HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » CNN and Reuters: Inspecto...

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 08:46 AM

CNN and Reuters: Inspectors General concluded Clinton emails presumed classified

The origin of the "presumed classified" determination applied to many of Hillary Clinton's emails are the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the State Department, as reported by CNN. That assessment is shared by the former Director of the Government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), as reported by Reuters.

CNN: 7/24/2015

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Official: Clinton emails included classified information

Washington (CNN)The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way. Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.

The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress. McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."

The four emails in question "were classified when they were sent and are classified now," spokeswoman Andrea Williams told CNN.

McCullough said that State Department Freedom of Information Act officials told the intelligence community IG that "there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the approximately 30,000 provided by former Secretary Clinton."


CNN 8/17/15

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/17/politics/hillary-clinton-server-referred-for-further-review/
Washington (CNN)Intelligence officials assigned to review emails from Hillary Clinton's server for classified information have so far recommended that 305 documents be referred to agencies for further consultation, according to a report filed with a federal judge Monday.

In court papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, the State Department updated its progress. It said that as of last Friday, Intelligence Community reviewers had completed a preliminary screening and determined that "out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails," the reviewers have "recommended 305 documents -- approximately 5.1% -- for referral to their agencies for consultation."
. . .

inspectors general for the State Department and for the Intelligence Community raised concerns about the content of the emails, the State Department added intelligence staff to assist in the process.


Reuters 8/24/15

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest


In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."



58 replies, 4340 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 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply CNN and Reuters: Inspectors General concluded Clinton emails presumed classified (Original post)
leveymg Aug 2015 OP
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #1
forthemiddle Aug 2015 #13
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #15
forthemiddle Aug 2015 #22
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #24
forthemiddle Aug 2015 #25
Name removed Aug 2015 #55
mcar Aug 2015 #16
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #26
Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #49
Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #2
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #4
Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #6
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #9
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #7
askew Aug 2015 #18
HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #30
Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #43
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #3
leveymg Aug 2015 #8
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #10
leveymg Aug 2015 #11
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #14
leveymg Aug 2015 #23
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #31
leveymg Aug 2015 #34
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #35
leveymg Aug 2015 #38
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #40
leveymg Aug 2015 #48
HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #5
Name removed Aug 2015 #12
askew Aug 2015 #19
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #29
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #28
leveymg Aug 2015 #32
Zorra Aug 2015 #17
Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #21
zalinda Aug 2015 #20
leveymg Aug 2015 #27
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #33
leveymg Aug 2015 #36
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #37
leveymg Aug 2015 #39
DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #41
Post removed Aug 2015 #42
George II Aug 2015 #44
Name removed Aug 2015 #45
ColesCountyDem Aug 2015 #46
leveymg Aug 2015 #58
AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #47
Sancho Aug 2015 #50
AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #53
Sancho Aug 2015 #54
AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #56
Sancho Aug 2015 #57
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #51
cantbeserious Aug 2015 #52

Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 08:49 AM

1. Talk about a desperate media going into the weeds to find....something, something.....strange

how finding nothing after 3 years, a dozen investigations and several bi-partisan reports finding nothing, nothing, means for sure there must be something, something!?

Of course, that must be it! There is no evidence! In Media BizzaroWorld it is the lack of evidence that convicts you!

The accusation is more important than the proof!

Bengazhi 2.0 is here...more investigations finding nothing are sure to soon blossom like turds in the Libyan desert.

I thought Obama had Jovian patience with the corporate mass media, but Clinton, she has some of that also. How they both do it is a mystery to me.

And now having found no evidence of anything, the crime being accused of is "lack of judgment"?

Meanwhile a fascist wants to forcibly deport 11 million folks without regard to costs, human and financial, and the media is orgasmic with delight over the man wanting that "plan"?

You see what is going on here? The corporate media are demanding of Clinton, and all Democratic Party candidates, the perfection they demand of President Obama, while forgiving all flaws of the Republican clowns....and getting away with it.

Idiot America...controlled by the media....GreenDay got that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:38 AM

13. Is "lack of judgment" something you want in a President?

With Hillary it is never just one thing, it is the total lack of trustworthiness.
Like it or not, people vote for personalities and to most Hillary comes off as arrogant, and "above the law", even if technically a law was not broken.

