Justice Department rules Hillary Clinton followed law in deleting emails

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The Obama administration told a federal court Wednesday that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was within her legal rights to use of her own email account, to take the messages with her when she left office and to be the one deciding which of those messages are government records that should be returned.

In the most complete legal defense of Mrs. Clinton, Justice Department lawyers insisted they not only have no obligation, but no power, to go back and demand the former top diplomat turn over any documents she hasn’t already given — and neither, they said, can the court order that.


The defense came as part of a legal filing telling a judge why the administration shouldn’t be required to order Mrs. Clinton and her top aides to preserve all of their emails.

“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

The legal brief said that means employees are required to “review each message, identify its value and either delete it or move it to a record-keeping system."



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/

It is the Washington Times so I will await confirmation.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Hillary haters wept.

Well...many of the Hillary haters also hate Obama and they will say this is Obama's Justice Department protecting Hillary so that she doesn't release the Michelle Obama whitey tape or something.

[leftofcool]

3. That sounds about right.

[leveymg]

2. If this is accurate, it relieves her from a lesser charge under the Federal Records Act but not the

more serious potential charges of mishandling classified materials under Secs. 793 and 1924.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. What charges?

She's been charged?

[leveymg]

7. more serious potential charges of mishandling classified materials under Secs. 793 and 1924

Verbatim. Note the qualifier, "potential." Reading comprehension is important, CD. Read the whole sentence before hopping back on your keyboard.

If there were no potential charges and damage to the national security, why would the IGs for the CIA and National Intelligence have concluded that Hillary's insecure email system contained classified material, including TS/?

[SouthernProgressive]

10. I think she is just going to claim the all new standards of "whistleblower" status. lol.

Must be a hoot talking about Snowden.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Potential charges? LMAO. I think I'd rather listen to a former US prosecutor

than an anonymous poster on a message board spouting nonsense about 'potential charges':

Anne M. Tompkins
12:21 p.m. EDT August 31, 2015

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

<...>

In sharp contrast, Clinton is not being investigated for knowingly sending or receiving classified materials improperly.

Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received. Additionally, the Justice Department indicated that its inquiry is not a criminal one and that Clinton is not the subject of the inquiry.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

Your 'potential charges' are never coming.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I believe he's implying she violated a subsection of the Espionage Act which is more ludicrous.

I believe he's implying she violated a subsection of the Espionage Act which is more ludicrous. That's the Michael Mukasey/Sean Hannity/Mark Levin wet dream.

[leveymg]

22. Read that again. She never does address the issue of presumed classified is deemed classified, as

the plain-language of the EO states. Instead, we hear the "retroactively classified' canard, which is not a legal term but a campaign term. A document or piece of information gained from a foreign government source is just as classified as a document stamped "classified." It is a violation of 18 USC 793 (felony) and 1924 (misdemeanor) to keep or transmit such information on an unauthorized system. HRC sent and received such classified information without authorization. It's an open and shut case, really, except to her supporters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. If it's an open and shut case you should be willing to wager on it.

It's an open and shut case, really, except to her supporters.

If it's an open and shut case you should be willing to wager on it. I had the courage of conviction to wager a body part.


If HRC is indicted I donate $1,000.00 to the charity of your choice:



If HRC is not indicted you donate $1,000.00 to the charity of my choice:


http://sabancommunityclinic.org/support-us/ways-to-give

Game...

Set...

Match...

P.S. There is no fiduciary gain for either of us. The money goes to charity.


And you deliberately misstate the law. Why do you do that ? Don't bother. I know why.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Why do you insist on patronizing people on the internet?

Verbatim. Note the qualifier, "potential." Reading comprehension is important, CD. Read the whole sentence before hopping back on your keyboard.

Why do you insist on patronizing anonymous posters on the internet?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Keep flogging that dead horse.

Bookmark this post.


If Hillary Rodham Clinton is indicted for anything I will cut off my index finger above the knuckle with a steak knife, (since I was a Boy Scout I can stem the bleeding before I bleed to death), roast it on a BBQ grill, put it in a mini hot dog bun, and eat it on youtube.

[SouthernProgressive]

8. I'm beginning to think they believe Gowdy has the power to indict.

I can't wrap my head around all of those carrying his water in progressive circles.

[leveymg]

12. No. The decision to prosecute will be made by the AG after consultation

with a number of federal agencies and the White House.

The decision how to proceed, and whether to actually prosecute, really is up to the President. I agree with some posters who say that they'll roast their pinkies if she's actually brought to trial. After all, there is always a Presidential pardon. But, that doesn't mean she's going to be let off entirely. More likely, everyone will conclude she's no longer a viable candidate in the General.

[SouthernProgressive]

16. yeah. Never going to happen.

I'm talking about cutting off fingers. Well, Clinton being indicted too. It's kind of comical some are still grabbing at this one. What does a pardon have to do with an issue where no one is even indicted? Or ever will be indicted?

[leveymg]

24. That's was the solution to the similar situation that arose when CIA Director Deutch took classified

materials home on his laptops and plugged them into the internet to watch adult movies. He mishandled classified materials, resigned, and the IG referred his case to the AG. The AG never prosecuted, and President Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office.

[Laser102]

32. Wow!! What does it take to make people understand she didn't break any laws.

I'm sorry to those that were in seventh heaven about her woes. This is one dream you had that will never be realized. What really puzzles me is why people think Hillary would deliberately do anything to hurt this country.

[SouthernProgressive]

33. Gowdy started something he knew would resonate with LIV's.

Overall, the stunt he has pulled here has been pretty impressive, starting with Benghazi. It's politics and Gowdy saw what he thought was the perfect storm and flat out sold it to LIV's. They started the political stunt too early and isn't going to end her campaign like they hoped. Actually, there is history for this, and it shows just the opposite. She comes out of these right wing made up scandals stronger every time. Every single time.

[leveymg]

35. Intent to do harm to the US is not a prerequisite of Sec. 793(e) and (f) or Sec. 1924.

The fact that an official with a security clearance misused, transmitted, retained or destroyed classified info is sufficient in itself for a conviction under any one of these three named statutory offenses.

Please do not try to understand why people conclude she broke laws when you, yourself, do not understand these laws.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Constitutional law must not be your forte.

The decision how to proceed, and whether to actually prosecute, really is up to the President

Constitutional law must not be your forte. It would likely be an impeachable offense if the president interfered in a investigation and prosecution.

[leveymg]

26. You think the Attorney General doesn't ever talk to the President about these sorts of things?

Consultation isn't necessarily interference. It's all in the framing. Cheezitz

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Cheezitz

You think the Attorney General doesn't ever talk to the President about these sorts of things Consultation isn't necessarily interference. It's all in the framing. Cheezit

Sad that you would implicitly compare President Obama to President Nixon and Attorney General Lynch to Attorney General Mitchell who politicized the DOJ during the Watergate era.

[leveymg]

34. No. I'm comparing this to what Bill Clinton had to go through w/Deutch.

See my comment to the other poster.

[rainbow fish]

9. I'll pass

I'd rather eat a turd sandwich than to see you cut your finger off to prove a point.

[SouthernProgressive]

11. Are you into freshwater aquariums?

And were not going to be taking part in any of the options mentioned. lol.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. No need for a diet adjustment as that will never come to pass

I'll pass. I'd rather eat a turd sandwich than to see you cut your finger off to prove a point.

No need for a diet adjustment as that will never come to pass no matter the most fervently held dreams of some, present company notwithstanding.

[rock]

5. Now will everybody make a big to-do about it?

No. In case you had to be told.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "I'm not a crook" makes one helluva campaign slogan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. That wasn't the intention of my post.

But thank you for your input.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. You're welcome.

[SouthernProgressive]

19. On a sad note.

It's actually a descent slogan considering who the other side is currently running. Some of them can't even make that claim outright.

[upaloopa]

27. On another sad note, no amount of evidence

to the contrary will stop the scandal merchants.

[askew]

25. Your title is a pretty big stretch.

The lawyers in this case are arguing for the government and trying to win their FOIA suit.

The DoJ did not come out and say that Hillary did not violate any rules, etc. That investigation will take place elsewhere within the DoJ, IG and FBI. Not in this court case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. My title is taken from the article

My title is taken from the article:

Justice Department rules Hillary Clinton followed law in deleting emails

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/



If you don't like the title take it up with the Washington Times, okay?

[still_one]

31. There isn't a smoking gun, but the MSM will continue the charade a little longer, though I suspect

people are tiring of this, and it will fade away

[oasis]

36. Too bad this didn't come out before the apology.

I'd love to hear Hillary tell the GOP, the media and the anti-Hills "you guys can stick it".

[mcar]

37. This should settle it

But it won't cause The Clinton Rules.