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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
3. The relevant statute with the operative word italicized
Sat Aug 29, 2015, 10:00 AM
Aug 2015
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
Talk about a desperate media going into the weeds to find....something, something.....strange Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #1
Is "lack of judgment" something you want in a President? forthemiddle Aug 2015 #13
Because if the "judgment" label peels off maybe the folks will buy the "arrogant" label....funny stuff. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #15
Guess what forthemiddle Aug 2015 #22
Whew! Good to know! At least I convinced someone at DU to not vote for Trump. My work on Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #24
LOL forthemiddle Aug 2015 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2015 #55
Whitewater all over again mcar Aug 2015 #16
BENGHAZI!!11 BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #26
Well said. nt Cali_Democrat Aug 2015 #49
Clinton loyalists won't believe a word of it. Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #2
Clinton "loyalists" understand that allying with the propaganda of the corporate mass media is a bad move. Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #4
Most people will think you are the propagandist here. Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #6
The only thing "seriously damaged" has been the credibility of the corporate mass media, but Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #9
Fred, I will talk to you because you are rational. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #7
My fear is that the FBI/DoJ investigations won't be done until after she wins the primary askew Aug 2015 #18
It seems very likely the investigations will go beyond super-Tuesday HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #30
I know I am speculating Puzzledtraveller Aug 2015 #43
The relevant statute with the operative word italicized DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #3
That's Sec. 1924, a different section of the Act. See, Sec. 793, link below leveymg Aug 2015 #8
You are citing the Espionage Act and ignoring the Preamble... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #10
That section refers to different crimes as specified at subsections (a),(b) and (c) leveymg Aug 2015 #11
Precisely DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #14
You're citing from a different part of the Act. Note the different language, particularly at (f) leveymg Aug 2015 #23
Before we continue I need documentation DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #31
That's detailed in the Reuters article, linked above. leveymg Aug 2015 #34
From said article DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #35
The spokesman is at odds with the Department's own IG. Recall that both the State and IC IGs leveymg Aug 2015 #38
There is an interdepartmental dispute about classification. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #40
But, the DOJ now has a lot of leverage. Sec. 793 felony or plead down to Sec. 1924. Leverage leveymg Aug 2015 #48
BUt, but, but... HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #5
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2015 #12
Polls show that isn't true. People are paying attention and her trustworthy #s are askew Aug 2015 #19
And polls are always, always spot on, right, askew? BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #29
Nope. They sure don't...unless they're rooting for her opponent(s). BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #28
"Screwed up email" might be omission of caps, bad spelling, and run-on sentences. leveymg Aug 2015 #32
Clinton is filthy rich, and the chosen candidate of the oligarchs, so Zorra Aug 2015 #17
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... Fred Sanders Aug 2015 #21
Help me understand zalinda Aug 2015 #20
The issues with her use of a private, unsecured email server involve classified information leveymg Aug 2015 #27
You are misstating the law. DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #33
You need to specify how you think there's a misstatement. You still haven't. leveymg Aug 2015 #36
Okay DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #37
The State Dept. made no such determination about any laws broken. That's a fallacy. leveymg Aug 2015 #39
Of course "gross negligence" is a criminal standard... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #41
Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #42
No, the FBI is NOT investigating Hillary - not their A Team, their B Team, or their C Team. George II Aug 2015 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2015 #45
She is not a target. n/t ColesCountyDem Aug 2015 #46
Just her unauthorized server on which she had classified information is the target. At this point. leveymg Aug 2015 #58
Thanks for following this and doing these updates. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #47
Here are some more updates...most not mentioned on this thread... Sancho Aug 2015 #50
From a reliable source as opposed to Facebook, personal attorney, or political ally Media Matters. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #53
This report has been debunked.... Sancho Aug 2015 #54
It has not been debunked. The FBI has taken over the investigation which is still in progress. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #56
Like the links said... Sancho Aug 2015 #57
Nothing from nothing is still nothing. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #51
Trouble In Paradise cantbeserious Aug 2015 #52
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»CNN and Reuters: Inspecto...»Reply #3