Ex-Aide to Hillary Clinton Testifies About Email Server

[w4rma]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state testified behind closed doors for two hours Wednesday in the first in a series of depositions that are likely to raise more questions about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server just as she prepares for an election campaign against Donald J. Trump.

The former aide, Lewis A. Lukens, testified under oath about his knowledge of Mrs. Clinton’s private email system as part of a lawsuit brought against the State Department by a conservative legal advocacy group, Judicial Watch.

At least five other officials — including two of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — are also scheduled to testify in the lawsuit over the next six weeks in what promises to be an unwelcome distraction for the Clinton campaign.

The last deposition is set for June 29 — less than a month before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, where Mrs. Clinton is widely expected to win her party’s nomination for president over challenger Bernie Sanders.

Meanwhile, the F.B.I. is continuing to investigate the issue of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server to determine whether any federal laws regarding the handling of classified material or other issues may have been broken.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/ex-aide-to-hillary-clinton-testifies-on-email.html

[aspirant]

1. When will it be made public?

[LeFleur1]

4. Made Public?

They'll probably keep it up as long as they can into the campaign. But she's had every dirty trick played against her the Republicans can think up. She'll slog through their sh**. And she'll be a great President.

[99th_Monkey]

6. So you're saying that Hillary came by her dirty tricks honestly, i.e. from the GOP nt

[itcfish]

20. Amen!

Since the head of the FBI is a rightwing republican, anti choice man, he will do his best to drag this nonsense on until the election

[antigop]

7. Fitton said it could be as early as next week

Thomas Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, who took part in Mr. Lukens’s deposition, said afterward that he could not discuss the substance of the testimony because of the ground rules set by Judge Sullivan.

But Mr. Fitton predicted that once the testimony is publicly released — perhaps as early as next week — it would show “why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton have slow-rolled this and withheld a complete explanation of what went on with her email system. What we learned is going to be embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton and the administration — maybe more than embarrassing.”

[itcfish]

21. I Guess

that is what the Bernie supporters are praying for.

[itcfish]

22. She committed no crime

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-fact-checked-trumps-claim-that-virtually-every-single-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

[Maedhros]

30. Thank you, Some Guy on the Internet.

You're wishful thinking means so much more than real evidence ever could.

/ignore list.

[apnu]

26. Its a deposition leading up to a civil suit.

May never be public depending on how the civil suit turns out and what the judge of the civil suit decides to release.

[ViseGrip]

2. tick....

[FreakinDJ]

3. Oh that - its just a security review ...

[tomm2thumbs]

5. they just wanted to make sure everyone was trained in security review procedures

under oath and with a stenographer and lawyers present

[840high]

10. A Clinton supporter told me

so today. Must be true.

[merrily]

8. Hmm. Someone once told me: If you see a really big news story, look at it, but also look at what it

took OFF the front page.

What if that kerfuffle had not happened in Nevada. Which story would have occupied DU today?

[KeepItReal]

9. Once again...Exclusive Team Clinton testimony video:

[hopemountain]

16. thanks for this chuckle

[Contrary1]

23. "I plead the FIF."

[SusanLarson]

11. Wishes are not gonna make this go away

Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 02:46 AM - Edit history (4)

The FBI doesn't launch investigations unless they have a reasonable suspicion to believe the law has been broken. If Hillary was innocent, the investigation would have ended a long time ago. The fact that it continues and immunity was offered means that they have a bigger fish they want to catch.

She can claim she didn't intend to violate the law but the laws governing the protection of classified information do not require intent. The standard here is negligently, and no one can argue that by running a unsecured private server and sending information that she as the classification authority for the State Department should have known was born classified, especially the Special Access Program (SAP) materials; that she did not indeed act negligently.

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

Sec. 5.5. Sanctions. (a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:

(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;

(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or

(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.

(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:

(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b) of this section occurs; and

(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section occurs.

18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) states:

(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.

She's guilty and no amount of wishing or blaming a vast right wing conspiracy is gonna help her get out of it. A presidential pardon would, but would also would kill her electability.

I also think that the real crime here is the intentional concealment of responsive records by using a private server which was not indexed by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.

I think the record will show this was exactly the purpose of the private server and not "convenience" as claimed by the woman who has claimed that she never lied to the American people

Get that? Here is what she said in the video...

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail?

Using a private server to conceal official government records (emails are records) violates 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The penalty for which blocks her from ever again holding a public office under the United States.

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31819843

www.politico.com/story/2015/03/foia-hillary-clinton-email-daniel-metcalfe-116011

[RiverNoord]

13. You are correct about several things, but, well, just for clarification..

Probable cause is a much higher standard than the FBI or all state law enforcement uses as a basis for an investigation. Probable cause is the basis for search and arrest warrants, or arrests without warrants if circumstances dictate .

Investigations are often based on lower standards such as reasoable suspicion.

Just the gratefully non-non practicing lawyer in me slipping out.

[SusanLarson]

14. Updated

Updated thanks! Also added a video you should watch...

[leveymg]

17. I also largely agree with your take on 793. Here's a related post that goes into the

issues of whether intent to cause harm to the national security applies - that particular sort of direct intent is not a requirement under 793(e) and (f)). Instead, the element of mens rea (guilty knowledge), does apply, and is proved by the fact that she was warned by NSA that her Blackberry was unsecure, but she continued to use it anyway, and had it hooked up to her uncertified private server. Post with links here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

[frylock]

12. Delicious.

[felix_numinous]

15. Kick!

[madokie]

24. I think its pretty much set that laws were broken

the question is are there enough evidence to get a conviction. Thats the big question at this point in time.

[yourpaljoey]

25. Much ado about... something

[merrily]

29. k and r