2016 Postmortem

glitterbag

(45 posts)

134. Oath

Sun May 22, 2016, 05:53 PM

May 2016

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

161 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the FBI has the 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted from her server, and just ONE [View all] rateyes May 2016 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #6

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #12

It might be about the emails if Ferd Berfel May 2016 #46

She violated several felony statutes. That is already plain leveymg May 2016 #58

so what does this mean for the future? Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #73

Not everything is what it seems. dchill May 2016 #78

No its not glitterbag May 2016 #102

Sidney Bloomenthal wasn't classified. HooptieWagon May 2016 #104

She not only received it, she stored it. Which is illegal Press Virginia May 2016 #105

Not only would they be facing charges, there wouldn't be a need to have a year-long Fawke Em May 2016 #132

Zactly Press Virginia May 2016 #156

you think that people are going to pay attention... grasswire May 2016 #114

Catch up glitterbag May 2016 #126

IF you are new to intel (whatever You mean by that).... grasswire May 2016 #129

here's my bottom line glitterbag May 2016 #131

still showing your ignorance. grasswire May 2016 #147

Hmmmm glitterbag May 2016 #149

I work for a cyber security company. Fawke Em May 2016 #133

lot of hubris in that one. nt grasswire May 2016 #148

Just because you chose to ignore this doesn't mean it went away. frylock May 2016 #35

Just because glitterbag May 2016 #103

She doesn't have to be a traitor to have broken the law Press Virginia May 2016 #106

you are the one introducing the word traitor to this discussion. grasswire May 2016 #115

GOOD ANSWER! dchill May 2016 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #83

You're going to be apoplectic when she's indicted Press Virginia May 2016 #107

good points. grasswire May 2016 #2

Personaly, I think if indictment is recommended notadmblnd May 2016 #8

Just because your side can invent your own reality doesn't make upaloopa May 2016 #17

I feel sorry for you, sincerely. nt grasswire May 2016 #18

I feel sorry for you, sincerely. demigoddess May 2016 #32

Loads of information. frylock May 2016 #36

LOL. grasswire May 2016 #39

That's what I think NJCher May 2016 #30

Reading RW smear Hillary stories leaves you in a Bernie Bubble way of thinking--> riversedge May 2016 #4

ha hahahah NJCher May 2016 #31

Cause it's her turn, damnit! notadmblnd May 2016 #5

I'm glad I was nowhere near HRC on the day... grasswire May 2016 #7

afaik, blumenthal was sending her info, not vice versa ContinentalOp May 2016 #113

True, but she's under obligation to classify it and notify the U.S. Intelligence Community. Fawke Em May 2016 #135

What I find disturbing is the incredible arrogance cali May 2016 #9

reckless grasswire May 2016 #19

II'm assuming you're from California. Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #125

Nope. I'm from Vermont. cali May 2016 #152

Oh, okay. Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #157

The Law is for the little people--not the Oligarchy. NewImproved Deal May 2016 #151

Hillary has planned plausible deniability as she removed herself from NWCorona May 2016 #11

and she is trying to shield them from testimony.. grasswire May 2016 #20

Yup! That's why Mills walked out to confer with legal during the FBI investigation NWCorona May 2016 #70

Hillary 2016 - The Buck Stops Over There! demwing May 2016 #40

Great slogan! tazkcmo May 2016 #84

the buck stops offshore elehhhhna May 2016 #154

As has been stated it doesn't matter if she knew, which she did. It's still a crime. onecaliberal May 2016 #57

That thought just occurred to me too - I don't think it will work at all. Merryland May 2016 #65

Look, they can't prove intent, she's not going to be indicted. Forget that and move on. Shrike47 May 2016 #13

there is no requirement for INTENT in the law here. grasswire May 2016 #21

I'd like to check that out. Can you cite to the statute? onenote May 2016 #25

writing by DU member leveymg on HRC exposure grasswire May 2016 #28

This 'legal analysis' is done by a non-lawyer who clearly doesn't understand COLGATE4 May 2016 #62

Oh? Do tell. hellofromreddit May 2016 #87

Yep. Why do you doubt it? COLGATE4 May 2016 #90

I don't doubt it. I'm curious what the difference is. hellofromreddit May 2016 #91

There are some good sites out there that can COLGATE4 May 2016 #92

You guys are always so full of it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #93

Full of what? Too lazy to look it up for yourself? COLGATE4 May 2016 #101

you have been trying to discredit leveymg for a long, long time here. grasswire May 2016 #94

No insult at all. This is pseudo legal analysis COLGATE4 May 2016 #100

constantly belittlling. grasswire May 2016 #110

Actually, I do understand the law. And I have no patience COLGATE4 May 2016 #124

You don't post anything here on DU that indicates you understand the law. grasswire May 2016 #137

Aside from 26 years as a practicing attorney, not much else. COLGATE4 May 2016 #141

I said you don't post anything except criticism of others here. nt grasswire May 2016 #145

I post criticisms of one particular poster who pretends COLGATE4 May 2016 #158

I don't see you pointing out the "misinformation" and providing correction. nt grasswire May 2016 #159

This has been covered ad infinitum by another attorney COLGATE4 May 2016 #160

I know the difference and both are criminal. Fawke Em May 2016 #138

If you know the difference then you understand my point COLGATE4 May 2016 #140

Oath glitterbag May 2016 #134

you are revealing yourself as uneducated about this matter grasswire May 2016 #136

note the word "OR" in the first sentence of the code you cite. grasswire May 2016 #42

