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]awake
(3,226 posts)130. Good point
I agree he made it clear that he has nothing to do with what goes down. What ever the DOJ does it is all on Hillary not him.
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