2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's 'classified' smokescreen hides real crime: Column
"Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not marked as classified or classified at the time.
The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word classified. The focus is on information respecting the national defense that potentially could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone entrusted with
any document ... or information relating to the national defense
through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody. A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.
The courts have held repeatedly that national defense information includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of national defense information in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be marked classified at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.
So why has this not been discussed in the television and print media? Why has Clinton not been grilled by her interviewers as to whether her emails contained national defense information that could harm the U.S.? Why has everyone bought into the marked classified rabbit trail? One suspects that many reporters and commentators have not bothered to read the actual law or are hesitant to blow the central defense of the Clinton campaign out of the water."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)US policy was anticipated and thwarted as a result, or operatives died, she has a problem and it shouldn't have been left in the political realm. Otherwise, it will be a background issue like Whitewater, etc, with other people thrown under the bus.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)would not have been any choice for those who were concerned about the issue as other than a way for Republicans to slam her
it would pop up in the newspapers and the attack ads, but discussing it could only hurt The Nominee: it'd rattle the cages on CommonDreams and DailyKos, there'd be some weighty analyses in The Nation and The Atlantic, but ultimately it'd have no impact
she'd skate and the vast mass of Dems would be complicit in yet another Clinton Coverup, joining ranks against those mean Pubs
RandySF
(59,105 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)What about the content of the article?
RandySF
(59,105 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)blm
(113,082 posts)IIRC, I'm pretty sure he has very close ties to Bush family.
Wonder what he had to say about Cheney outing a CIA agent and her entire operation?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)How quickly they abandon their erstwhile ally in foreign adventurism.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)blm
(113,082 posts)in regard to the outing of a CIA agent and her entire operation.
Don't you place people's opinions in the context of their other opinions and statements?
Perhaps you don't. I do. And I have a very long memory that helps with the big picture.
DebDoo
(319 posts)The courts have held repeatedly that national defense information includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution