Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
psst, about that imminent indictment . . . (Original Post) ucrdem Mar 2016 OP
You and Snowden agree on one thing. leveymg Mar 2016 #1
As far as I can tell she outfoxed the VRWC and this is all about butt-hurt. ucrdem Mar 2016 #2
The fox has been cornered and the terrier is digging it out. leveymg Mar 2016 #5
Well I'll give you credit for getting to the bottom of the butt-hurt. ucrdem Mar 2016 #6
I'm not the one who has to worry about the contents of the report. leveymg Mar 2016 #7
I suspect it will be a long wait. ucrdem Mar 2016 #8
Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #10
Your link is from Aug 2015. We know now that that isn't true & RiverLover Mar 2016 #14
And, most importantly, HRC herself sent 104 emails containing classified materials. leveymg Mar 2016 #15
She'll also lose her security clearance Oilwellian Mar 2016 #21
That's a grey area that hasn't been tested. She could fire a lot of security officers until one leveymg Mar 2016 #22
All classified retroactively. Funny how you all leave that out. upaloopa Mar 2016 #27
Why couldn't she just log into her email from a protected PC? Fawke Em Mar 2016 #32
I don't think Obama will pardon her but I do believe a deal might be negotiated Samantha Mar 2016 #3
Pardon her for what conviction for what crime? ucrdem Mar 2016 #4
Don't need a conviction leftynyc Mar 2016 #9
Okay but at least Watergate was a break-in. That's a crime. ucrdem Mar 2016 #11
Hillary is not going to be indicted leftynyc Mar 2016 #12
Onward to bathroom-breakgate . . . film at 11 ucrdem Mar 2016 #13
Here's the applicable felony statute, Executive Order violated, and even a lesser included charge leveymg Mar 2016 #16
"to be used to the injury of the United States" ucrdem Mar 2016 #17
You misread that - intent to do so is expressly not required in (e) and (f). Go back and you'll see leveymg Mar 2016 #18
Neither e nor f are any more relevant. ucrdem Mar 2016 #19
Again, you are misreading or purposely obtuse. leveymg Mar 2016 #20
Because not only is there no intent and no harm, it provably PREVENTED harm. ucrdem Mar 2016 #23
That's no defense for Hillary. leveymg Mar 2016 #25
A person can only be pardoned if they have been convicted of a crime, I think Samantha Mar 2016 #35
What does one have to do with the other?? nt B2G Mar 2016 #24
About the FBI's ability to crack a locked I-phone. leveymg Mar 2016 #26
The FBI has already recovered most of what it needs from the server. eom Fawke Em Mar 2016 #33
No but some... hrmjustin Mar 2016 #28
Silly. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #29
I'll agree with this. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #34
Real bad. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #36
No, his legacy will be just fine because Clinton didn't commit a crime. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #37
The lack of logic by Hillary fanatics is unbounded. BillZBubb Mar 2016 #30
What does that have to do with an unsecure private email server? Fawke Em Mar 2016 #31
. ucrdem Apr 2016 #38

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. You and Snowden agree on one thing.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:53 AM
Mar 2016

I agree on the other. A pardon is more probable. But that doesn't mean she gets to sleep in the White House again.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
2. As far as I can tell she outfoxed the VRWC and this is all about butt-hurt.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:00 AM
Mar 2016

They wanted her to communicate with a Windows CE shoephone. She declined. And then surprise surprise her diplomatic correspondence got "hacked" and splashed around the universe. Gee, who could have predicted that? But her personal communications weren't. Thus email-gate was born anyway out of sheer spite. End of story.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. The fox has been cornered and the terrier is digging it out.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:20 AM
Mar 2016

I'm not sure the shoe phone story accounts for a blunder this big. I think she expected head of agency immunity for all her communications, and didn't expect Sid and some others to salt the system with NSA tearoffs. The "keep em coming" response was almost as arrogant as "send it unsecure" was stupid. So, I think she and Petreaus ended up screwing themselves. She clearly didn't expect any of this to be made public.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
6. Well I'll give you credit for getting to the bottom of the butt-hurt.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:23 AM
Mar 2016

So to speak. I didn't want to say it. But their cases have nothing in common beyond the use of email that I can see.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
8. I suspect it will be a long wait.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:38 AM
Mar 2016

If there's a single fresh speck of dead horse I'd guess around October. Otherwise, don't count on it.

BlueStateLib

(937 posts)
10. Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:16 AM
Mar 2016

of the law.

Anne M. Tompkins, 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.

When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer.

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/

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
14. Your link is from Aug 2015. We know now that that isn't true &
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:53 AM
Mar 2016

the total number of Clinton emails that hold classified material exceeds 2,000, and we know at least 22 had top-secret information.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
15. And, most importantly, HRC herself sent 104 emails containing classified materials.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:52 AM
Mar 2016

Lower level employees have gone to jail for just a fraction of this. There will be a cost to her, if it isn't indictment, she's going to lose something that she's worked for a long time to obtain. Power.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
21. She'll also lose her security clearance
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:43 AM
Mar 2016

How does one become president if they can't see or handle classified material?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
22. That's a grey area that hasn't been tested. She could fire a lot of security officers until one
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:45 AM
Mar 2016

grants her clearance, I suppose. Think Saturday Night Massacre that lasts 4 years or more.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
27. All classified retroactively. Funny how you all leave that out.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:59 AM
Mar 2016

You also leave out that Hillary and Rice and Powell all had retroactive reclassification of emails.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
3. I don't think Obama will pardon her but I do believe a deal might be negotiated
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:02 AM
Mar 2016

And terms of that deal will probably comport with your second sentence.

Sam

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
4. Pardon her for what conviction for what crime?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:20 AM
Mar 2016

Seriously. Discussing this thing is like trying to nail down cotton candy.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
11. Okay but at least Watergate was a break-in. That's a crime.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:17 AM
Mar 2016

Not a terribly uncommon one perhaps but at least it's a crime. With email gate? Pffft.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
12. Hillary is not going to be indicted
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:30 AM
Mar 2016

That's fevered fantasy bullshit believed by both the far right and the far left. But you're right - at least with Watergate, there was an underlying crime that others did go to jail for.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
16. Here's the applicable felony statute, Executive Order violated, and even a lesser included charge
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:59 AM
Mar 2016

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.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
18. You misread that - intent to do so is expressly not required in (e) and (f). Go back and you'll see
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:12 AM
Mar 2016
has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"

No requirement in (e) to prove intent to do such injury, prosecution just has to show that potential and that a reasonable person would have seen it prior to the act. Major difference from proving intent to harm the national interest.

(f) just requires gross negligence in mishandling information without even knowing that might cause harm.

There's even evidence to support (g). Double your trouble.

She's kaput.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
19. Neither e nor f are any more relevant.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:28 AM
Mar 2016

There's no unauthorized access, no removal, no negligence, no treason, no malfeasance, nothing. It's pure butt-hurt and that's obvious.

p.s. now if you want to talk about our previous hero Snowden, that's another story, isn't it?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
20. Again, you are misreading or purposely obtuse.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:39 AM
Mar 2016

I'll deal only with what you think is relevant, below, but the FBI and a prosecutor would see it differently.

Setting up the server and inducing staff and others to use it as the sole means to reach her by email created unauthorized access. She only had legal access and declassification power (as head of agency declassification) over documents that originated at State. All other classified materials that ended up on the server -- and there were many, including the 22 TS/SAP -- created unauthorized access for others. Read that section more closely. Unauthorized access is just one of several possible bases for the charge.

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,

She certainly had access, and in the case of DOS classified materials she posted, control over classified documents.

HRC also ordered her subordinates, on at least one occasion, to email her classified information and to strip off the classification stamps before doing so.

She removed the record of these documents from the Department by setting up her own email system and waiting two years to turn it over, and not until served with a court order.

Oh, if you don't think that was negligence, you should drink more Kool-Aid and put yourself out of your misery.

Treason isn't one of the charges, unless you think so.

Malfeasance is the least of it.

Why are you obsessed with butt-hurt?

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
23. Because not only is there no intent and no harm, it provably PREVENTED harm.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:45 AM
Mar 2016

Butt-hurt = insisting that a crime committed by a rat-fink like E Snowden has some conceivable relation to reasonable and legal precautions taken by a former Secretary of State. It does not.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
25. That's no defense for Hillary.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:53 AM
Mar 2016

A more proper parallel is with CIA Directors Petraeus and, particularly, Deutch. You should read up on those cases and outcomes as well, and then come back.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
35. A person can only be pardoned if they have been convicted of a crime, I think
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 12:16 PM
Mar 2016

and I should not have used that word. I fell into it because it had been used, and people are saying that. But I do think a crime has been committed, but there has been no conviction, but to avoid an indictment, a deal might be negotiated.

Sam

tazkcmo

(7,286 posts)
29. Silly.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:07 AM
Mar 2016

The actual outcome of this investigation is already predictable. There will be no indictment, that we agree on. The problem arises when considering public perception. Outside of the 15%-20% of the voting public (A majority of the Democratic Party which is about 30% of the registered voters and shrinking) there is already a large credibility gap for Sec Clinton to over come and this story certainly doesn't help close that gap.

Cruz is a Christian Taliban zealot but isn't under FBI investigation.
Trump is too many bad things to list but isn't under FBI investigation.

Also, neither has as long of a trail of "scandals" that Sec Clinton has on her resume. Having already thrown Democratic white males, millennials and Sanders' female supporters (They're in a special place in Hell) under the bus, the Clinton campaign is going to have to persuade the rest of the voters that do not trust her that she's trust worthy. This investigation is just the thing to do that? Good luck.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
34. I'll agree with this.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:32 AM
Mar 2016

Although I do wonder if the Obama Justice Department might have to allow an indictment to protect his legacy.

At this point, he can claim he didn't know she was using a private server that data security officials told her not to use (and I do believe he didn't know about it) so he has plausible deniability. If he blocks and indictment, that makes HIM look bad.

tazkcmo

(7,286 posts)
36. Real bad.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 12:38 AM
Mar 2016

I also believe she did this with out his knowledge. Why would he even think about it? I try to imagine the POTUS sitting in the oval office alone, pondering what type of IT infrastructure a particular appointee is setting up and I just can't manage it. So yes, if he blocks an indictment we have to ask why.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
37. No, his legacy will be just fine because Clinton didn't commit a crime.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 12:42 AM
Mar 2016

Only radical tea party crazy types would think Obama is corrupt if he doesn't prosecute Hillary Clinton.

But they think that anyways. Because they are loons.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
30. The lack of logic by Hillary fanatics is unbounded.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:22 AM
Mar 2016

This is a non-sequitur. We don't know exactly what the FBI is looking into on the Clinton emails.

There probably isn't going to be an indictment, but to rest assured on that is wishful thinking at this point.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
31. What does that have to do with an unsecure private email server?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:28 AM
Mar 2016

Answer: Nothing

In fact, the ONLY thing this issue has in common with Clinton's server is that both were probably hacked. The difference is that the FBI hacked the phone while any 12-year-old with a small bit of hacking knowledge could get into the Clinton server since it used no dual authentication, encryption or VPNs and connected directly to the Internet.

Technology FAIL.



(P.S. David Kravets and I hold similar positions in the cyber security industry. Just saying.)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»psst, about that imminent...