Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Obama: Clinton Didn't "Intentionally" Put America In Jeopardy; [View all]Hoyt
(54,770 posts)89. Don't think it was taken from it's proper place of custody.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
132 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think it means on her server and that she has "owned up" to carelessness. Don't freak out.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#54
Sounds like he would agree with charging her with this felony: 18 USC Sec. 793(f)
leveymg
Apr 2016
#2
Well, the data has to be lost, stolen, etc. It "could have been compromised" is not in the statute.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#71
Well Hillary did have the server wiped, so she was trying to lose the emails.
All in it together
Apr 2016
#80
Obviously, they were not lost. Not sure you'd have access even if they'd been on a govt server.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#81
They were lost except the NSA had a "backup" copy. When she sent classified info, she also broke
leveymg
Apr 2016
#84
They weren't lost in the sense some spy from an enemy could use them to our detriment. Jeeez.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#85
Doesn't have to be lost. Only has to be "removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to
leveymg
Apr 2016
#88
Nobody in gov't says she was authorized to place classified info on her private server. Nobody.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#92
What "top secret" information was released/lost. Don't see in statute that it applies to it COULD
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#58
The statute applies to all classified information that is lost, stolen, copied (abstracted), etc.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#74
Don't think so because nothing was lost, etc. I'll leave it to the attorneys, but "intent" is
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#78
Here's HRC's signed security agreement - "classified info is marked or unmarked classified info">
leveymg
Apr 2016
#79
"removed from its proper place or delivered",or "abstracted" not just "lost, stolen, or destroyed."
leveymg
Apr 2016
#90
"Abstracted" means - hey Isis, I saw email that said something to effect we will invade on April 12.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#91
"Abstracted" means "Jake, remove headers and send unsecure." That's what "abstracted" means
leveymg
Apr 2016
#96
I think that is what "redacted" means. In any event, did Clinton remove such identifiers and send to
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#99
The terms are analogous for this purpose. She had reason to believe it could be used to the
leveymg
Apr 2016
#103
But you do have to show it was lost, stolen, taken/given to others, etc. You haven't done that yet.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#104
You haven't read all the possible ways the law can be violated. Also includes "communicates"
leveymg
Apr 2016
#106
When she sent classified uncertified server she: (1) through gross negligence permits the same
leveymg
Apr 2016
#82
Instructing aides to strip classification headers and "send unsecure" is pretty grossly negligent.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#112
Of course.. but who would know better than the President if there was anything significant here.
DCBob
Apr 2016
#116
The FBI? Are you suggesting the FBI leaks details of active investigations or POTUS solicits it?
JonLeibowitz
Apr 2016
#121
I'd rather not take a chance on her NOT "Intentionally" putting America in Jeopardy
notadmblnd
Apr 2016
#3
AGREED! Mr. President Please Explain How Hillary Merits Your Comment As Being "Outstanding" As...
CorporatistNation
Apr 2016
#19
So when he said she was careless with the emails was that the message to indict?
awake
Apr 2016
#129
There was an article on a computer site last week that said for the first couple of months
Vinca
Apr 2016
#13
WOW. "Careless" is really not that far from "negligent"... He kind of threw her under the bus.
reformist2
Apr 2016
#14
But all of those FACTS are still out there which won't go away. And Obama and whoever the VP
Skwmom
Apr 2016
#21
He lost me as truthful when he said, "as Secretary of State (she) did an outstanding job."
EndElectoral
Apr 2016
#23
Take that a step further: it's still a crime even if there is no actual harm to nat'l security
leveymg
Apr 2016
#126
Condescender, please. Employers have no special knowledge of an employee's intent.
merrily
Apr 2016
#57
No kidding, Sherlock. Yet nothing you posted negates a thing in my posts 52 or 57.
merrily
Apr 2016
#65
Not irrelevant at all, but you apparently have a bad case of both Capt Obviouism and last wordism.
merrily
Apr 2016
#76
As long as Hillary only put the U.S. in jeopardy unintentionally, what's the problem?
BernieforPres2016
Apr 2016
#64
there's an 8 lane smooth as glass superhighway to the gates of Hell paved with good intentions.
hobbit709
Apr 2016
#70
he also admitted "I haven't been sorting through each and every aspect of this." nt
antigop
Apr 2016
#83
That's his out. He can look supportive now, and later be surprised by revelations.
winter is coming
Apr 2016
#125