If you're suggesting "knowingly and willfully" applies only to "communicates" onenote May 2016 #55

Secs. 793 (e) and (f) are like DUI. You don't have to intend to violate the law leveymg May 2016 #61

So, are you a lawyer, or an FBI agent? rusty fender May 2016 #117

time for you to catch up. grasswire May 2016 #119

Lololol! rusty fender May 2016 #120

You're just embarrassing yourself. grasswire May 2016 #121

You don't have to be an attorney or an FBI agent Fawke Em May 2016 #139

Answer: Because of ill informed people, passing of CNN soundbites as "news". A certain demographic insta8er May 2016 #14

it's just a deflection. grasswire May 2016 #22

Because Trump is Hillary Insurance RufusTFirefly May 2016 #15

yes, I would not be surprised at a Biden/Warren swap out. grasswire May 2016 #24

Plus Whitewater... when that finally comes in she is toast! tandem5 May 2016 #16

And Bridgegate...oh wait, wrong person...but I'm sure she was somehow involved. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #68

Pray, baby, pray. randome May 2016 #23

well, its not really actual democrats taking that game IMO litlbilly May 2016 #26

But the Republicans did it too... scscholar May 2016 #27

Wrong of course. None of the had a private server in their home. BillZBubb May 2016 #59

It has become increasingly apparent that... k8conant May 2016 #29

Wouldn't the very existence/ set-up of the server constitute a violation/crime? AzDar May 2016 #33

No. tandem5 May 2016 #41

that's a deflection. grasswire May 2016 #43

No, the question was regarding whether the existence and usage of private email was against the law. tandem5 May 2016 #47

she had a private, unsecured server. nt grasswire May 2016 #48

That's right she had a private email that she used. Unsecured is relative as a number of tandem5 May 2016 #50

do you not understand the difference between a server and an email provider? nt grasswire May 2016 #52

I'm a computer scientist. I understand the concepts involved with this discussion. tandem5 May 2016 #54

Then why do you push a false narrative? Fairgo May 2016 #66

What false narrative? And what in particular did I claim that's not true? tandem5 May 2016 #67

The one that follows your questions Fairgo May 2016 #69

I'm not being hostile or negative, but I don't understand your response here. tandem5 May 2016 #71

As a fellow scientist Fairgo May 2016 #72

Maybe we differ on our respective interpretations of how she handled sensitive information. tandem5 May 2016 #82

Sounds like a hypothesis, Fairgo May 2016 #86

You're wrong here. Fawke Em May 2016 #142

Again whether or not she transmitted secret/top secret information via tandem5 May 2016 #155

That ignores Obamas executive order from the first week in office in 2009, IdaBriggs May 2016 #95

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! tandem5 May 2016 #97

Apologies - December, 2009 IdaBriggs May 2016 #98

You forgot a link tandem5 May 2016 #99

Wow - did you seriously post a Rush link? IdaBriggs May 2016 #108

yeah it was satire. tandem5 May 2016 #109

Not funny. It looked like you were implying that knowing this stuff IdaBriggs May 2016 #111

No it most certainly is not funny. tandem5 May 2016 #112

Watergate dragged on for 19 months Califonz May 2016 #34

Because the other candidate scares us. barrow-wight May 2016 #37

one thing that bothers me that no one talks about much. Punkingal May 2016 #38

Yes. grasswire May 2016 #45

I talk about it, but most people are ignoring it for some reason Hydra May 2016 #49

Frankly, I wonder how he can support her. Punkingal May 2016 #51

I just hope he doesn't get dragged in legally. grasswire May 2016 #56

I wonder why he let the Inspector General position stay empty so long eom trudyco May 2016 #128

I do not know. grasswire May 2016 #130

I've heard he does, and the feeling seems mutual Hydra May 2016 #63

Oh really? Rove ran 3 million WH emails thru a private (RNC) server... farmbo May 2016 #44

Where do you think she got the idea? And NO ONE believes the IdaBriggs May 2016 #96

That makes it OK, then? Fawke Em May 2016 #144

And how many were Classified? yourout May 2016 #153

When the indictment fairy and workinclasszero May 2016 #53

Government Finds Emails With David Petraeus That HRC Didn’t Hand Over antigop May 2016 #60

Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails Withheld from State Department antigop May 2016 #64

Unclear what will happen. But the use of the email server was due to paranoia andym May 2016 #74

I guess most of the world's hackers could access her server Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #80

Yes, if hackers knew where to look (there are a lot if servers out there) then andym May 2016 #85

It wasn't secure at all. Fawke Em May 2016 #143

I read that article, and its clear that much more could have been done andym May 2016 #146

No. That is a limited hangout. grasswire May 2016 #118

Paranoia can lead to law breaking andym May 2016 #122

i thought they already discovered work-related among them? anyone know? sure I read this amborin May 2016 #75

We already know that emails were sent to David Petraeus that were not included... lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #77

and there were others that were not included in the "official" dump. nt antigop May 2016 #88

Rumor has it the Russians have many of them AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #79

Well, your thesis is not true. You're confusing DOD with State. They're not the same. MADem May 2016 #81

The deleted email pdsimdars May 2016 #89

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #116

'Why?' Becaussseeee ----------------------------- HILLARY!!!!! John Poet May 2016 #123

A very good question. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #127

I think being a Hillarian doesnt actually mean your a Dem laserhaas May 2016 #150

She handed over 30,000, but had 31,000 that are also being divided up... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #161