER!

You're not worried a bit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #76)


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #83)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:35 PM

107. You're going to be apoplectic when she's indicted

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:29 PM

2. good points.

The evidence is there. She knows it. Her campaign at this time is just a dog and pony show...trying to get the nom before Comey drops the hammer.

Will she make a plea agreement? Or will she force this drama to continue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:32 PM

8. Personaly, I think if indictment is recommended

she will agree to withdraw from the race in order to avoid prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:02 PM

17. Just because your side can invent your own reality doesn't make

reality or fact.

Stay tuned and reality will be made known and it is Madam President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #17)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:26 PM

18. I feel sorry for you, sincerely. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #18)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:00 PM

32. I feel sorry for you, sincerely.

so little information, so wrong an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demigoddess (Reply #32)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:12 PM

36. Loads of information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demigoddess (Reply #32)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:17 PM

39. LOL.

In the words of DU member Aerows.

WE TOLD YOU SO.

Keep that in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:46 PM

30. That's what I think

See my post about how running for president is a clever way to forestall indictment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2022006


Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:29 PM

4. Reading RW smear Hillary stories leaves you in a Bernie Bubble way of thinking-->

thus you post the smears and pass them off as 'truth'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #4)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:53 PM

31. ha hahahah

do tell, who is the right wing smear machine? It operations on $$, so who's paying them?

Jeb Bush?

Yeah, we all know how united the repukes are behind Don Trump.

So please answer my question: who's paying?


Cher

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:30 PM

5. Cause it's her turn, damnit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:31 PM

7. I'm glad I was nowhere near HRC on the day...

...she learned of the Romanian hacker who had cracked Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account and exposed the emails between Sid and Hllary -- emails containing classified info that she had sent but not turned over to the authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #7)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:04 AM

113. afaik, blumenthal was sending her info, not vice versa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #113)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:56 PM

135. True, but she's under obligation to classify it and notify the U.S. Intelligence Community.

She didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:32 PM

9. What I find disturbing is the incredible arrogance

 

It was arrogant to co-mingle all her personal crap with official state business.

It was arrogant to delete those email.

Hillary doesn't need o play by the rules. She's above all that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:29 PM

19. reckless

The Clintons have always engaged in RECKLESS and narcissistic behavior.

They play us all the time, and do not fear consequences. Unfortunately, we the people are dragged through their psychodramas as they play out on the public stage. Then they adopt the victim status and use it as a shield.

We are all re-traumatized every stinking time they pull this crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:04 PM

125. II'm assuming you're from California.

What do you think about Bernie's chances to take the State, both survey and anecdotally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #125)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:09 PM

152. Nope. I'm from Vermont.

 

I was born in California. I've lived in Vermont almost my entire adult life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #152)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:23 PM

157. Oh, okay.

I haven't seen any recent polling numbers. Will need to check those when not on the phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:04 PM

151. The Law is for the little people--not the Oligarchy.

 

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:34 PM

11. Hillary has planned plausible deniability as she removed herself from

The deletion process and instructed her legal staff to pick and choose which ones to delete. Whether or not it will work is another thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:31 PM

20. and she is trying to shield them from testimony..

...by claiming that they are entitled to lawyer-client privilege, when the truth of the matter is that co-conspirators have NO SUCH PROTECTION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #20)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:06 PM

70. Yup! That's why Mills walked out to confer with legal during the FBI investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:18 PM

40. Hillary 2016 - The Buck Stops Over There!

 

her new campaign slogan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #40)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:07 PM

84. Great slogan!

Couple that with No We Can't! and it's no wonder she's so "popular".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #40)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:41 PM

154. the buck stops offshore

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:41 PM

57. As has been stated it doesn't matter if she knew, which she did. It's still a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #11)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:22 PM

65. That thought just occurred to me too - I don't think it will work at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:37 PM

13. Look, they can't prove intent, she's not going to be indicted. Forget that and move on.

And, for the record, I voted for Bernie but will back Hillary if she's the nominee, with at least some enthusiasm. She's not Trump is a winning platform for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #13)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:32 PM

21. there is no requirement for INTENT in the law here.

No requirement for motive or intent.

If classified info is mishandled, then it is. Zero requirement for proof of intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #21)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:37 PM

25. I'd like to check that out. Can you cite to the statute?

I thought the relevant statute was 18 USC 798

And that states:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information ..

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

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 onenote (Reply #25)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:43 PM

28. writing by DU member leveymg on HRC exposure

Leveymg review of Hillary Clinton's exposure to risk 2016


There are really only two things you have to read to understand what laws Hillary broke and why the excuses being offered by her lawyers and campaign are utter bullshit. One is the standard Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement she signed the day she took office. The other is the federal felony statute that is most frequently cited in that document as the penalty for mishandling classified information, 18 USC Sec. 793, most particularly subsections (e) and (f).