Depends what the definition of "is,is"!!
"At this point, what difference does it make"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #13)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:54 AM

15. Because if the "judgment" label peels off maybe the folks will buy the "arrogant" label....funny stuff.

Hilarious!

Meanwhile the mass media is licking the boots of a man who is the defintion of having no judgment at all and proudly wears the crown of King Arrogant....so maybe having judgment and not being arrogant is not what folks want in a President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #15)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:40 AM

22. Guess what

I'm not voting for him either!

I think Trump is an arrogant fool, and I eagerly look forward to him falling flat on his face too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forthemiddle (Reply #22)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:41 AM

24. Whew! Good to know! At least I convinced someone at DU to not vote for Trump. My work on

the thread is done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #24)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:43 AM

25. LOL

Great comeback sir!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #24)


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:11 AM

16. Whitewater all over again

The media never fails to fall for the same narrative over and over when it comes to the Clintons. Too bad some on the left are feeding it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #16)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:46 AM

26. BENGHAZI!!11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #1)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:47 PM

49. Well said. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 08:59 AM

2. Clinton loyalists won't believe a word of it.

 

For the rest of us it is obvious that the SOS is getting classified information all the time. This is why the campaign is careful to talk about emails that were marked classified. This way they are not lying about information presumed classified, only misleading.

We will need to wait for either the Justice Department or the FBI (or both) to announce their findings. Right now this may just be media chatter, and CNN isn't much of a news organization anyways.

Time will tell exactly what is up here, but with only about 1 out of 3 Americans believing that she is trustworthy, this whole thing is one hell of a mess.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:02 AM

4. Clinton "loyalists" understand that allying with the propaganda of the corporate mass media is a bad move.

You don't need to be a loyalist to know that!

Allying with media corporations is as inconsistent as allying with Wall Street corporations - often they are the same - for supporters of liberal socialism.

Oh, and trying to pre-empt responses by erecting a barrier of strawmen is just silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:07 AM

6. Most people will think you are the propagandist here.

 


Most people think she is not trustworthy. They won't believe her. They won't believe you. They won't believe her campaign or any spokesperson they present.

We need to wait for the findings of the investigations, but her campaign is still seriously damaged because of it.

I honestly don't know if she can win the GE with this on top of all the other baggage. The only bright spot here is that there is still time to nominate someone else.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #6)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:18 AM

9. The only thing "seriously damaged" has been the credibility of the corporate mass media, but

you disagree and feel the corporate mass media is being fair and even in their coverage and slant given to of all of the candidates, so we must agree to disagree...no problem!


Have some folks completely forgotten about Bengazhi and fallen into the trap of Bengazhi 2.0, because the "it has damaged Clinton beyond repair, true or not" noise was also the final death rattle of that orchestrated smear?

Or are folks merely pretending to forget......and all memory will be recovered as soon as the nominee is clear?

If the later, all will be forgiven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:08 AM

7. Fred, I will talk to you because you are rational.

There are different layers of security that are a function of the sensitivity of the information being transmitted . If any government employee was knowingly sending or receiving sensitive information he would be just as culpable is if he used a yougov or private email address. There are whole other systems and protocols for handling known sensitive information. That salient fact is being deliberately buried in these conversations.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:24 AM

18. My fear is that the FBI/DoJ investigations won't be done until after she wins the primary

and it is too late to take her off the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #18)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 11:00 AM

30. It seems very likely the investigations will go beyond super-Tuesday

It's going to take a lot of effort to reconstruct the paths of all the 'presumed confidential' emails.

It isn't just HRC that faces potential legal problems. The FBI has many email accounts to discover and research. Anyone who sent Clinton presumed confidential information would have potentially have breached security. The use of 'reply to' is often done with exceedingly little thought and it's not hard to imagine such sloppiness could be quite problematic.

HRC is, herself, rather immunized due to celebrity and political significance, but there are others whose lives could possibly be destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:02 PM

43. I know I am speculating

but If I was a HC supporter I would want to consider any possible hypothetical. Also, I like doing this kind of thing. I looked at the President seemingly giving the nod to Biden for a possible run and the supposed talks Biden has had about running as an indication that the admin is getting a plan-B together. Let's pretend I am right. What would the reason be for this? I can only come up with the WH knows there is some potentially campaign ending stuff in this email thing or that it will be so bad that she would be a guaranteed loss in the general. Like I said, I like to think what ifs and such, I do it about many topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:00 AM

3. The relevant statute with the operative word italicized

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments
2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000.


If you like we can discuss the Espionage Act of 1917 with the operative wording italicized.


This is farcical. She will not be indicted for anything, wagers accepted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:09 AM

8. That's Sec. 1924, a different section of the Act. See, Sec. 793, link below

As discussed at length in the OP, yesterday. The offense described at Sec. 793, Subsection (f) requires no element of intention or purpose. Subsection (e) does not require a purpose of harming the US or aiding a foreign power. Both (e) and (f) apply in this case.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:20 AM

10. You are citing the Espionage Act and ignoring the Preamble...

You are citing the Espionage Act of 1917 and deliberately ignoring the Preamble...

The Preamble with the operative words emboldened:


The Espionage Act of June 15, 1917

Espionage

Section 1

That: (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained 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 defence, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defence, owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control or the United States, or of any of its officers or agents, 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. or stored, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place within the meaning of section six of this title; or

(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence; or

(c) whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another to receive or obtain from any other person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defence, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts or induces or aids another 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 title; or

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit 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, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, 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 list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years; and

(b) whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, shall collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval of military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification of any place, or any other information relating to the public defence, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years.

Section 3

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

Section 4

If two or more persons conspire to violate the provisions of section two or three of this title, and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as in said sections provided in the case of the doing of the act the accomplishment of which is the object of such conspiracy. Except as above provided conspiracies to commit offences under this title shall be punished as provided by section thirty-seven of the Act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States approved March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine.

Section 5

Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Section 6

The President in time of war or in case of national emergency may by proclamation designate any place other than those set forth in subsection: (a) of section one hereof in which anything for the use of the Army or Navy is being prepared or constructed or stored as a prohibited place for the purpose of this title: Provided, That he shall determine that information with respect thereto would be prejudicial to the national defence.

Section 7

Nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial under sections thirteen hundred and forty-two, thirteen hundred and forty-three, and sixteen hundred and twenty-four of the Revised Statutes as amended.

Section 8

The provisions of this title shall extend to all Territories, possessions, and places subject to the jurisdiction of the United States whether or not contiguous thereto, and offences under this title, when committed upon the high seas or elsewhere within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and outside the territorial limits thereof shall be punishable hereunder.

Section 9

The Act entitles "An Act to prevent the disclosure of national defence secrets," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.




The suggestion that Hillary Clinton is some twenty first century Ethel and Julius Rosenberg is patently absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:30 AM

11. That section refers to different crimes as specified at subsections (a),(b) and (c)

I addressed those differences in my post yesterday, as follows:

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:47 AM

14. Precisely

(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


She was sharing information with others who have security clearance. She didn't " willfully communicate, deliver, transmit or caused 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."

At the core of the act; in the Preamble and in the subsequent sections is mens rea. Without mens rea there is nothing...We don't throw people in the hoosegow forever for questionable judgment, at least not yet.


There is a reason that the Espionage Act has been used to prosecute spies, traitors, subversives, leakers :well intentioned or not, and not government officials who deigned to use a private e-mail server...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #14)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:40 AM

23. You're citing from a different part of the Act. Note the different language, particularly at (f)

Subsection (f) requires no intent or purpose to share classified materials. Just the fact of failure to deliver messages, or destruction or loss by negligence is enough. A jury would have to decide that and if charged under (e) they would have to additionally find that she had reason to believe materials shared on her server might have injury to the US and were knowingly shared with persons not authorized to receive them or were otherwise improperly retained by her.

She had reason to know that the presumed classified information she shared or retained had potential damage to the US if released because she was trained by the State Department in this law and the EO regarding presumed classified foreign gov't information.

Hillary had email communications about Libya which she characterized as "Intel" with Sidney Blumenthal. He isn't even a gov't official. He has neither a security clearance and had no legitimate right to know.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

. . .

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #23)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 11:17 AM

31. Before we continue I need documentation

Before we continue I need documentation that Hillary Clinton sent classified information to Mr. Blumenthal since that is your basis for alleging Hillary Clinton violated The Espionage Act.

