Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server

[leveymg]

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.

The facts:

NYT: F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.

They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.

F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.

Four para limit stops here. But, I will in all fairness stipulate that this article goes on to say that HRC is not at this point the target of the investigation. However, Reuters has since reported that her unsecured private server email system contained "presumed classified" materials. Hillary personally exchanged such presumed classified information with Sidney Blumenthal, and those communications were intercepted and publicly released by a Romanian hacker. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/

The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)

Secretary Clinton was trained in handling of classified materials, and acknowledges that she understood them. By transmitting and receiving email correspondence that contained information gleaned from foreign government sources on an unauthorized, insecure system, she violated the law. This was not something she did unwittingly, and that the foreign government sourced material was not stamped classified is irrelevant.

On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.

All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.

Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged and convicted even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141184063, see also, http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/ ; and, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html


Applicable statutes and Executive Order:

1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.

Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:

The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: "is to be used"

The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"

Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:

(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—

The differences between Sections (e) and (f) and the various other offenses covered in Section 793 comes down to the element of intent to injure the US or act to the advantage of a foreign power. These are not requisite elements of the offenses covered under these sections of the Espionage Act.

2) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

That law requires heads of agencies -- no exception for DOS -- to preserve and turn over all official correspondence and records to the National Archives. She didn't do that until confronted after a Romanian hacker leaked Hillary's email correspondence with Blumenthal. Those emails were clearly official not private. HRC admits to destroying at least 30,000 emails she deemed private and turned over approximately 30,000 her lawyers found to be public documents. However, a number of other emails have subsequently been turned over and analyses by news agencies. Reuters reported that a number of them to contain presumed classified information.

Hillary had also failed to provide these records to meet a FOIA request and Congressional Committee subpoena, which violates other federal laws.

Those emails and many like them were most recently found to contain "presumed classified" materials about US communications with foreign governments. That was a violation of Executive Orders, and possibly the 1917 Espionage Act that criminalizes private retention or mishandling of classified materials.

Intent to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power is not required under Sec 793 (e) and (f). The mere fact of unauthorized removal or destruction of materials the official should have known were classified are all that is required for conviction under these parts of the Espionage Act. Hillary should have known.

Removal is obvious from the fact that she ran her private server out of her own house. There have been several recent convictions under these provisions of lower-ranking officials, as well as the forced retirement and referral to the Justice Department of CIA Director John Deutch for taking home classified materials on his personal laptop and connecting to the internet.

We know that she sent and exchanged presumed classified materials with Syd Blumenthal. Read the Reuter article linked. Bluementhal's email with Hillary on her server was intercepted and published by a Romanian hacker. That's how this whole thing came to light.

Sorry, she's done herself in, and has no one else to blame except some overzealous aides and risk-seeking lawyers.


Potential Prosecution:

At this point, the FBI is investigating the server and network history before a decision is made whether to proceed with prosecution and what charges to seek from a federal Grand Jury.

The facts are clear that she was operating her own private server and that "presumed" classified materials were shared on that unsecured device. The FBI won't come out and say she's the target until a series of decisions have been made. That Biden is signalling he's readying his candidacy tells me that probable cause exists and the system has already been found to have been breached. In fact, we know that a Romanian hacker obtained email containing presumed classified information between Blumenthal and Hillary, and that she responded to him. We also know that she was trained not to do anything like this, she acknowledges that, but she went ahead and continued to did it anyway.

This is serious, not a pseudo-scandal.

_____________________________________________
Complete copy of relevant sections of law and Executive Order

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

2) Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.

. . .

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

C) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

[DURHAM D]

1. This belongs in CT. nt

[KMOD]

3. Yup!

[randys1]

90. Why are outright lying smears of DEMOCRATIC candidates allowed on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?

ANYONE?????

[moobu2]

166. I dont know but this is getting very old quick

[Jamaal510]

201. Either the jury system

should be tweaked, or some moderators need to be brought in. The rules aren't enforced enough around here.

[revbones]

238. Um, because some are true? nt

[leveymg]

4. For those who can't or won't discuss the facts or the law, there is always the comfort of snide

The "CT" smear is the last refuge of the truly clueless and lazy.

[Metric System]

7. Are you an expert on this? Seeing as you're a Sanders supporter you're certainly biased and have an

agenda.

[magical thyme]

60. the sources are clearly experts

The poster doesn't need to be an expert.

[Huddie94]

230. And Hillary Clinton certainly never transferred classified info to her server.

That was not her job. She read the information, yes. That was part of her job.

This is absolutely clear under law:

F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

That quotes the main source. It is exactly correct.

Hillary Clinton's aides may well have violated the letter of security law. And since the Secret Service arranged the procurement for that server, the aides have available a solid defense that they could have had no way, ever to find out that security inside that server was inadequate.

No one was trained. Not for servers. Not for the details of security protections.

Petraeus knew what he was doing. The CIA Director pardoned by Bill Clinton knew what he was doing. These aides to Hillary had no idea that the SoS was using a server that failed standards that they were not even allowed access to the techies to ask questions about its use.

The whole mess bespeaks carelessness. Criminality on the part of Hillary Clinton ??? No way. And a claim that her aides should have possessed a crystal ball ??? Nonsense.

We don't prosecute people where their bosses adopt irregular/unique business resources and those errors toss the employees to the winds.

[magical thyme]

231. they were trained to recognize classified information

It was her duty to recognize and report it. She was also ultimately responsible for the security on the server. Obviously not putting it on herself, but ensuring it met government standards, which it did not.

It was her aide's duty to retain the labeling the CIA had given the data, not copy the data and leave off the classificatioin. Huma is potentially in big trouble. Hillary will escape due to her position, but she was ultimately responsible for the atmosphere of "anything goes" in her department.

[magical thyme]

236. if I understand something I read yesterday correctly, it was Abedin who

suggested using the Clinton foundation private server to begin with.

If that is the case, then I expect they are investigating her very closely.


There is no evidence whatsoever, not one item that Huma Abedin went light on applying what she knew.

One of her emails contained top secret data collected from 3 separate agencies. That data showed up in her email without being marked classified, never mind top secret.

There is also a matter of the security on the server itself, and whether it met departmental standards. They already know that for 3 months, the emails were not encrypted.

[Jester Messiah]

103. Ad hom.

"You can't believe him, he's a Sanders supporter!" You don't address the argument, you just attacked the poster. Fail.

[revbones]

239. It's all they have when faced with something negative about their candidate. nt

[pocoloco]

109. You might possible be right!!

The "agenda" is to elect the best person possible for the most important
position in the world!

Hard to do that with eyes closed!!

[Bubzer]

137. As agendas go, that seems a pretty laudable one

[riversedge]

64. Your headline is an opinion -not a fact. Take it down please.

[lewebley3]

118. Agreed: Riversedge: Hillary has done nothing wrong

[bvar22]

176. Besides, Hillary can still run for Preident,

.....even with a felony on her record.

Nothing to see here.

[revbones]

240. So if that's true then dispute it with facts.

Unfortunately you cannot.

[George II]

157. Your OP isn't a "smear"? This issue has been discredited over and over again, and has been...

...proven to be false.

So you bring it up yet again, for what reason?

[revbones]

241. It has not been discredited even once, let alone over and over.

Simply saying something was discredited doesn't make it so, despite how many times you guys say it.

[George II]

158. You have called Hillary Clinton a felon! That is FALSE, unconscionable, and inexcusable.

[elehhhhna]

251. No not quite.

[rhett o rick]

30. Why because you don't like it? CT is over used to lock or hide posts that some find contrary

to their world view. This is a "politically liberal" message board, but the non-progressives are quick to try to censor that which they take issue.

[DURHAM D]

39. and this belongs in -

"I bounce to bizarre conclusions" group.

[still_one]

89. I have no problem with this post, however, yesterday when a thread was posted about Bernie applying

for Conscientious Objector during the Viet Nam War, someone, most likely a Bernie supporter alerted the post, and it was locked. So when you discuss censorship among one group, perhaps the other group should look into the mirror, and they will see a double standard

[rhett o rick]

110. I missed that. Can you provide a link? nm

[PatrickforO]

55. What is CT???

[PatrickforO]

73. Oh. Thanks.

[Raymondo22]

211. Thanks. nt

[hedda_foil]

237. CT=Conspiracy theory

[lewebley3]

95. Why is this post Okay: its filled with slander: Hillary is not under investigation

[lewebley3]

115. But , The Host are very careful to hide post that disagree Sanders people

Thanks for your post Agschimd

[revbones]

242. So you're aware of all the intricacies of the investigation

including what the FBI has not released? Wow, I'd think you were supposed to keep that quiet...

[MADem]

2. .....

Well, she'd better get in line behind George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, etc., etc.

But hey, great gish gallop, there!

[leveymg]

6. Nothing would make me happier than a long orange line down Penn Ave of Bush-era

war criminals. But, their wrongs don't excuse Hillary's.

[Fla Dem]

151. Justice: Probe sought in Clinton e-mails, but no ‘criminal’ focus

"The Justice Department said Friday that it has been asked to probe the “potential compromise of classified information” in connection with the private e-mail account Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

The statement did not say who sought the investigation but noted that it was “not a criminal referral.” Separately, Justice officials said no decision has been made on whether to move forward with the examination of the e-mails — which are already being reviewed by teams led by the State Department."

More>>>>>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/24/report-officials-seek-criminal-probe-of-hillary-clinton-email-account/

Until the Justice Department says there is a crime, posts like the OP do nothing but add fuel to the fire of the RW. Democrats and Progressives who feel the need to tear down their own candidates are undermining our chances of keeping the WH. Much better to put all that energy and time into documenting your favorite's policies and tearing down the Republicans. Motives for this type of attack are suspect at best.

[MADem]

193. Amazing how many "Democrats" are so eager to throw one of their own

--and one who has done more for people coming up in the party, to include Sanders (she gave him money for his Senate run)-- under the bus. The eagerness and enthusiasm are frankly, mind boggling. Some of these posts just sound like they're coming straight from the other side of the spectrum.

Talk about PUMAs!! GRRRRRRR! I think in some cases, the cat-like reflexes are on the other paw, as it were.....

[JDPriestly]

146. Precisely. She should have thought about what she was doing, but it isn't as if she erased

files or handed military information to a boyfriend (doesn't even have one; I'm utterly certain of that, one thing you definitely cannot accuse Hillary of).

I'm not a Hillary fan, but think of how easily the computers containing personnel files of certain departments were hacked. I just don't think this is a big story myself. I could be wrong, but I think Hillary has much bigger problems.

[Doctor_J]

192. unfortunately the president decided to turn the page or look forward or some idiotic

thing, instead of holding them accountable.

[Metric System]

5. You have no shame. I see you're a Sanders supporter. What a shocker. I see two fellow Sanders

supporters have already recommended the thread.

[leveymg]

8. Hillary supporters also owe it to themselves to learn about her legal problems.

Come back when you have something more than partisan whiplash.

[Metric System]

12. Are you a legal expert? What are your credentials?

[brush]

15. You're over the line with this

Even Bernie has said over and over that he will not attack Hillary for the media.

No need to attack fellow Dems.

It's not rocket science to understand that.

Let the campaign play out and the best candidate will win the nomination then we all support the nominee.

We don't need other Dems doing repug dirty work on progressive sites.

[leveymg]

18. Why do you assume this is an attack? It's an analysis of facts and law. Dispute it on that basis

Don't just dismiss it without considering the issues raised.

[Metric System]

20. Are you a legal expert?

[leveymg]

23. Read the article and links - make your own determination.

[COLGATE4]

114. Short answer - No. But (s)he stayed in Holiday Inn Express. nt

[pnwmom]

117. Your amateurish analysis is worth the paper it's printed on. n/t

[brush]

43. Of course it's an attack

Who are you trying to kid?

Are you a Democrat? I'm really starting to doubt that.

If you're a Sanders supporter let his campaign stand on its own.

He's doing a great job, no need for his supporters to savage other Dems.

Especially when he himself has said he will not do it.

Stop doing repug dirty work.

[FlatBaroque]

52. Believe it or not

there are human beings walking among us who hold a set of values that supercede loyalty and allegiance to a political party.

[brush]

59. So why are you on this site?

It's called DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[FlatBaroque]

75. Pathetic

[brush]

80. Like I said, it's called DEMOCRATIC Underground

Last edited Fri Aug 28, 2015, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

To help elect Dem candidates, not tear them down.

[Raymondo22]

212. Aren't we also here to discuss the pros and cons of the different candidates?

That's why I came here. Am I in the wrong place? Is it against the rules to criticize any Democratic candidate?

[brush]

216. In many cases the criticisms have ventured into . . .

repug talking point territory — actual accusations of felonies committed and being responsible for the death of an ambassador.

We certainly don't need to do repug dirty work here.

Fair comparisons are one thing but that kind of over-the-top criticism is not what this place is all about.

[Raymondo22]

217. "Over-the-top"?

Could you explain what that means? Sorry, newbie question.

[brush]

218. A headline of an OP stated that Hillary Clinton committed a felony . . .

in the repug-generated, email non-scandal.

Another OP accused Clinton of being responsible for the murder of an ambassador.

I call both of those way over-the-top.

[Raymondo22]

219. Those are examples. A definition would be more useful to me.

Thanks.

[brush]

220. Don't know why that's hard to understand

The purpose of this site is to help Dem candidates get elected, not to tear them down.

[Raymondo22]

224. So it's OK to say something good about a Dem primary candidate---

--but one should never criticize one? I just want to be clear about this so I don't make any mistakes.

[brush]

227. As I stated in my earlier post . . .

Fair comparisons/criticisms are one thing but over-the-top (felony, responsible for murder accusations ) criticism is not what this place is all about.

We want supporters of all the Dem clients to not get so turned off or influenced by vitriol that they feel they can't support the eventual nominee.

[Raymondo22]

233. Thanks for the examples.

But examples are not very helpful to me. I still don't understand the general boundary for "over the top."

[busterbrown]

144. Exactly...

Poster needs to go to Newsmax

[randys1]

98. Oh for FUCKS sake, I am more liberal than you and your ten best friends and your

wildest imagination run amok could even come up with.

If you doubt me, ask me ANY question on ANY issue, you will rarely find anyone more to the left than I am.

BUT, I accept a reality that others havent, or arent accepting because they are not here for the reasons stated.

That reality is we WILL have a centrist government, if we are lucky, at best, when this is all over.

The best we can hope for is one of two outcomes; Bernie as president meaning we will have great ideas from the WH and not a single one of them will happen for at least 8 years or more or until the teaparty and blue dogs are all gone, or Hillary, Joe or Martin and more mainstream DEMOCRATIC party politics.

DEMOCRATIC party politics and ways of doing things is a far cry from what I, a liberal, wants.

Having said all that, the very idea that Scott Walker is president, and the cons control both houses or even one, to me means America is completely done and over.

So I have a choice, keep a very flawed, deeply corrupt, horribly abusive and racist system in place, or allow chaos, death and destruction to begin.

i support Bernie, up to the point where he is no longer viable, then I support whoever is.

Has NOTHING to do with loyalty to a god damn corrupt and fucked up political party, has to do with SURVIVAL

[Martin Eden]

133. If there is indeed a felony that could stick, based on the facts and legal statutes ...

... then what you and I want to prevent could very well come to pass: a Rethug in the White house.

This is not a matter of bickering between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters.

It is a matter of facts, the law, and whether this case could destroy the Democratic candidate in the general election.

I'm no legal expert, so I don't know if there really is a solid case for felony conviction here.

But it would be irresponsible in the extreme if Democratic strategists did not evaluate that possibility objectively and without passion.

[randys1]

135. If I beat my wife, I would be in trouble too.

Smears of Hillary are nothing new, that we see it constantly on DU, is.

To me anyway

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. The felony cited is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917

The legislative intent of the law was to punish spies and subversives.

It is not remotely applicable in this instance.

[randys1]

149. SMearing Hillary on DU is an all day , every day event

[Martin Eden]

147. So then, you are certain there is no legal case that could derail HC in the general election ...

... based on objective analysis of the facts and legal statutes in this case?

[erronis]

134. Thanks for giving voice to my feelings. Candidates that "play the game" are not what I want

in a president.

[randys1]

136. They can play the game all they want, as long as they arent republicans or teaparty

I expect ALL of them to play the game to some extent, including Bernie

Thus my comment about how bad our system is and how bad our party is if comparing to REAL liberal ideals, but compared to the alternative, we are practically saints.

[AlbertCat]

70. If you're a Sanders supporter let his campaign stand on its own.

Like Hillary supporters do!

[brush]

76. I'm one of the ones who thinks Dems should not be attacking other Dems

Kinda what Sanders himself believes in, and has shown by not attacking Hillary.

[AlbertCat]

85. I'm one of the ones who thinks Dems should not be attacking other Dems

But it's the primaries. You do realize they are competing with each other.

This is simply a piece that puts a bunch of info together.... on a message board. It's not an official Sanders platform, or an official anything. Hardly worth worrying about.


And if a Dem does something wrong, why shouldn't another Dem call them out?

We don't know if Hillary has done anything terribly wrong... I'll worry about it when the Repugs try to use it... for real.

But all this innuendo that Sanders and his supporters are hurting the Dem party is just as bad as you think this thread is.

[brush]

93. I've mentioned that Bernie himself has refused to attack Hillary

Some of Sanders' supporters going along with the repugs and helping them do their dirty work against another Dem candidate with this email non-scandal is disgusting.

Follow your candidate's lead.

Stop doing repug dirty work. They're dragging this out for as long as they can just as they did Benghazi, another non-scandal.

We should be better than this.

With all the attacks from both sides it makes one wonder if all vitriol will hold the attackers back from backing the eventual nominee once the primary season is over?

We've seen something similar before in '08 with the pumas who were vicious against Obama and didn't help in the general.

[AlbertCat]

122. Stop doing repug dirty work.

Stop voting yeah on Repug legislation.


But I knew what you meant. I didn't mean "you" as in YOU personally... more like "one".

I'm personally not worried about e-mailgate. But Dems should know as much about what the buzz is as possible if it indeed is gonna be a GOP smear and talking point. It would of course be more like carrying GOP water is it were irrational and just plain ridiculous... but apparently it's not.

[Onlooker]

203. Don't lie.

It's an attack because you declare she committed a felony. Who else is declaring that?

[frylock]

77. Addressing these issues is part of letting the campaign play out.

[brush]

83. Let the repugs do their own dirty work.

Are you guys going to holler "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi" next?

Another non-scandal the repugs milked against Hillary for as long as they could.

I don't get how other Dems fall into doing repug bidding.

[frylock]

100. Looks like Obama's DoJ is doing the repug's "dirty work"

[brush]

123. After the repugs have been fanning the flames for months

And here we have "Dems?" on DU joining in.

[frylock]

129. And it can all end with a phone call by the president..

but here we are.

[tblue]

229. ^^This and only this^^ nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Because you (and a few Bernie supporters) and the republicans say she has "legal problems"? ...

Okay.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I am willing to litigate the charges with the seminal poster as long as he stipulates neither...

I am willing to litigate the charges with the seminal poster as long as he stipulates neither one of us are lawyers and especially not lawyers who specialize in national security law.


The seminal poster has suggested Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1917 and is consequently a felon. i would ask him or her the legislative intent of the law and to list the names of the persons convicted for violating it and the circumstances behind those violations.

[appal_jack]

34. Anyone who thinks this issue will disappear before the 2016 election has no clue. k&r, nt.

[busterbrown]

142. already has..

Everyone knows its bullshit.. Let me Spell it BENGHAZI.

[cali]

44. yeah Hillary supporters are just so upright

using antisemitic sites to smear Bernie

[Metric System]

51. Was that thread made by a Hillary supporter? Judging by the poster's rec list I doubt it.

[AlbertCat]

65. You have no shame.

What's to be ashamed about? That he doesn't worship the chosen one?

You have no shame, assuming Sanders supporters have no shame and lumping them all together.

Yep...desparation.

[frylock]

72. add me to your list

[leftofcool]

112. Oh hell, this thread will have a hundred recs by the end of today.

Funny, how some supporters of other candidates will so easily believe right wing conspiracy theories as long as Hillary is in them. This will all be over March 1st. Hillary will be the nominee right after Super Tuesday. Some candidates will do the smart thing and drop out and endorse Hillary or simply fade away.

[hrmjustin]

165. They hate her. The can say they don't but tgey do.

Very transparent.

[passiveporcupine]

196. Oh noes now a third Sanders supporter is posting in this thread

And I say stop this stupid crap about Hillary's e-mail. If it was wrong, her people (legal team) should have stopped her from using it.

This is a non issue that the GOP is trying to drum up false rage over because Benghazi is dead. We should not be part of this. We are better than this.

[revbones]

243. To you "No shame" = speaking truth? That's weird. nt

[Mike Nelson]

9. Yikes!

She's a spy, after all... I wonder who she's been working with - Iran, Russia, North Korea? ...many emails can be reclassified as classified, so the investigation could uncover a whole bunch of American spies.

[Metric System]

13. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[Mike Nelson]

16. Thank you...

...I shouldn't assume too much.

[FlatBaroque]

37. Most likely not a spy

Just a craven and opportunistic politician.

[hootinholler]

10. Thanks, Mark

I've wondered about the server and how locked down it was.

I don't think she was using even PGP in her communications.

[Metric System]

11. These articles disagree with you:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/state-department-officials-routinely-sent-secrets-email/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

[jberryhill]

17. Neither one of those articles even attempts a legal analysis by reference to relevant statutes

The first of those two articles boils down to "everyone does it".

I don't have an opinion on the OP, but if you have something that actually refutes it by way of an analysis directed to the cited statutes, then that would be more helpful than two links to conclusory articles - the first of which is not a refutation of anything.

Likewise, the second article discusses the frequency of prosecution and the reason why the existing scheme is too cumbersome for practical use. But that's not a legal analysis of anything.

[Metric System]

19. Is the OP qualified to give legal analysis? He still hasn't answered that question.

[leveymg]

21. Yes.

But, any intelligent person should be able to decide for themselves based upon the information I've provided. Draw your own conclusions.

[Gothmog]

120. Really?

Are you a member of the bar?

[Gothmog]

260. You never answered my question but your posts tell me all I need to know

[jberryhill]

22. Well certainly neither of your op-ed writers are

I have no idea what you mean by "qualified to give legal analysis" since the author of the OP is not practicing law.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion on whether a law has or has not been broken. If I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, what are you going to say? "I think a crime was committed, but I'm not qualified to say"? Nonsense.

I gather we'll have to wait for the "legal analysis from a qualified commentator" before deciding whether or not Trump's notion that the 14th Amendment could realistically be re-interpreted to exclude from citizenship persons born to parents unlawfully in the US. That was, in fact, a minority opinion held by Supreme Court justices at the time of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649. Could that opinion change with a change in make-up of the court? Sure it could. Just as things changed from Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas.

So, what qualifications does someone need, in your mind, to state their opinion on an internet message forum?

What are your qualifications to determine who is qualified to state an opinion?

[Metric System]

25. It's an opinion presented as fact. Just look at the title: "Hillary's Felony."

[jberryhill]

27. My goodness, an opinion presented as fact. On the internet.

[leveymg]

29. If you have a different opinion based in fact, express it. Here's your chance.

[Gothmog]

181. Clinton email violated no laws or policies

This is not an opinion but a statement from the State Department http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-department-confirms-hillary-clinton-email-violated-no-laws-or-policies/21851/

The State Department publicly confirmed today that Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while serving as Secretary of State violated no laws or policies that were in place at the time, bringing an end to the substantive side of the “email scandal” if certainly not the political side. Clinton’s opponents in the 2016 election and their followers have been hoping the issue would force her out of the election, but now they’ll be reduced to simply trying to create a scandal where none exists, after the department’s official words today.

State Department official spokesperson John Kirby appeared live on CNN today and flat out stated that “she was not violating policy.” Like many other high ranking officials who came before and during her tenure, Hillary Clinton opted to bypass the wonky email servers provided by the department due to the fact that they couldn’t, for instance, properly work with mobile email apps on smartphones. Previous Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have acknowledged having done the same. The news comes as a disappointment to those in politics who viewed the controversy as their best shot at catching up to Clinton, who has a massive lead in national polls both within her own party and across party lines.

Your analysis is really off and is completely wrong

[RoccoR5955]

46. OMFG! an opinion presented as fact

My hair is on fire!

Lighten up already. Grow some thicker skin, for cryin' out loud.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. The second link goes to an article by David Ignatius

Likewise, the second article discusses the frequency of prosecution and the reason why the existing scheme is too cumbersome for practical use. But that's not a legal analysis of anything.

Are you suggesting that if several experts in the field of national security law say Secretary Of State Clinton has no legal exposure that is of no moment?

The gravamen of the seminal poster's argument is that Secretary of State Clinton not only has legal exposure but is also a felon.


BTW, the seminal poster who has been banned from this thread suggested Secretary Of State Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1917. Since he or she can no longer respond to my queries could you please share with me and the rest of the readers of this thread the legislative intent of the Espionage Act of 1917, the history of the law, and the prosecutions under that law.

Thank you in advance.

[jberryhill]

116. Good golly

Are you suggesting that if several experts in the field of national security law say Secretary Of State Clinton has no legal exposure that is of no moment?

No, I am saying that a conclusory opinion stated in an article is not a legal analysis.

I don't even have an opinion on the original post, and the only reason I was marginally interested in the thread was that I was on the jury (6-1 to leave) on the original post. I've had all kinds of raging disagreements with the seminal poster in the past, and I'm not going to play the stupid DU game I'm invited to play here.

But it is in keeping with the DU tradition of putting words into other people's mouths to ask me to endorse the opinion stated in the OP, merely because I can tell the difference between "expert so-and-so expresses this conclusion" and something that is an actual legal argument.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. I take umbrage at folks calling other folks felons, especially if the folks being called felons...

I take umbrage at folks calling other folks felons, especially if the folks being called felons are folks I like*..

I can not discuss it with the seminal poster because his unduly harsh assessment of those that demurred from his opinion led to him being vanquished from this thread.

The suggestion Secretary of State Clinton violated a law, the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that was passed to prosecute spies and subversives is the type of treat one could only expect here or other similarly dark recesses of the internet.


*I am not accusing you of being a partner in this calumny but to to those that did and do it rankles.

[jberryhill]

127. Yes, the suggestion that a government official violated a law is offensive

I agree with that.

But wtf does that have to do with refuting the argument?

The thing is going to play out to whatever result it eventually plays out to. My expectation is that it will amount to nothing.

But I hardly think the world comes to an end because someone says "Here's a couple of laws and reasons why I think they were violated".

And then, in true DU fashion, you go on badgering me about someone else's opinion, merely because I observed that the responses to it are non-responsive.

I'm sorry I graduated from kindergarten, but I can recognize whether a counterargument is non-responsive to an argument, regardless of whether I agree with the argument in the first place.

[Gothmog]

119. You are using facts against a Howdy Gowdy inspired talking point

[Metric System]

14. 4 Sanders supporters and counting have recommended this thread. Interesting.

[LuvLoogie]

26. The 9:00 am mass at the Church of the Perpetual Authenticity

Me? I'm a Frisbyterian. We believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

[virtualobserver]

31. What you are forgetting is that Democrats are held responsible when they break the law

There is no Republican hypocrisy clause, especially with Trump running.....

He will call everybody out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. There would be more recs; but, ...

republicans don't (openly) post to this board.

[AlbertCat]

74. Interesting.

Not as interesting as the Op Ed tho'

[frylock]

81. I have here in my hand a list of 4 Sanders supporters and counting....

[passiveporcupine]

198. and one has called bull pucky on it.

but I guess you are only counting the defenders for a reason?

[bahrbearian]

24. K&R for Metric System

[Metric System]

40. What a joke. I'm referring to your post and this thread.

[msrizzo]

28. What's next?

A citizen's arrest? Where's Gomer Pyle when you need him.

[KMOD]

32. Chuck Grassley recommends this post.

[MohRokTah]

33. What are your legal credentials?

Because quite frankly, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Metric System]

36. He doesn't have any. It's his opinion and, as they say, opinions are like assholes...

[Gothmog]

175. I agree

The OP was not from a member of the bar

[Octafish]

225. What does that matter? Show where the post is wrong.

As no one has been able to refute what's in the OP, I'm siding with leveymg.

PS: So far, no one has been close to pegging what he does or has done professionally.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

38. Cool story, bro!

Keep fucking that chicken!

[Action_Patrol]

82. FYI: you were alerted on.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

84. I'm sure...

Not the first time I've been alerted on with that line, but never hidden (although, there's always a first time). Sometimes I include the video for reference, but not always.

[Action_Patrol]

86. I knew the meme. Made me smile

[Dr Hobbitstein]

87. What were the results?

Or is the jury still out?

[Action_Patrol]

92. 3-4 leave

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Aug 28, 2015, 09:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Cool story, bro!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=552771

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

There's a limit to comedy. This is beyond comedy.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 28, 2015, 10:08 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It IS comedy. It's an old meme. Leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: .....................................................................................................................................
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A drive-by, over the top insult. At least debate a little first if you're going to get upset like this.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Beyond Terms of Service.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

102. Yeah...

I first saw it on The Daily Show a few years back. Jon Stewart got a LOT of mileage out of that video.

[Cha]

204. I didn't know it was "old joke".. but i smiled 'cause it sounded like somebody the hell had to say

it!

[revbones]

244. Why project your own hobbies to others?

Are you missing something in your life that you really need to respond to something you disagree with, but cannot dispute with vulgarity?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

246. Why are you gravedigging old threads from August of last year?

And I say fuck a lot. Fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck!

[revbones]

249. I just saw the ignorant comment on a thread in the latest threads list so I thought I'd reply.

I didn't pay attention to the date.

Brilliantly mature though. Carry on.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

250. That's funny.

The only ignorance I saw was the OP itself. But the ignorant seem to love the false premise.

But hey...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

247. PS

You keep fucking that chicken.

[Purveyor]

41. When I first saw this thread on my phone I knew it would bring you 'lots of love'. Thanks for

posting.

K&R

[Metric System]

42. You just know somewhere in DC Trey Gowdy is stroking it to this thread.

[KMOD]

47. There was no classified content on her server,

Chuck Grassley is a fool.

There's your rebuttal.

[jeff47]

50. Then why does Obama's DNI IG say there was?

And why is Obama's FBI investigating the classified information on the server?

[KMOD]

53. Because Chuck Grassley believes on of his emails

was classified, even though most everyone else disagrees with him.

HRC gave her server to the FBI to put Chuck's worried little mind at ease.

[jeff47]

58. Chuck Grassley controls Obama's intelligence agencies?

even though most everyone else disagrees with him.

"Most everyone" being the State department. Not the DNI or FBI.

I keep bringing up Obama because he is literally the guy who decides what is classified. Congress punted on creating a classification system in 1947, and passed a law that basically says "Hey Executive branch: Go set up a system to do this".

Obama says it's classified, then it's classified. Obama says it isn't, then it isn't.

Right now State claims it isn't classified. The DNI says it is. The FBI thinks it is, but hasn't formally concluded the investigation - there'd be no reason for them to trace the path if it was not classified.

[KMOD]

63. He's the one making the stink.

This whole issue of "classified" emails solely rests with him. Although Gowdy and Issa probably agree with him as well.

[jeff47]

66. No, the DNI Inspector General is also "making the stink".

And the FBI wouldn't be tracing the path of the communications if the information wasn't classified. There'd be no point to doing so.

This isn't Benghazi. Clinton and company actually did fuck up. We'll see how much harm it causes.

(Also, I was still editing the above post when you replied. Probably doesn't change your reply but wanted to make that clear for any readers)

[pnwmom]

113. Not true. Anonymous sources are making claims about the DNI IG. n/t

[jeff47]

138. The DNI IG testified before Congress.

And he wasn't anonymous during his testimony.

[pnwmom]

140. And he didn't say this during his testimony. n/t

[jeff47]

154. He said they found classified emails during his testimony. (nt)

[pnwmom]

155. He didn't say they found emails that were classified at the time of origination.

And he didn't say they found anything labeled classified.

And, as you know, different branches of government are arguing right now about whether any of the disputed emails deserve to be retroactively classified.

[Metric System]

48. It's just your opinion, as your supporters in this thread have argued. That's about as much thought

as I'm going to spend on this BS/Right-Wing-fueled crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Res ipsa loquitur

Some say that following the letter of the law wasn’t good enough and question whether using the server was in keeping with the spirit of the law. That’s a fair question. Our view is that the efforts to preserve emails and produce those even arguably dealing with official matters show fealty to the spirit of the law. As does that fact that one other secretary of State also used private email for official business and virtually every Administration in the Internet era has been bedeviled by the mixing of personal and official emails at one time or another. Others may see it differently, but fundamentally, debating whether someone followed the “spirit of the law” concedes there was no crime.

As to the alleged mishandling of classified information, once again, the relevant law is crystal clear. The pertinent federal statute requires “knowingly” transferring classified information to an unauthorized location. Transmitting information that wasn’t known to be classified — even if the failure to classify was an obvious mistake — is not a crime under this statute. The latest reporting makes clear that even the emails the CIA now contends contained Top Secret information had no classification markings and did not reference any sensitive intelligence methods or contain any other hallmarks of classified sourcing,


Some partisans and pundits trying to find a way around this obstacle are hoping to find a way to convict without the requisite knowledge and intent, perhaps by arguing that negligence should be good enough. But the deeper they dig into antiquated and inapt statutes involving the theft of battle plans and the like, the more obvious it becomes that no crime was committed here. And all the wishful thinking in the world from opportunist political opponents can’t change that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/21/clinton-email-state-server-column/32042775/

Julian Epstein is former Democratic chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee and staff director of the Government Oversight, Reform Committee. Sam Sokol is former Democratic chief oversight counsel of the House Judiciary Committee.

[jeff47]

57. IMO, she's covered by the hole between 18 USC e and f

It was intentional, so it wasn't negligence. That knocks out f.

It also wasn't to a foreign government, so that knocks out e.

IMO we need to tweak some of the laws around classified. One, to close holes like this.

And Two, to make it legal to give any classified information to any sitting member of Congress. Right now there's things that only people on the intelligence committee can see. That's a pretty small group who may not be terribly interested in you being a whistleblower.

This would also mean we don't have Congress voting on things like the AUMF where they are unable to see all the relevant information before they vote.

[Jester Messiah]

108. That's going too far.

"And Two, to make it legal to give any classified information to any sitting member of Congress."

Have you seen some of the chucklefuck idiots that get elected to Congress? You'd need a full-time platoon of plumbers to plug all the leaks.

[Cry]

221. Well, it would fucking help make our case against TPP

if two was made legal.

[lewebley3]

61. This post is a lie; Hillary is not being investigate for anything: Nothing but a GOP attack!

This attack is aided and bedded by the New York Times: with
GOP sources. (New York conveniently leaves out facts when reporting
on the Clinton's).

Hillary only destroyed email after she was given the Okay by the
State.

She gave all her email up: and they returned 1200 they didn't want,
they gave the Hillary the Okay to destroy the emails they didn't want.

[riversedge]

67. Would Bernie Sanders say smut such as the OP? NO, he would not and woud be very

disappointed that one of his fans is spreading such vile smears. Shame on you.

[JackInGreen]

68. Dude...

Even with the tilted system we really can't say that outright. I mean....we can...We can accuse but it's not going to do anything without charges or a prosecutor. I'm with Bernie too so let's keep it like him. If he hit's her on it then feel justified, but let's keep it on our own positive positions please?
Not only dont we NEED to go after her to but it looks like tit for tat.

#FeelTheBern

[PatrickforO]

71. At high levels of government the laws are subjective. Everyone knows this.

It will likely be declared that Clinton broke no laws.

It was definitely poor judgment on her part, though.

[Fast Walker 52]

104. yep, definitely true

[DanTex]

88. Keep the recs coming! Yay right wing conspiracy theories on DU!

Here's the thing. The information in her emails was not classified at the time. If you had actually cited the entire executive order, you would understand this. In fact, you really just needed to read the first sentence of it.

Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

The key word here is "may." And the other key word is "all". Here are the conditions, "all" of which must be met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

The very first condition is that an original classification authority has to classify the information. An original classification authority is someone who has the authority to classify things. What this executive order does is clarify the conditions under which an original classification authority "may" classify information.

Section 1.4d, which you cite, does not say that information is automatically classified if it contains information about foreign governments (notice the lack of the word "classified&quot . What it does is indicate that an original classification authority may use the fact that foreign government information is contained in a document to deem it classified, and that they don't need to explicitly describe the damage that leaking it might cause because in such cases damage to national security is presumed. But even then, it doesn't force anyone to actually classify the information, it's still up to the discretion of the original classification authority ("may&quot . The original classification authority may also decide that despite containing "foreign government information", there is still no need to classify it, because the particular information is of no consequence.

And by the way, this presumption of national security damage extends only to the rest of this executive order, not to the entire US legal code. And it most certainly does not imply that any piece of foreign government information, however trivial (e.g. what flavor of ice cream was served at some foreign state dinner), warrants a 10-year felony if someone mishandles it.

In case this wasn't already clear enough, the executive order goes on to specify what happens after an original classification authority decides to classify something:

Sec. 1.6. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall be indicated in a manner that is immediately apparent:

(1) one of the three classification levels defined in section 1.2 of this order;

(2) the identity, by name and position, or by personal identifier, of the original classification authority;

(3) the agency and office of origin, if not otherwise evident;

(4) declassification instructions, which shall indicate one of the following:

Until this happens, the information is not classified. The order is very clear. At best, you can argue that the information on her server should have been classified at the time, and that the decision not to classify it was a mistake. Since we don't know the actual information, it's hard to tell. But, regardless, the information was not in fact classified, so this all adds up to nothing.

[Gothmog]

173. You are using facts against a conservative talking point

[hrmjustin]

174. It is our own bit of free republic right here. Makes me sick.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

96. I'm looking forward

to see what candelista has to say about this ....

[jalan48]

97. I thought the State Dept. already said everything was ok.

[nichomachus]

101. Translation

This is nothing but CT bullshit == Oh, crap, they caught us.

[pnwmom]

111. Utter nonsense. Numerous NAMED, not anonymous, sources throughout government

have repeatedly stated that there was nothing illegal about her use of the private server for her NON-Classified emails. There is no evidence that anything she sent was classified when she sent or received it. And all of her records were saved and provided upon request.

You can post all the legal-verbiage you want, it won't change those facts.

[pnwmom]

121. What you have done is equivalent to posting laws against murder

and then claiming the laws prove she killed Vince Foster.

Bravo.

[JoePhilly]

128. Vince Foster knew that Hillary planned to ...

... become Sec of State ... which she need to do because she planned to kill Chris Stevens by making it look like a terrorist attack ... which she planned with her assistant Huma Abedin.

They developed the plan, with the Muslim brotherhood, and its all laid out in the emails.

Its all so simple.

[pnwmom]

130. Wow. You should make this an OP. Make sure you put the word "felony"

in there, though. That will get DUers attention and they won't read anything else.

[JoePhilly]

131. The plan had a name too .... REDRUM!!!!

[SunSeeker]

161. LOL

[Catherina]

126. The issue about the private server isn't going away

especially not since it was hacked and the hackers posted enough of her emails on the internet for the FBI to track him down.

The FBI even had a press release about it before they caught him. They didn't name Clinton but now it's pretty clear. This isn't going away. The issue is the server, much more than the private email.

Romanian National ‘Guccifer’ Charged with Hacking into Personal E-Mail Accounts
U.S. Department of Justice June 12, 2014

Office of Public Affairs [phone]/ [phone]

WASHINGTON—Marcel Lehel Lazar, 42, of Arad, Romania, also known as the hacker “Guccifer,” was indicted by a federal grand jury today on charges of wire fraud, unauthorized access to a protected computer, aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking, and obstruction of justice.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia, Special Agent in Charge Edward Lowery of the United States Secret Service Criminal Investigative Division, Assistant Director in Charge Valerie Parlave of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Bill A. Miller of the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security made the announcement.

According to the indictment, from December 2012 to January 2014, Lazar hacked into the e-mail and social media accounts of high-profile victims, including a family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former U.S. Cabinet member, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a former presidential adviser. After gaining unauthorized access to their e-mail and social media accounts, Lazar publicly released his victims’ private e-mail correspondence, medical and financial information, and personal photographs.

https://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2014/romanian-national-guccifer-charged-with-hacking-into-personal-e-mail-accounts

[pnwmom]

139. What was hacked were the .gov accounts state department officials used,

not Hillary's server.

Another smearing-attempt fail.

[grasswire]

252. hello CAtherina!

Good to have your input here.

[grasswire]

253. This is where Sidney Blumenthal comes in, apparently.

"a former presidential adviser."

[blackspade]

132. Why are these threads continuing?

I'm definitely against Clinton for the primary, but this crap needs to stop.
Clinton has not been accused of a crime, none of her subordinates have, and the FBI hasn't determined that there was criminal activity involved in her e-mail handling.
Until that happens this is all speculation and doesn't need to be repeated ad nauseum at DU.
If something changes, fine. We can discuss it then. But until that time, this kind of post only further divides the membership at DU for good reason.

[KMOD]

145. Thanks for saying that.

This post is a bit over the top. As you've said, HRC has not been accused of any crime.

[pnwmom]

153. Because some people lack confidence in their preferred candidate, so they post garbage about others.

Fortunately, Bernie Sanders himself isn't like that.

[murielm99]

141. This again?

Yawn.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251473156

[AtomicKitten]

150. Recommended.

Very interesting read.

[liberal N proud]

152. SORRY, Righties, State Dept. Says There’s Nothing Illegal About Hillary’s Emails

On the Democratic side of the 2016 presidential race, people have been all over the so-called “scandal” surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The right has been treating the issue like it’s the new Benghazi (which, of course, is their other favorite “Hilary campaign slaying” non-scandal). They’ve even gone so far as to not only smear Hillary and claim that she is untrustworthy, but call for criminal prosecution. Who can blame them, really? After all, nobody on their side, even their unexpectedly popular frontrunner Donald Trump, has a snowball’s chance in Hell of beating Hillary Clinton in a general election.

Well, it looks like the right will have to find a new fake scandal to try to take Hillary down with. On Tuesday, a U.S. State Department spokesperson, John Kirby, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on New Day that there was no policy violation regarding the use of private emails.

“We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.”

Kirby also made sure to note that there was no change in policy during Hillary Clinton’s run as Secretary of State. So, in other words, as those of us who are on the sane side of the fence already knew, she didn’t do anything even a little bit wrong, much less illegal. That’s from the State Department itself.

























http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/25/sorry-righties-state-dept-says-theres-nothing-illegal-about-hillarys-emails-video/

[grasswire]

254. that is not the issue.

It's a frame.

[staggerleem]

156. What struck me about this post ...

... was the number of times the phrase "presumed classified" was used.

Presumption is quite similar to assumption - it ain't necessarily so, but somebody thinks it is. It's like a guy who really did rob a bank being "presumed innocent" until proven guilty.

So, exactly WHO presumes that these documents were classified, even if they were not marked as such at the time? Reuters? The State Dept? The media? The Republican party? leveymg?

And can we talk for a few minutes about the Government's allegedly "secure" mail servers? Who funds maintenance and upgrades to those things? Our skinflint, do-nothing, never-spend-a-dime-on-gov't Congress, that's who. According to Ms Clinton, the server did not work & play well with her smartphone. I can believe that, because Colin Powell (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707) had the same complaint - AND ALSO USED PRIVATE MAIL SERVERS as Sec'y of State!

As did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney while in office. The server they used was owned by Karl Rove & located in Kentucky. It was also used to tally the votes in Ohio during the 2004 election, for some "unknown" reason. Oh, and about 5 million e-mails from the period of the 2004 election were "lost" from that server, too (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820).

So, when do we bring a case against Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Powell for the same "crime" that Hillary is being hounded about? We DON'T, because they're REPUBLICANS!

One final word - this reply was written by a REAL Bernie Sanders supporter, who (like Bernie) realizes that IF Hillary does win the nomination, she will be the best choice for the Presidency, and I'm going to have to vote for her. I don't have to like it, and neither do you, but that's what the choice is going to be.

[brush]

163. A post from "an above board" Bernie supporter.

Good stuff, no felony smears as in the OP.

Get a clue, folks. This is what Bernie is about — not attacking other Dems.

[MADem]

194. +1,000,000! nt

[freshwest]

197. Agreed, I will vote for the winner. The alternative will kill people. Period. Not acceptable. n/t

[Cha]

205. ".. this reply ws written by a REAL Bernie Sanders supporter... " Not someone spreading

goPropaganda in his name.

Thank you, staggerleem

[Sancho]

159. This is old and simply not true - misrepresentations, lies, whatever - here are links to facts

https://www.facebook.com/TheBriefing2016/videos/vb.415405165314505/452560401598981/?type=2&theater

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-department-confirms-hillary-clinton-email-violated-no-laws-or-policies/21851/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/08/14/ap-exclusive-top-secret-clinton-emails-include-drone-talk

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/14/state-dept-shuts-down-foxs-anonymous-speculatio/204941

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/19/clinton-lawyer-no-undisclosed-e-mails-left-on-server-turned-over-to-fbi/

[Zorra]

160. Bottom line: She would not need a team of lawyers to cover her @$$ if she

had not done something significantly improper, and probably illegal, with this private server.

[passiveporcupine]

199. Once you get to Hillary's rank in politics, you always have a team of lawyers

Sorry, but you point is not valid.

[randome]

162. One of the most worthless OPs of the month. And that's saying something!

And now you're locked out of your own thread. Hope it was worth it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[zappaman]

191. One more hide and the poster takes a vacation.

That would be a shame cuz who would keep us up to date on this horrific scandal?

[grasswire]

255. there are no more vacations for jury hides.

isn't that the new rule?

[zappaman]

257. Yes, the comment I made in August of 2015 is no longer valid.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[hrmjustin]

164. I didn't know Trey Gowdy had an account here.

[moobu2]

167. Exactly. This is something you would expect on GOP.con

[hrmjustin]

168. The hatred of Hillary Clinton on this site is transparent.

[AtomicKitten]

177. Dems are concerned this would blow up in the general.

It's a legitimate concern deserving discussion without censorship in the form of heckling from one faction here immersed in cult of personality. She is not entitled, and we deserve a better, more reliable, less encumbered candidate.

[hrmjustin]

178. This garbage belongs at free republic.

[AtomicKitten]

182. Nonsense. I suggest you attempt to understand the

... implications of what the FBI is looking at. It's real. Federal laws may have been broken. And this is not going away. You need to understand the seriousness of the investigation. It's not a jihad against Hillary; how could it be? She brought it on herself. It's also not nothing. Your nasty response to the OP is out of line and you owe them an apology. You're better than this, Justin. Much, much better.

Regards.

[hrmjustin]

183. Better? Get over yourself!

You don't like that I call of republican bull too damn bad!

[AtomicKitten]

184. Alrighty then. Another toxic primary it is.

[hrmjustin]

185. Then don't patronize me.

[Cry]

222. Then I suggest first aid for your foot...

[hrmjustin]

232. My foot is fine.

[Gothmog]

261. Why go to the Free Republic when you can see the same material here

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. I have some questions for the seminal poster that I would request he or she answers

I have some questions for the seminal poster that I would request he or she answers.

You have mixed statutes and administrative directives. Could you please point out the penalties for violations?

Also, you suggest Secretary Of State Clinton has violated the Espionage Act of 1917. Can you please discuss the legislative intent of the law, the legislative history, and what prosecutions and specifically prosecutions of governmental officials have been made under the law?

Thank you in advance.

[hrmjustin]

170. This post shows some Sanders supporters will just post anything to take Hillary down.

This is what DU has become.


And yes this shows hatred of Hillary is alive and well on DU.

[okasha]

171. A falsehood from start to finish.

Maybe you'd better go back to playing with plastic light sabers.. You're no good at all at playing lawyer.

[hrmjustin]

172. Or back to free republic.

[okasha]

179. Or maybe Cato Institute,

given the attempt at intellectual veneer.

[hrmjustin]

180. And yet the praises continue to come in.

And they say there is no such thing as Hillary hate on du.

Souns like bullshit to me.

[okasha]

186. Trump has adoring fans, too.

The mental processes of both fan clubs baffle me.
I saw a Trump piñata in front of a little import shop on the way from the studio to supper yesterday evening. I wonder how long it'll be till he has company, given the loyalty to both Clintons here on the border. Maybe Sanders' supporters should be glad certain folks don't know too much about him.

Too bad our attorney friend isn't commenting on politics. He'd reduce the original post to confetti in a couple sentences.

[hrmjustin]

187. Yes he woukd destroy garbage like this in a second.

[workinclasszero]

188. Oh look freeper/Limbaugh /Hannity /Fox news

lies and smears right here on "Democratic" Underground!

I'm sure the RNC and the koch bros are greatful for all the work Bernie fans are doing for them!

[Gothmog]

189. The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

There is no scandal here despite the best efforts of Howdy Gowdy https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.....

Informal back channels existed long before e-mail. One former State Department official recalled the days when most embassies overseas had only a few phones authorized for secret communications. Rather than go to the executive office to make such a call, officers would use their regular phones, bypassing any truly sensitive details. “Did we cross red lines? No doubt. Did it put information at risk? Maybe. But, if you weren’t in Moscow or Beijing, you didn’t worry much,” this former official said.

Back channels are used because the official ones are so encrusted by classification and bureaucracy. State had the “Roger Channel,” named after former official Roger Hilsman, for sending secret messages directly to the secretary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had a similar private channel. CIA station chiefs could send communications known as “Aardwolves” straight to the director.

Are these channels misused sometimes? Most definitely. Is there a crime here? Almost certainly not.

The author of this article is reporting the opinion of actual attorneys who understand the concepts being discussed

[zappaman]

190. Yawn.

[Rosco T.]

195. Short reply to this post...

BULLSHIT.

No laws were broken, it was all allowed, she followed the law in effect when in the position.

Ex Post Facto laws are are expressly forbidden by that pesky thing called "THE CONSTUTION" Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.



tl;dr

BULLSHIT

[eridani]

200. Can we PLEASE stop talking about bullshit like this, and disscuss

--raising money from banksters, vote for AUMF, etc. You know, things that really matter?

[Onlooker]

202. Are you a Republican?

The tone of this post and that it's allowed to remain in DU is why I no longer contribute to DU. I support Bernie, but like Hillary too, and regardless know how important it is for a Democrat to win the White House. It's not the content of this post, but it's the declaration that she committed a felony. There's been no prosecution, no trial, no conviction, and quite obviously there are many ways to look at this, since there's no evidence she violated existing policy. All the above presumes that in some way she acted with malice. For instance there is no evidence she disclosed foreign government information. In fact, if Hillary is guilty, then leveymg's next step might be to show the Obama administration was complicit. I bet the Tea Party appreciates all the work levymg did for them.

[Recursion]

206. The fact that you mention her private server shows that you don't understand this case

The legal situation is exactly the same whether that email box was hosted on a private server or a State server.

[Hekate]

207. Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch

[SidDithers]

208. What a fucking pantload...

Sid

[stevenleser]

209. And you are completely wrong according to the AG who investigated Petreus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141193411

[DemocratSinceBirth]

210. Hindsight is better than foresight and Madame Secretary's judgment is open to scrutiny...

Hindsight is better than foresight and Madame Secretary's judgment is open to scrutiny... That being said, the evidence suggests she didn't violate 18 U.S.C. §1924 and the Espionage Act of 1917.

[John Poet]

213. It don't taste like chicken....

[apnu]

214. OK, if the 1950s Records Act applies

Then any SoS that's ever used email is probably a felon.

So I'm waiting for you to throw Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice under the bus.

Not gonna hold my breath tho.

Specifically on Hillary. Yes, they "they all did it, so its OK" excuse doesn't wash. But so far we haven't seen one shred of evidence that Hillary sent classified intel out to a private server. We have other staffers doing it, perhaps on her request, perhaps not. But even if she did make a request to send that data to her, as in a boss giving an underling an order, its on the underling to refuse a unlawful order. This is true of both public and private enterprise/organization.

Now if we want to talk about Hillary requesting classified documents sent to her public server, that's fine, but let's have some evidence of that first before we speculate wildly.

[brooklynite]

215. Have you contacted the Attorney General to demand her indictment?

Or will you be looking the other way?

[Octafish]

223. Gosh. Ex-CIA man is going to prison for getting a phone call from a reporter.

This sounds lots worse -- for both sides. When she was Secretary of State, it appears that Ms. Clinton didn't want others in the government snooping in on her innermost thoughts.

It'd be tough getting things done when the spies are spying on the spymasters who need the spies to spy on the Other.

Maybe she'll get a pre-emptive pardon.

[Thinkingabout]

226. Trying again, huh, good thing cooler heads prevail.

[tblue]

228. Then why hasn't she been indicted?

I'm for Bernie but this post isn't doing anyone any favors. If Hillary committed a felony, she'd be indicted. Full stop.

[RBInMaine]

234. Enough of this silly bullshit.

[Hoyt]

245. If I were on the jury, Not Guilty. Call it jury nullification or whatever you like.

You'd have to find a prosecutor willing to take a case where there was "no intent to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power." I think that would be difficult in an emerging/evolving activity like digital transfer of emails and information.

[FlatBaroque]

248. Kick for timeliness /

[Jarqui]

256. Hillary's "not marked classified" line or

"never sent or received classified information"

sure has a problem with this paragraph if accurate:

"F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation."

I'd seen other articles that came along later describing how they seemingly cut and pasted classified information from the secure server into their emails.

... which means the classified retroactively excuse is simply out the window. As is the excuse "it wasn't marked classified" because it was Clinton's duty to get it marked classified if it was. The rule is that it doesn't matter if it's marked classified or not: you cannot email classified material, marked or unmarked, on an unsecure server or network. One of Clinton's duties at the State Department was to oversee that did not happen.

I read this today and was a little shocked:
Clinton’s Email Guru Could Soon Be Singing Publicly

Though Clinton has claimed to have turned over 55,000 pages of records, another 50,000 remain missing — including at least nine emails between Clinton and President Obama.

I have not seen a second report to substantiate that so take with a grain of salt.

They did find 18 emails between her and the president that they woild not release. If nine more emails between the Secretary of State and President Obama are missing from her server (they probably have Obama's copies) and if they're obviously classified discussions ... she's got a big problem. That's looking like obstruction of justice where she deleted them so they wouldn't find classified material on her server. In the header of the emails, unseen by the Blackberry user, are the IP addresses - Clintons is likely to be there because her system wasn't secured ... so they can prove that email was on her server with Obama's copy of the emails. Her penchant for deception could be the end of her here if that report is accurate.

All this time and all those agents looking at this for many months ... there has to be a good reason.

[JonLeibowitz]

258. Kick for visibility.

[Orsino]

259. Still missing a step.

"Presumed classified" is not the same as classified.

If there is a "there" there at all, it should be easy to find a document that had been classified from which text or paraphrased information (unavailable from non-sensitive channels) was transmitted via unsecured means.

Until then, half-assed accusations involving retroactive or pseudo-classification aren't going to make much of a case. I suspect that the smoking gun some are hoping for doesn't exist--but astonish me.

[Gothmog]

262. This makes me smile

The FBI never found any intent to violate the law and so there will be no indictment http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/index.html

The question now becomes how long it will take for the FBI to conclude its probe.

Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.

Sources familiar with the investigation had previously told CNN the Justice Department's aim was to wrap up before the Republican and Democratic conventions later this month. The timing is crucial, because if Clinton were to be indicted before the convention, Democrats could perhaps nominate another candidate.

The law was very clear here

[DanTex]

263. So how did that work out for you?