Hillary Clinton's use of a private, uncertified server for official business and to transmit and store classified information was never approved. In fact, the NSA warned her that her Blackberry was unsecure and she shouldn't use it. When that Agency refused to clone a half dozen duplicates of Obama's secure smart phone for her to email her staff, her reaction was to set up and use her own private email server for all private and official business. Defiance isn't the word for this. It was a willful and criminal violation of her security oath.

Her violation of both her signed classified information agreement and federal felony law is clear if you actually read her security agreement and the statute, below:

Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read it.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

?w=500&h=262

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) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.


Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

Here's some of the language of the statute that was violated. She did it despite and in spite of being told by ranking NSA security officers not to use her Blackberry in the very first days of her tenure as Secretary of State. When the NSA refused to clone a half dozen of the President's secure phones for herself and her staff, she literally did a runaround. Literally, within days, and without authorization or she had linked her unsecure Blackberry with an uncertified private email system, and continued to use both devices exclusively for all official business until she left office four years later. By then, her server held at least 1,100 classified messages, 104 from her, and 22 that were Top Secret/SAP. Then she refused to turn over these classified materials, again in violation of her security oath, and proceeded to wipe half the messages on the harddrive.

Here's how she specifically violated 793 (f)(2). Note that both (e) and (f) do not require a showing of specific intent to harm the national security or actual harm. Just mishandling of classified materials or failure to report that of others is enough to be convicted of a felony with a potential sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

When in 2011 Secretary Clinton received a series of emails containing obviously classified information from Sid Blumenthal, her response was "keep 'em coming." This classified information turned out to have originated with the NSA, and had been taken off a classified system just hours earlier. If one reads her Classified Information Agreement, posted above, it makes repeated reference to Sec 793 of Title 18 US Code. That's a felony statute for violation of the oath. Keep her response to Blumenthal in mind -- and the fact that she didn't report the breach, and expressly encouraged more of the same -- as you read subsection (f)(2) of that section,

(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.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#e


How do we know that she's liable to found culpable for violating her nondisclose agreement and Sec 793 (e) and/or (f)? Because US Attorney General Loretta Lynch was recently asked about this by prominent Washington journalist, Al Hunt. Her answers point to the same basis for investigation and potential prosecution. Here is their dialogue:

Al Hunt Show on Hulu - http://www.hulu.com/watch/936368 15:00 minute mark

Lynch: It has to be treated like any other case, people have to have confidence...

We owe it to them to do a full thorough and independent review of everything that comes to our attention

Hunt: In trying to get her to say what the standard would be, intent, or gross negligence, etc..... She replied

Lynch: Well yeah, I think that what's been reported, is that we received an inquiry into the handling of classified information particularly by people who are no longer in government as to whether or not it had been improperly handled or properly handled,and that is a security review that we get in a number of situations, and that was the genesis of this matter. And so beyond that I can't comment on the specifics of it.. except to say that we do look at the issues presented, but as I said before we look at them thoroughly.




Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.

The facts:

NYT: F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.

They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.

F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.

Four para limit stops here. But, I will in all fairness stipulate that this article goes on to say that HRC is not at this point the target of the investigation. However, Reuters has since reported that her unsecured private server email system contained "presumed classified" materials. Hillary personally exchanged such presumed classified information with Sidney Blumenthal, and those communications were intercepted and publicly released by a Romanian hacker. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/

The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)

Secretary Clinton was trained in handling of classified materials, and acknowledges that she understood them. By transmitting and receiving email correspondence that contained information gleaned from foreign government sources on an unauthorized, insecure system, she violated the law. This was not something she did unwittingly, and that the foreign government sourced material was not stamped classified is irrelevant.

On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.

All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.

Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged and convicted even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141184063, see also,http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/ ; and, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html


Applicable statutes and Executive Order:

1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.

Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:

The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "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, Note: "is to be used"

The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"

Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:

(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—

The differences between Sections (e) and (f) and the various other offenses covered in Section 793 comes down to the element of intent to injure the US or act to the advantage of a foreign power. These are not requisite elements of the offenses covered under these sections of the Espionage Act.

2) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.



That law requires heads of agencies -- no exception for DOS -- to preserve and turn over all official correspondence and records to the National Archives. She didn't do that until confronted after a Romanian hacker leaked Hillary's email correspondence with Blumenthal. Those emails were clearly official not private. HRC admits to destroying at least 30,000 emails she deemed private and turned over approximately 30,000 her lawyers found to be public documents. However, a number of other emails have subsequently been turned over and analyses by news agencies. Reuters reported that a number of them to contain presumed classified information.