And how do you square this:

She had reason to know that the presumed classified information she shared or retained had potential damage to the US if released because she was trained by the State Department in this law and the EO regarding presumed classified foreign gov't information.



with this:


The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.


State Department official spokesperson John Kirby appeared live on CNN today and flat out stated that “she was not violating policy.” Like many other high ranking officials who came before and during her tenure, Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same.


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-department-confirms-hillary-clinton-email-violated-no-laws-or-policies/21851/







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #31)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:03 PM

34. That's detailed in the Reuters article, linked above.

About 3/4 into the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.


On your second question, the NewsBin piece is inaccurate. The State Dept. spokesman only said that the Department had determined HRC's use of private email had not violated State "policy" at the time. He said nothing about legal violations. NewsBin apparently made that part up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:14 PM

35. From said article

From said article:


State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #35)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:58 PM

38. The spokesman is at odds with the Department's own IG. Recall that both the State and IC IGs

referred the matter to Justice, which started an FBI investigation. The standard for such referrals is, I believe, for good cause shown.

It's not up to the State Department to make any determination about criminal violations. Based upon the FBI report, the USA will determined whether there is cause to prosecute and convene a Grand Jury. The GJ makes a probable cause determination. From there it goes to a federal Judge and usually a jury for a decision beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #38)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 01:10 PM

40. There is an interdepartmental dispute about classification.

Of course I know State doesn't get to decide whether an act is criminal but an A G isn't going to prosecute over an interagency dispute.

Oh, and please spare me the disquisitions on the judicial process. I did post graduate work in Government and took Constitutional Law One and Two.


I hate to be crude but I would literally bet my d--k that Loretta Lynch's Department Of Justice isn't going to prosecute Hillary Clinton for a violation of the Espionage Act.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #40)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:40 PM

48. But, the DOJ now has a lot of leverage. Sec. 793 felony or plead down to Sec. 1924. Leverage

Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:12 AM - Edit history (4)

That's exactly the choice that was given to Petraeus. He plead down to the misdemeanor. Here's his plea agreement - both sections are mentioned in the included charging document and Sec. 793 is referenced in the document as an excerpt of the security agreement he signed. https://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general/Petraeus.pdf

Enough leverage to change the trajectory of the inevitable, if they want to. That is the rub, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 09:05 AM

5. BUt, but, but...

those IGs are surely moles left in those agencies by Pres. Cheney.

Right??




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:27 AM

19. Polls show that isn't true. People are paying attention and her trustworthy #s are

plummeting because of it. You may not care, but the general public does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #19)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:57 AM

29. And polls are always, always spot on, right, askew?



I mean, they were spot on when Obama was losing to Romney, and that's why we have a President Romney - oh wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:54 AM

28. Nope. They sure don't...unless they're rooting for her opponent(s).

Jobs, healthcare, these are what people care about, not whether Hillary screwed up with some emails.

That's pretty much the case, but don't underestimate the U.S. M$M's tenacity to take apart a Clinton and tear down the Republicans' most feared adversary in this presidential election - and it ain't Bernie Sanders.

This is the usual republican manufactured scandal that they always use against the Clintons.

Which is why it's so curious to me why any DUer would join in on the pile-up. If anything, this OP should serve to anger our side no matter who you're rooting for, but surprisingly enough, that's not the case. Hm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #12)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 11:24 AM

32. "Screwed up email" might be omission of caps, bad spelling, and run-on sentences.

Other, lesser officials have gone to jail for bringing classified materials home and placing them on private servers or media. HRC was trained on recognizing and handling classified materials. She brought this on herself and has no one else to blame. Sorry, not a manufactured scandal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:21 AM

17. Clinton is filthy rich, and the chosen candidate of the oligarchs, so

the team of the most expensive lawyers that work for her can shield her from any possible prosecution.

After all, this is America 2015. The law of the Corporate State only applies to the peasant rabble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:34 AM

21. You say "rich" like earned wealth accumulated by public service through a life time is a bad thing....that is what is turning a lot of folks off...

but, carry one doing no one but the GOP any favors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:30 AM

20. Help me understand

If you work for a company, you are usually required to use their email account setup. It doesn't matter if it is easier to use your personal account or not.

When I used to own a small (micro) business, I always used the business account when replying to customers. It was a good way to promote business, plus since the person knew who it was coming from, it didn't end up in the spam folder.

How did she handle her Senator email? Did she use the ny.gov account or her personal account? Using a personal account seems to me to promote familiarity, rather than an expert that you are trying to have solve a problem.

Maybe it's just me, but I would never assume that it was okay to NOT use the email address of the organization that I was working for. If I was a government official I could only assume that an email not using the .gov was not sanctioned by the government. How would I know that what was being said would actually be true and held accountable.

It is only logical to use your employers email setup to conduct it's business, you work for them, don't you?

Z

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zalinda (Reply #20)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:48 AM

27. The issues with her use of a private, unsecured email server involve classified information

that was exchanged with persons, such as Sid Blumenthal, not authorized to receive it and Hillary's failure to turn over her correspondence as required by the 1950 Federal Records Act. She wasn't allowed to use personal email for classified communications. That's an apparent violation of the 1917 Espionage Act, Sec. 793, (e) and (f), violations that carry a potential ten year period of imprisonment. She also held onto all of her communications until confronted about it long after she left office, and destroyed many of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 11:28 AM

33. You are misstating the law.

Here...Let's make a wager...

I live in Los Angeles, home to several prominent law schools including the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the University of Southern California School of Law. I will go copy and print the factual situation you are citing , deliver it the professor of your choosing, and ask him or her if there is probable cause to charge Hillary Clinton with a violation of the Espionage Act.

If they agree with you I will donate $1,000.00 to their endowment and if they agree with me you will donate $1,000.00 to their endowment.



P.S. If you reimburse me for my travel I will repeat the exercise at Stanford Law School which is recognized as a top five law school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #33)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:19 PM

36. You need to specify how you think there's a misstatement. You still haven't.

Besides, I wouldn't wager money I don't have on the outcome of two opinions by law professors. Professors always find reason to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 12:45 PM

37. Okay

(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




The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.


State Department official spokesperson John Kirby appeared live on CNN today and flat out stated that “she was not violating policy.” Like many other high ranking officials who came before and during her tenure, Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same.


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-department-confirms-hillary-clinton-email-violated-no-laws-or-policies/21851/


How can she be "grossly negligent" when her employer said she complied with her employer's policies?



(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.


There is no evidence that "the same has been removed from its possible place of custody" and Secretary Clinton "fail(ed) to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer."


Please provide a list of all governmental officials who were successfully prosecuted for violations of The Espionage Act and the factual basis for the prosecution. Or in the alternative you can concede that no governmental official was ever prosecuted under the same factual basis as Secretary of State Clinton.

Thank you in advance.


We are back to square one. One has to look to the legislative intent and history of a law to divine who should and should not be prosecuted for violations of it. That's why the law has been used almost exclusively on traitors, spies, subversives, and leakers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 01:03 PM

39. The State Dept. made no such determination about any laws broken. That's a fallacy.

The Department does not and cannot determine criminal violations. "Gross negligence" is a criminal standard. See my comment above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #39)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 01:25 PM

41. Of course "gross negligence" is a criminal standard...

Of course "gross negligence" is a criminal standard and it would be hard to argue a person acted negligently when the person's employer said he or she was not in violation of the policy that governed his or her behavior and his or her behavior was similar to his or her predecessors.

Oh, and you still haven't come remotely close to demonstrating Secretary of State Clinton knowingly created a breach in security and[/i ] failed to report it, which is needed to satisfy the subsection of the Espionage Act you cited.


Again I ask you to cite all the prosecutions of governmental officials who have been successfully prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and the basis for the prosecution.

Of course you can't because there has never been a prosecution with a similar set of facts.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #41)


Response to Post removed (Reply #42)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:15 PM

44. No, the FBI is NOT investigating Hillary - not their A Team, their B Team, or their C Team.

Where do you get that the FBI is investigating her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #44)


Response to Name removed (Reply #45)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:22 PM

46. She is not a target. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 10:05 AM

58. Just her unauthorized server on which she had classified information is the target. At this point.

Those are the elements of violation of several federal criminal statutes, as explained in detail elsewhere on this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 07:25 PM

47. Thanks for following this and doing these updates.

 

I await the FBI's findings which apparently may come as a big surprise to some Clinton supporters here who have already cleared her of all wrongdoing. I remain absolutely flabbergasted that she would use her time at State in such a reckless manner. Whatever the disposition is, I think it's important to keep in mind she did this to herself. Playing the victim card is par for the course for her, and that's part of why she's mired in the controversy and can't put it behind her. Drip, drip, drip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sancho (Reply #50)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:16 PM

53. From a reliable source as opposed to Facebook, personal attorney, or political ally Media Matters.

 

Excellent video of news reporting, synopsis below: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/fbi-treating-clinton-emails-as-a-potential-criminal-investigation.html

(Definitely worth watching if you can face the truth - otherwise, like I said, the FBI may conclude that which will apparently come as a big surprise to some of you here).

FBI treats Clinton case as potential criminal investigation, sources say
Analysis: Al Jazeera has been told that dozens of federal investigators have been assigned to the probe
August 19, 2015 8:32PM ET
by David Shuster

Exactly one week after the FBI took possession of Hillary Clinton's personal email server, Al Jazeera America has been told that the FBI is now treating the Clinton case as a potential criminal investigation. Our sources add that dozens of federal investigators have now been assigned to this investigation.

Several weeks ago, when Inspectors General referred the Clinton email controversy to the Justice Department for review, the DOJ knocked down suggestions reported in the New York Times at the time that this was a criminal referral. The Inspectors General backed up the claim that their referral was administrative rather than criminal. However, the FBI — the agency responsible for investigating Clinton's server — now believes there may be a criminal case to answer.

Clinton's primary defense, reiterated on Tuesday, has been that none of the government emails she possessed had been marked or identified as “classified.” But as Al Jazeera’s story points out, a violation of the relevant criminal code statute (18 USC Section 1924) does not require that material be marked or stamped as “classified.” In other words, Clinton's public defense may help her politically, but it wouldn’t necessarily suffice in the event of a criminal case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #53)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:36 PM

54. This report has been debunked....

It was reported years ago that the entire server was backed up by Google and McAfee professionally, so there's really nothing missing. That's why her lawyer (who has top secret clearance) simply gave the FBI a copy on a thumb drive. The lawyer is not compelled by FOIA to provide personal emails, but there's nothing missing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records.
Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.


All the rest of this is in links already provided:

The copies were only provided on paper because that was the State Dept. rules.

You must have seen that at least one of the "top secret" emails was publicly available on a government website for months - you can download it today. It's pretty silly.

The server was only erased as it was removed from secret service protection so that it could be stored; just as a precaution about storing stuff even it if was not classified.

If you want to believe in CTs, that fine, but it's simply incest for the Bernie supports to continue repeating this stuff to each other. No one is won over because of more lies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #54)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 11:14 PM

56. It has not been debunked. The FBI has taken over the investigation which is still in progress.

 

I like surprises; maybe you will too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:49 AM

57. Like the links said...

the FBI is just part of the continuing fuss between agencies who can't get their act together. Just like declaring an email that was previously given to a Senate committee, the public, and news "top secret" thereby making half the Congress and reporters now "guilty" of possessing classified material that was previously passed around in the public.

What was on it? A newspaper story that the US uses drones!! Wow...

Just more foolishness. The FBI is doing the typical redactions of many thousands of pages because of FOIA. The ONLY government official in history to release so many documents. Hillary wants them to release them.

Again, NOTHING is missing. If there was ever a mistake, it was some low level government official inadvertently sending something to Hillary what was mislabelled. 90% were already captured and classified by the .gov servers. FOIA requests to put stuff in PUBLIC can cause issues (like phone numbers and addresses and junk in the documents). Things are ALWAYS cleaned up before release - even if there's nothing of consequence - so they "classify" stuff and redact it.

Of the 10% that missed .gov servers originally, the State Dept, FBI, and Senate Committee have had copies for months.

This is another "birth certificate" CT - and Hillary is going along so that there will be a COMPLETE declaration that everything is public and nothing is missing. She wants them to check everything OUT. All the stuff marked secure was sent on a secret system that won't be released, and the FBI, etc. already know that...

Again, it's not hard to understand. All those government agencies don't agree on anything, so they make a mess, but even you can read the first few thousand emails and see what kind of exciting junk is in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 08:26 PM

51. Nothing from nothing is still nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Original post)

Sat Aug 29, 2015, 08:37 PM

52. Trouble In Paradise

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread