2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumpsst, about that imminent indictment . . .
It appears that 4-digit iPhone passcode was not the fearful problem we were told it was:
Mar 21, 2016
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/fbi-says-it-might-be-able-to-break-into-seized-iphone-wants-hearing-vacated/
There isn't going to be an indictment, either. Rest assured.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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)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)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.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Or, will it be a referral?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)If there's a single fresh speck of dead horse I'd guess around October. Otherwise, don't count on it.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)of the law.
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 Clintons 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)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)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)How does one become president if they can't see or handle classified material?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)grants her clearance, I suppose. Think Saturday Night Massacre that lasts 4 years or more.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You also leave out that Hillary and Rice and Powell all had retroactive reclassification of emails.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Was she just "too good" for that?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)And terms of that deal will probably comport with your second sentence.
Sam
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Seriously. Discussing this thing is like trying to nail down cotton candy.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for a pardon. You don't even need an indictment. See Nixon.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Not a terribly uncommon one perhaps but at least it's a crime. With email gate? Pffft.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)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.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So sorry but this meme is fail
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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)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.
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)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)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)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
B2G
(9,766 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)"Democrats" on this board are excited about the possibility.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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.)
kick