Hillary had also failed to provide these records to meet a FOIA request and Congressional Committee subpoena, which violates other federal laws.

Those emails and many like them were most recently found to contain "presumed classified" materials about US communications with foreign governments. That was a violation of Executive Orders, and possibly the 1917 Espionage Act that criminalizes private retention or mishandling of classified materials.

Intent to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power is not required under Sec 793 (e) and (f). The mere fact of unauthorized removal or destruction of materials the official should have known were classified are all that is required for conviction under these parts of the Espionage Act. Hillary should have known.

Removal is obvious from the fact that she ran her private server out of her own house. There have been several recent convictions under these provisions of lower-ranking officials, as well as the forced retirement and referral to the Justice Department of CIA Director John Deutch for taking home classified materials on his personal laptop and connecting to the internet.

We know that she sent and exchanged presumed classified materials with Syd Blumenthal. Read the Reuter article linked. Bluementhal's email with Hillary on her server was intercepted and published by a Romanian hacker. That's how this whole thing came to light.

Sorry, she's done herself in, and has no one else to blame except some overzealous aides and risk-seeking lawyers.


Potential Prosecution:

At this point, the FBI is investigating the server and network history before a decision is made whether to proceed with prosecution and what charges to seek from a federal Grand Jury.

The facts are clear that she was operating her own private server and that "presumed" classified materials were shared on that unsecured device. The FBI won't come out and say she's the target until a series of decisions have been made. That Biden is signalling he's readying his candidacy tells me that probable cause exists and the system has already been found to have been breached. In fact, we know that a Romanian hacker obtained email containing presumed classified information between Blumenthal and Hillary, and that she responded to him. We also know that she was trained not to do anything like this, she acknowledges that, but she went ahead and continued to did it anyway.

This is serious, not a pseudo-scandal.

_____________________________________________
Complete copy of relevant sections of law and Executive Order

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
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
(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.


2) Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.

. . .

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.


C) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106

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

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

More on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges

Many people have asked, what crimes exactly would the FBI find the former Secretary of State violated? This and previous posts linked below provide a detailed picture of Hillary Clinton's violations of her signed Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, and the primary federal statute referenced within it, specifically, the three felony crimes specified at subsections (e), (f) and (g) of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

While Hillary Clinton has characterized it as a "mistake", the evidence shows she set up and operated her email server as an end-run around information security requirements. She signed her security oath on January 22, 2009 and in the the following days received explicit warnings from NSA about the vulnerability to hacking of her hand held device. See,http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/

Not only did she continue to use the Blackberry in spite of this warning, she operated it for official Department messaging connected to an uncertified server, which made her communications even more vulnerable to interception. She operated this unauthorized system for the rest of her term in office knowing that she was defying NSA. That provides the element of guilty knowledge, or mens rea, that some courts have held is a requirement to conviction under Sec. 793(e) for unauthorized transmission or retention of classified information.

Subsection (e) makes the following acts a felony. Note that the courts have held there are two types of classified materials referenced, tangible documents and intangible information. The distinction is important, as will be explained below:

(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;

Her actions show general mens rea, or guilty knowledge, that what she was doing could "be used to the injury of the United States." Note that is different from a more specific intent to injure the United States, which is not a requirement under this subsection. Nonetheless, mens rea is a requirement under one line of legal interpretation for conviction for sharing intangible (unstamped) classified information under 793(e). The same line of interpretation distinguishes marked documents from unmarked (intangible) information in the following fashion, according to a government Motion filed in a recent Sec. 793 case: US v Hitzelberger, Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 51 Filed 04/05/13, .pdf

Section 793(e) differentiates between “tangible” information, i.e., the laundry list of items in the statute and “intangible” information, i.e., knowledge. For intangible information, the government must also prove mens rea: that “the possessor has reason to believe (the intangible information) could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign power. 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). The House Committee, in its report on § 793(e) in connection with the 1950 revision of the Espionage Act, explained that this qualifying language addressed concerns that the category of illegally communicated intangible information was potentially overbroad. H.R.Rep. No. 647, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949), at 4. The Committee left it to the courts to define this limiting phrase on a case-by-case basis, but stressed that the “qualification not intended to qualify the other items enumerated in the subsections.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the government must address the limiting phrase only where the information at issue is intangible.


Meanwhile, this same reasoning is reflected in a filing in the Manning case. A Government brief observed on the topic of what it takes the phrase "reason to believe" to mean, as used in Sec. 793(e): http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/715582/ae-509-government-targeted-brief-reason-to.txt.

under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), the Government is not
required to prove that the accused had reason to believe the
information "could be used to the injury of the United States"
when the accused had unauthorized possession of any "document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or
note relating to the national defense." See 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). In
other words, the "reason to believe" scienter requirement only
applies to intangible information relating to the national defense,
not the tangible items listed above. See United States v. Kiriakou,
2012 WL 4903319, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1 6, 2012) ("Importantly, §
793 differentiates between 'tangible' NDI, described in the
'documents' clause ( 'any document, ... or note relating to the
national defense'), and 'intangible' ND I, described in the
'information' clause ('information relating to the national
defense')."; United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 612
( E.D. Va. 2006) ("Second, Congress expanded the category of
what could not be communicated pursuant to § § 793(d) and (e) to
include 'information relating to the national defense,' but modified
this additional item by adding a scienter requirement....".


However, the courts have differed on the strict scienter requirement for a 793(e) conviction as found in the 2006 Rosen decision. According to the Congressional Research Service: Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information, Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney (September 9, 2013):

ftn. 115 - See United States v. Drake, 818 F. Supp. 2d 909, 916 (D. Md. 2011) (distinguishing intent requirements between disclosures involving tangible documents and those involving intangible information); United States v. Kiriakou, 2012 WL 4903319 at *3-5 (E.D. Va. October 16, 2012) (surveying case law and noting that 4th Cir. interlocutory appeal in
the Rosen case cast doubt on the district judge’s interpretation).


Furthermore, HRC should have reasonably known that she was violating Sec 793(e) by willfully allowing her email system to be a conduit for the swapping and storage of classified materials in violation of the terms of her Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement signed by her on January 22, 2009, which states at Paragraph 1:

"For the purposes of this Agreement, classified information is marked and unmarked information."

Given the sheer volume of classified materials found on her uncertified server, more than 2000 with 104 originating with her, and that 22 were classified Top Secret, she meets the standards for prosecution under USDOJ and JAG guidelines.

In addition, this pattern of willful evasion of the law in concert with others establishes scienter, or willful intent, for an additional conspiracy charge under 793(g), the next relevant subsection of 793:

(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 grasswire (Reply #28)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:56 PM

62. This 'legal analysis' is done by a non-lawyer who clearly doesn't understand

the difference between negligence and gross negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #62)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:14 PM

87. Oh? Do tell.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hellofromreddit (Reply #87)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:31 PM

90. Yep. Why do you doubt it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #90)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:44 PM

91. I don't doubt it. I'm curious what the difference is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hellofromreddit (Reply #91)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:47 PM

92. There are some good sites out there that can

help you with that. Cornell University Legal Information Institute is one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #92)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:02 PM

93. You guys are always so full of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hellofromreddit (Reply #93)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:18 PM

101. Full of what? Too lazy to look it up for yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #62)

Sat May 21, 2016, 07:15 PM

94. you have been trying to discredit leveymg for a long, long time here.

Your insults and juvenile posturing mean nothing.

I don't see YOU writing anything of substance on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #94)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:16 PM

100. No insult at all. This is pseudo legal analysis

done by a layperson who does not understand the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #100)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:39 PM

110. constantly belittlling.

If you understood the law and were honest, you would admit the jeopardy HRC is in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #110)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:51 AM

124. Actually, I do understand the law. And I have no patience

with fake lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #124)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:08 PM

137. You don't post anything here on DU that indicates you understand the law.

Simply criticism of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #137)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:31 PM

141. Aside from 26 years as a practicing attorney, not much else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #141)

Sun May 22, 2016, 06:31 PM

145. I said you don't post anything except criticism of others here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #145)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:48 PM

158. I post criticisms of one particular poster who pretends

to be a lawyer although (s)he is not and who is providing misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #158)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:50 PM

159. I don't see you pointing out the "misinformation" and providing correction. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #159)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:55 PM

160. This has been covered ad infinitum by another attorney

on previous posts with this particular poster. The poster is aware that his/her representations as to what the law is and how is works in this particular set of circumstances are incorrect, but nonetheless keeps making misstatements. It's not worth going over it again, since there's no misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #62)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:08 PM

138. I know the difference and both are criminal.

What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #138)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:31 PM

140. If you know the difference then you understand my point

with respect to this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #28)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:53 PM

134. Oath

Every single Federal employee who handles sensitive material signs the same thing. The SecState does not have complete access to DOD intel agencies information. They are only allowed the information they need to do their jobs. The likelihood that Clinton would have military secrets to pass along is negligible. It's important to remember that the State Department is our Diplomatic arm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glitterbag (Reply #134)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:07 PM

136. you are revealing yourself as uneducated about this matter

It would be a good idea to read and absorb the timeline. Or stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #25)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:21 PM

42. note the word "OR" in the first sentence of the code you cite.

And each document is a separate charge, incidentally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #42)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:40 PM

55. If you're suggesting "knowingly and willfully" applies only to "communicates"

you're mistaken. That is not how statutes are read.

But to be honest, I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #42)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:53 PM

61. Secs. 793 (e) and (f) are like DUI. You don't have to intend to violate the law

All that counts is that you transmit classified information without authorization or keep it on an unauthorized system or fail to report the mishandling of others. It's that simple. She violated those felony sections of the Espionage Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #21)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:44 AM

117. So, are you a lawyer, or an FBI agent?

If you are neither of these then you don't know what you are talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rusty fender (Reply #117)

Sun May 22, 2016, 01:00 AM

119. time for you to catch up.

This has been documented and explained repeatedly on DU in the last weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #119)

Sun May 22, 2016, 01:03 AM

120. Lololol!

That's a big, fat no, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rusty fender (Reply #120)

Sun May 22, 2016, 01:08 AM

121. You're just embarrassing yourself.

And I'm too tired to do your remedial work for you.

Hint. Search for Paul Thompson's Timeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rusty fender (Reply #117)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:10 PM

139. You don't have to be an attorney or an FBI agent

to understand what your obligations are.

None of the security analysts at my company are attorneys or agents and they all fully understand their obligations under their security clearances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:40 PM

14. Answer: Because of ill informed people, passing of CNN soundbites as "news". A certain demographic

 

which can be found partly in this thread as well, don't want to be bothered with the facts nor take the time to read the presented evidence. The lack of finding the news outlets that are not controlled by the big 6 also contribute to this. So since it is not presented in their "world" it must be a "right wing" smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #14)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:34 PM

22. it's just a deflection.

They can't bear to consider reality here.

Plus the Clintons have been using this shield for decades now. Things get too hot? VRWC!! Very convenient game, but we are on to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 01:45 PM

15. Because Trump is Hillary Insurance

She's not going to be indicted.
The system is hopelessly rigged.

Although it's for radically different reasons, the Powers that Be are terrified of both a Trump and a Sanders presidency.

They need someone they can be certain will do their bidding. Hillary has long since proven that she is that person. Just check out her speaking engagements.

In the unlikely event that Hillary is indicted, the Democratic leadership will swap in a new corporatist as her replacement. It'll happen so quickly that it'll make your head spin. S/he will be Ford to Hillary's Nixon, and the media will scrupulously avoid casting any aspersions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #15)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:35 PM

24. yes, I would not be surprised at a Biden/Warren swap out.

Aside from a Bernie win, that is the best scenario for the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:01 PM

16. Plus Whitewater... when that finally comes in she is toast!

Not much longer. It's coming!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #16)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:02 PM

68. And Bridgegate...oh wait, wrong person...but I'm sure she was somehow involved. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:35 PM

23. Pray, baby, pray.

 


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:39 PM

26. well, its not really actual democrats taking that game IMO

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:42 PM

27. But the Republicans did it too...

 

and nothing happened to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #27)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:45 PM

59. Wrong of course. None of the had a private server in their home.

Among other violations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 02:45 PM

29. It has become increasingly apparent that...

Hillary's defenders have not vetted her or have vetted her and just don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:01 PM

33. Wouldn't the very existence/ set-up of the server constitute a violation/crime?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #33)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:20 PM

41. No.

"In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #41)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:23 PM

43. that's a deflection.

She still mishandled classified information, including the most secret of all. She still withheld documents after swearing she had turned them all over. Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #43)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:27 PM

47. No, the question was regarding whether the existence and usage of private email was against the law.

I answered that question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #47)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:29 PM

48. she had a private, unsecured server. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #48)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:35 PM

50. That's right she had a private email that she used. Unsecured is relative as a number of

government level email systems have been breached included the White House. So one could argue that they were not adequately secured either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #50)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:37 PM

52. do you not understand the difference between a server and an email provider? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #52)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:38 PM

54. I'm a computer scientist. I understand the concepts involved with this discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #54)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:34 PM

66. Then why do you push a false narrative?

Give me the science, since you claim it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #66)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:01 PM

67. What false narrative? And what in particular did I claim that's not true?

Honestly, one person asked if simply having a private email/system constituted a crime in and of itself. The answer is no. The rules and guidelines generally prohibiting that were enacted after Clinton left her post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #67)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:02 PM

69. The one that follows your questions

or perhaps the questions themselves...interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #69)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:07 PM

71. I'm not being hostile or negative, but I don't understand your response here.

I'm happy to clarify anything I said if you want to specifically point something out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #71)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:15 PM

72. As a fellow scientist

we can agree that the truth will out when the investigation is made public. We differ in our interpretations of the shadows on the wall, I respect that. Let's revisit this issue if/when charges are filed (or not). We'll have all data for a proper discussion then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fairgo (Reply #72)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:58 PM

82. Maybe we differ on our respective interpretations of how she handled sensitive information.

Maybe we don't. But this sub thread was simply regarding the legality of Clinton using a private email server. Specifically whether the act of running and using a private system was against the rules or illegal at the time when she was Secretary of State. It is a simple fact. It has nothing to do with how FOIA requests are handled or how multiple requests can yield separate and independent redaction -- a known occurrence that journalists often game in order to get more information on a government topic. It has nothing to do with whether or not she mishandled information that had been deemed classified from the beginning. It has nothing to do with whether or not she intentionally disclosed all pertinent emails. It has nothing to do with whether a 3rd party server is safer than an in-house solution.

It is about one simple unambiguous fact that neither bolsters nor detracts from the other factors stated above. As a scientist I think you also appreciate the importance of dispassion in matters of fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #82)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:09 PM

86. Sounds like a hypothesis,

not a fact until tested. And the test will be the indictment. We will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #50)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:40 PM

142. You're wrong here.

SIPRnet and JWICS are where we store classified information and while they were compromised by an insider's thumb drive, they haven't been "hacked."

Yes, the OPM was hacked, but it can be accessed outside of government via email and other outward facing servers.

SIPRnet and JWICS are closed-loop systems, are monitored by a security team 24/7 and you are supposed to only access them from a SCIF.

Like this:





Hillary had classified information on an unsecure server. The OPM doesn't keep classified information on their servers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #142)

Sun May 22, 2016, 08:06 PM

155. Again whether or not she transmitted secret/top secret information via

her communication setup is not related to this sub thread. And even though you did not reference it, just to cover all the bases it is not about whether she adequately secured her system and it's not about whether or not she took enough steps to preserve records under the FOIA (if that was her responsibility at all).

When I say "secure" I'm not referring to some standard matching SIPRnet and JWICS so as to somehow magically make her home brew setup acceptable for classified information. I'm referencing the nebulous standard of security taken or not taken in order to prove some level of negligence in the handling of non classified governmental office affairs. Anybody truly familiar with this Clinton/email topic knows she never claimed her system was acceptable for classified material.

Now stick with me for a second. As you pointed out there are two basic levels of communication a secure one for classified material and another for non classified governmental activity. I'm sure we all remember the stories regarding China being able to read Obama's emails which of course was a breach of the latter system, but I digress. If Clinton had conducted all her correspondence using the official government solution she still would not be allowed to exchange secret information (deemed classified at the time of transmission) on that system!

Let me put this all together really quickly. A lot of the correspondence that Clinton engaged in, that the State Department retroactively deemed sensitive, came in the form of replies to existing back and forth exchanges between other people where she was not the originator of that information. This was not an isolated case, but common practice among many Federal employees to use their non secure email exclusively and to not compartmentalize out of safety any information that might later be interpreted as sensitive. This pattern of practice of various departments is very sloppy but not at all related to her running an external server which, at the time, was not prohibited.

If you want to make the case that she exchanged secret documents over a system not designated for secret information (government or otherwise) -- go for it. If you want to make the case that her email server was less secure (than the government system for non classified information) because she chose '123' as her password and the government one requires ten alphanumeric characters and two special, as an example -- go for it. It's just unrelated to my original comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #41)

Sat May 21, 2016, 08:59 PM

95. That ignores Obamas executive order from the first week in office in 2009,

 

Which clearly laid out how the status of email. Nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #95)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:04 PM

97. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #98)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:25 PM

99. You forgot a link

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/01/obama_executive_order_13526_makes_mrs_clinton_guilty

Being a neo-democrat-conservative-lite I only get my info from the big man!

Of course it has little to do with the legalities of using a private email system which was the topic of this now ridiculous sub thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #99)

Sat May 21, 2016, 10:56 PM

108. Wow - did you seriously post a Rush link?

 



I found out about the executive order from Wikipedia last month. I am not clicking on that guy's link but I guess lots of people know she's in trouble.

Off to take a shower now and done with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #108)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:15 PM

109. yeah it was satire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #109)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:42 PM

111. Not funny. It looked like you were implying that knowing this stuff

 

means I listen to hate radio. Extremely insulting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #111)

Sat May 21, 2016, 11:51 PM

112. No it most certainly is not funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:04 PM

34. Watergate dragged on for 19 months

 

after Nixon was re-elected prez in January 1973. If Hillary is elected, I expect the impeachment trial won't begin until 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:13 PM

37. Because the other candidate scares us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:16 PM

38. one thing that bothers me that no one talks about much.

is the Blumenthal in your face to Obama. She showed a great lack of respect to the President when she was communicating with Blumenthal and passing his stuff around to State Department employees. I find that very disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #38)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:25 PM

45. Yes.

She ran a rogue foreign policy shop out of sight of Obama, threatening his presidency and his legacy.

That is what burns me the very most. She either thought so little of him or so highly of herself that she simply disregarded his instructions and bamboozled him, basically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #38)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:32 PM

49. I talk about it, but most people are ignoring it for some reason

Not having been there, I can only read between the lines, but I'm seeing all over that Hillary's team flipped off the Obama team in the realms of policy, procedure, legalities and drama(which Obama is famous for hating) for the purpose of setting up her WH run.

Now Obama is in the strange position of having to depend on the person who backstabbed him to continue his policies in the next cycle.

It was often talked about how Obama was a great chessmaster. He got pawned on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #49)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:36 PM

51. Frankly, I wonder how he can support her.

I would think he would despise her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #51)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:40 PM

56. I just hope he doesn't get dragged in legally.

I can see her turning on him and claiming that he knew about parts of it, in order to save herself.

I believe he does have responsibility for failure to oversee her actions. But I don't want him to get ensnared in criminality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #56)

Sun May 22, 2016, 03:18 PM

128. I wonder why he let the Inspector General position stay empty so long eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trudyco (Reply #128)

Sun May 22, 2016, 03:24 PM

130. I do not know.

But it obviously was a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #51)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:03 PM

63. I've heard he does, and the feeling seems mutual

He beat her out for the corner office space when it was "her turn." Hell hath no fury...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:23 PM

44. Oh really? Rove ran 3 million WH emails thru a private (RNC) server...

... and not only was he not indicted, but there wasn't even an investigation, and they never even seized the RNC server.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farmbo (Reply #44)

Sat May 21, 2016, 09:03 PM

96. Where do you think she got the idea? And NO ONE believes the

 

behavior was acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farmbo (Reply #44)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:59 PM

144. That makes it OK, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farmbo (Reply #44)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:16 PM

153. And how many were Classified?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:38 PM

53. When the indictment fairy and

 

overturning the will of democratic voters is all you got left, you know the game is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 03:46 PM

60. Government Finds Emails With David Petraeus That HRC Didn’t Hand Over

https://news.vice.com/article/government-finds-emails-with-david-petraeus-that-hillary-clinton-didnt-hand-over

The US Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton did not give to the State Department, the State Department said on Friday, despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as secretary of state.

The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of US Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top US diplomat in January and February of 2009.

The Defense Department provided the emails to the State Department in "the last several days," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 04:05 PM

64. Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails Withheld from State Department

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/

Judicial Watch today released new State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages) that again appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com system until March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch recently released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails.

The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response a court order in a May 5,2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department, after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). The lawsuit seeks:

Emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-“state.gov” email address.

Many of the documents predate March 18, 2009, go back as far as January, and were not turned over by Clinton to the State Department from her non-government server. The emails cover topics such as: her schedule and travel plans; criticisms of Clinton by Richard Gere; Afghanistan; U.S. financial aid and security concerns for several Pacific Islands; the recommendation for a health care system overhaul; and food security.

Other previously unreleased emails are dated March 18, 2009, despite suggestions by Clinton that she had turned over emails with that date. These emails refer to, among other things, her “friends at Planned Parenthood” and a call to Bill Clinton’s former National Security Adviser, the late Sandy Berger, who was convicted of illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives.


From Paul Thompson's timeline:
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_7
In January 2016, a federal judge ordered the State Department to release all the known emails of Huma Abedin from her time as Clinton's deputy chief of staff. This is in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Judicial Watch. Over 29,000 pages of emails are due to be released in batches, and this is the first batch of 241 pages. Some of the emails are between Abedin and Clinton, and most if not all of them appear to be work-related, showing yet again that Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails when she gave the State Department over 30,000 emails in December 2014. 21 of the emails between Abedin and Clinton date from January 28, 2009 to March 17, 2009; Clinton had said she didn't use her new email account until March 18, 2009. Another 15 emails between them date between March 18, 2009 to October 20, 2012, and do not match any of emails in the State Department's database of the 30,000 publicly released Clinton emails. Whereas 16 emails dating from March 20, 2009 to May 28, 2009 do appear in that database. (Judicial Watch, 5/5/2016) (US Department of State, 5/1/2016) (US Department of State, 5/1/2016) Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton comments, "These emails further undermine Hillary Clinton’s statement, under penalty of perjury, suggesting she turned over all of her government emails to the State Department. How many more Hillary Clinton emails is the Obama State Department hiding?" (Judicial Watch, 5/5/2016) Since these emails appear to be:

a more or less random selection from all four years of Clinton's time as secretary of state
about half of the emails from March 18, 2009 and afterwards are not included in the 30,000 previously released emails
this batch makes up less than one percent of all the Huma Abedin emails due to be released
Abedin's emails make up only about 15 percent of the 30,000 emails

One can reasonably estimate that thousands of the over 31,000 emails Clinton deleted actually are work-related and are likely to be publicly released in later batch releases of Abedin's emails as well as FOIA lawsuits forcing the release of emails from other top Clinton aides. In fact, if this sample is a truly random sample representative of the rest of the emails from Abedin and other top Clinton aides, well over 10,000 of Clinton's deleted emails could be work-related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:26 PM

74. Unclear what will happen. But the use of the email server was due to paranoia

Having been attacked for almost 25 years, Hillary decided to keep her emails "private." This kind of paranoia is actually much more justified for the Clintons than for Nixon, who was paranoid pretty much without cause, but still led to the current mess which at best suggests bad judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #74)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:54 PM

80. I guess most of the world's hackers could access her server

even though they said there was 'no mark'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #80)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:09 PM

85. Yes, if hackers knew where to look (there are a lot if servers out there) then

they probably could access her server with enough effort. Calling the site "clintonemail.com" perhaps would give someone a clue though... A lot depends on how secure the software on that server was. If it was up to date using the most secure software versions and only had email server software and there were no zero day exploits, hacking might require guessing the passwords via a brute force attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #85)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:57 PM

143. It wasn't secure at all.

Hell, it wasn't even encrypted for three months.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #143)

Sun May 22, 2016, 06:37 PM

146. I read that article, and its clear that much more could have been done

I am definitely interested in learning more, as I run my own email server, and am interested in the technical details of what her IT person did wrong. The Wired article is helpful, but not detailed enough to fully understand what measures were taken-- there are many levels to securing a server. If she didn't encrypt the connection (is that what you mean?) between her client and server, then a man in the middle attack would be very possible. That's simply stupid of her IT person. Encrypting the file system on the server would also be essential if it really was supposed to be used for secret information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #74)

Sun May 22, 2016, 12:55 AM

118. No. That is a limited hangout.

She is paranoid, yes. But she KNEW that she was flouting the law, not just protecting privacy. She demonstrated that she KNEW that classified info was being transmitted over the hidden server. She KNEW that Blumenthal had no security clearance, nor did some of her aides. And more. She KNEW all of this, so cannot claim this was just a matter of convenience or paranoia. Her actions were a willful and deliberate subordination of President Obama.

This is not simply bad judgment. It is much more serious. And, too, intent has no bearing when it comes to mishandling classified information. It doesn't matter WHY she did that. Still felonies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #118)

Sun May 22, 2016, 01:42 AM

122. Paranoia can lead to law breaking

See the prime example, Richard Nixon. In Hillary's case we will soon find out if laws were broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:42 PM

75. i thought they already discovered work-related among them? anyone know? sure I read this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:45 PM

77. We already know that emails were sent to David Petraeus that were not included...

 

... in the official dump.

We only have her word that the number was 30,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #77)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:26 PM

88. and there were others that were not included in the "official" dump. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:51 PM

79. Rumor has it the Russians have many of them

 

Can you imagine them doing a public dump of her email, say... October 21st or thereabouts?

Anybody who has copies of those has an incredible amount of blackmail power of her. Disqualifying in and of itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 05:56 PM

81. Well, your thesis is not true. You're confusing DOD with State. They're not the same.

Oh, and in case you're unclear--State is senior in the order of precedence.

Everyone doesn't have business with DOD. In fact, most people don't.

But most of us, passport holders, at any rate, have business with State.

Your concern about what "Democrats" are willing to do is certainly interesting, though. Try not to worry so much--you'll be happier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 06:27 PM

89. The deleted email

 

There was a report in the LA times saying that the FBI had recovered most of her emails. The FBI got all the emails and there was a report in Bloomberg news that the FBI was going through the emails sorting them into two piles a work related pile and a personal pile. That implies there were MANY work related emails she had deleted.

That doesn't seem like too much of a jump, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:52 AM

123. 'Why?' Becaussseeee ----------------------------- HILLARY!!!!!

 

Might as well nominate the ghost of Richard Nixon; that's who they seem to want.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sun May 22, 2016, 03:00 PM

127. A very good question.

If they were as afraid of Trump as they say they are, there's no way they would take such a chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sun May 22, 2016, 07:00 PM

150. I think being a Hillarian doesnt actually mean your a Dem

 

Koch brothers alao giving her support


Just sayin........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Original post)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:59 PM

161. She handed over 30,000, but had 31,000 that are also being divided up...

Two groups that I know are being examined -

1) Non business

2) Business

No, I don't think I like those odds of someone running against Drumpf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread