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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BootinUp

(47,151 posts)
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:11 AM May 2016

Josh Marshall: This was never more than some poor judgment overlayed by a big bureaucratic ...

pissing match all slathered over by a thick layer of partisan game playing and media derp.


The Emails

ByJosh Marshall PublishedMay 25, 2016, 3:47 PM EDT 5205 views

A brief note on the State Department IG Report on the Clinton email issue. The ledes of a lot of stories present this as a rough hit for Clinton, bad news blah blah blah. Let's focus on the essential point: Continued at TPM

52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Josh Marshall: This was never more than some poor judgment overlayed by a big bureaucratic ... (Original Post) BootinUp May 2016 OP
Too bad there were so many federal regulations and felony laws broken. Tell it to the Judge, Josh leveymg May 2016 #1
For her opponents its a political loser, thats what he is saying and that you BootinUp May 2016 #2
The federal gov't has prosecuted two former CIA Directors for mishandling classified information leveymg May 2016 #3
What mishandling of classified info? I know you *think* that happened BootinUp May 2016 #5
Just GOOGLE David Petraeus, John Deutch and Sandy Berger leveymg May 2016 #6
We are talking about Hillary, not those losers. Stay on track here. nt BootinUp May 2016 #7
Are you so misinformed that you don't know the govt found 2200 classified materials,104 sent by HRC leveymg May 2016 #10
I am aware that her enemies have been spinning lies, yes. nt BootinUp May 2016 #12
That's what the State Department found. Is DOS her lying enemy, now? leveymg May 2016 #15
AFAIK there is no official report from the government BootinUp May 2016 #17
On that, you are wrong. Here's a statement cosigned by the IGs of DOS and the Intel Community (IC) leveymg May 2016 #20
This level of willful ignorance is going to work to completely blindside these poor saps. frylock May 2016 #22
When facts are pointed out they become silent and just move on to the next thread to spew the same. libtodeath May 2016 #28
This has to do wiith the over-classification question, whats classified when BootinUp May 2016 #34
Classified is classified, marked or unmarked. It's in para 1 of Hillary's security agreement. nt leveymg May 2016 #35
So she's special? because she's a woman? or what? snowy owl May 2016 #43
Because what they did is in a completely different BootinUp May 2016 #44
Where did you get your law degree? nt Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #4
Since when do you have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong? Octafish May 2016 #8
He has repeatedly been bringing his "informed legal opinion" on this matter to DU. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #9
You have no idea what I do for a living, and I'm entitled to privacy on this board. leveymg May 2016 #13
99% of legal analysis on the subject have disagreed with you. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #18
You'd have to have read 100% of them to make that statement. You haven't. leveymg May 2016 #21
I don't believe it for a second. I call bullshit. COLGATE4 May 2016 #24
If you were really all that interested, you could confirm that. But I think you just want to harrass leveymg May 2016 #27
The number you have reached, zero zero zero point zero zero zero zero... Octafish May 2016 #36
OK. Give me some information to confirm the representations you are making COLGATE4 May 2016 #37
Crickets. COLGATE4 May 2016 #40
How about names of the books you claim to have authored or co-authored? COLGATE4 May 2016 #42
How about the names of my children and their telephone numbers? leveymg May 2016 #50
Let's make it easy. You said COLGATE4 May 2016 #52
How about the name(s) of the COLGATE4 May 2016 #39
Still nothing but crickets. Embarrassed to state on the record the names of COLGATE4 May 2016 #41
Gee. Your emoticon really does trump the facts. Octafish May 2016 #19
From the 'Close Cover before Striking School of Law' nt COLGATE4 May 2016 #23
None of the cyber security analysts I work with have law degrees, but they all Fawke Em May 2016 #31
Right. Because state secrets should be preserved by going into Clinton's bathroom... lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #11
No they should be freely distributed by Manning and Snowden!!! JoePhilly May 2016 #14
At this point, I'd prefer to vote for Snowden. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #16
"Poor judgement" is certainly not a presidential quality. n/t Avalux May 2016 #25
This is an apt summation Tarc May 2016 #26
KNR Thank you! Lucinda May 2016 #29
He's wrong. Fawke Em May 2016 #30
"Partisan game playing" for damn sure. nt oasis May 2016 #32
My goodness. Josh does not understand FOIA nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author TM99 May 2016 #51
AKA: haters gonna hate Dem2 May 2016 #38
You enjoyed that, didn't you? And we are the haters...? snowy owl May 2016 #46
Some of these internet superstars are now msm. Remember that. He hobnobs... snowy owl May 2016 #45
It would be hilarious to see your approved list BootinUp May 2016 #47
My "approved" list is just many, many different sources. snowy owl May 2016 #48
To each his/her own. I read quite a range of material myself. nt BootinUp May 2016 #49

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. Too bad there were so many federal regulations and felony laws broken. Tell it to the Judge, Josh
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:17 AM
May 2016

Hardly a vindication. The State Dept report didn't even address classified information violations and it intentionally fudged on how the same acts that violated Departmental regulations also violated federal criminal statutes. As usual, most of the meat is in the footnotes.

The DOS report does say HRC violated regulations that implement the Federal Records Act, and cites referenced criminal penalties against destruction of federal records. See page 10, footnotes 40, 41

The report makes further references to Clinton's actions that implicate federal laws:

* Duties to preserve federal records imposed by law upon the head of agency not observed are also cited at p. 12, ft. 48.

* The Secretary failed to timely notify the National Archives of pending destruction of official records according to law. p. 17, ftn 73.

* See, also, section that covers State Department discussions of efforts to recover emails dating back to 2011. pp. 17-19.

* In particular, Pages 26-27 discuss Clinton and staff's failures to fully comply with Departmental records requests after leaving office. The requirement to return classified materials is also imposed by her signed security agreement under penalty of Sec. 793, and 1924.

* The use of an uncertified server for official communications violated federal laws requiring agencies to create and maintain information security certification requirements for all information systems. p. 27, ftns. 114, 115

* Use of noncertified Blackberrys and cell phones is banned inside State Dept facilities (except in strictly nonclassified areas, eg, cafeterias), and may not be connected to Dept. systems on noncertified systems, per State Dept. regulation on Dec 2, 2009. p. 30, ftns 120, 121

* Forwarding of official communications to non-secure email systems has been forbidden since 2004. p. 31, ftn. 129.

- MORE -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

BootinUp

(47,151 posts)
2. For her opponents its a political loser, thats what he is saying and that you
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:20 AM
May 2016

are ignoring. The Federal government doesn't prosecute people for records violations and most Americans will recognize that.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. The federal gov't has prosecuted two former CIA Directors for mishandling classified information
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:25 AM
May 2016

and a former National Security Advisor for destroying federal records. Sorry, try a new Clinton campaign meme.

BootinUp

(47,151 posts)
5. What mishandling of classified info? I know you *think* that happened
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:27 AM
May 2016

but as I have always maintained you're going to be disappointed.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
6. Just GOOGLE David Petraeus, John Deutch and Sandy Berger
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:30 AM
May 2016

Come back once you've read how their careers ended.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
10. Are you so misinformed that you don't know the govt found 2200 classified materials,104 sent by HRC
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:38 AM
May 2016

herself, and information from 22 Top Secret documents on Hillary's uncertified server?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
20. On that, you are wrong. Here's a statement cosigned by the IGs of DOS and the Intel Community (IC)
Thu May 26, 2016, 01:46 PM
May 2016

that states that the Intelligence Community found classified information on Hillary's server originating within the IC member agencies. They weren't "retroactively classified," as the Clinton campaign has continued to claim:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

frylock

(34,825 posts)
22. This level of willful ignorance is going to work to completely blindside these poor saps.
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:02 PM
May 2016

They really have no idea what's going on here.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
28. When facts are pointed out they become silent and just move on to the next thread to spew the same.
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:18 PM
May 2016

BootinUp

(47,151 posts)
34. This has to do wiith the over-classification question, whats classified when
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:47 PM
May 2016

different classifing standards, different classifying authorities, wait for the FBI report.

BootinUp

(47,151 posts)
44. Because what they did is in a completely different
Fri May 27, 2016, 12:09 AM
May 2016

category. They intentionally leaked confidential information.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
8. Since when do you have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong?
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:34 AM
May 2016

Going by the historic record of what the definition of is is, it's clear where you're coming from.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
9. He has repeatedly been bringing his "informed legal opinion" on this matter to DU.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:37 AM
May 2016

However, he is not a lawyer, so his "informed legal opinion" is moot. Keeping in mind that most lawyers who have spoken about this issue disagree with him.

ETA: besides, we all know it was the BFEE.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
13. You have no idea what I do for a living, and I'm entitled to privacy on this board.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:44 AM
May 2016

Here's a hint, I am the author or co-author of six professional law practice books and manuals published by major publishers, one of which is in its 5th edition, another in its 3rd ed.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
18. 99% of legal analysis on the subject have disagreed with you.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:55 AM
May 2016

You may be telling the truth about what you do, you may not.

As far as your privacy, I used to keep my info on here public until a DUer decided to start bringing my family into arguments. So I feel you there.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
21. You'd have to have read 100% of them to make that statement. You haven't.
Thu May 26, 2016, 02:10 PM
May 2016

I've read perhaps two dozen articles that address the legal issues in this particular matter to some degree. Without exception, the ones that attempt to exonerate Hillary are inaccurate, incomplete, or are simply biased spin.

All but one of these HRC advocacy pieces sidestep the applicability of Sec. 793(e) and (f) to Hillary's mishandling of classified materials. The rest confine themselves to other sections, principally Sec. 1924, that impose a higher burden of proof. By omission, they all mislead some readers to conclude that there has never been a comparable Espionage Act prosecution of a high gov't official. They also imply by omission that there is a requirement to prove an elevated intent beyond the mere element of mens rea, or "guilty knowledge," and conclude incorrectly that is the reason high officials have never been charged with 793. Both of those insinuations have no basis in the plain-language of the statute and the history of classified information violation cases.

Here is a good place to start reading up on the subject:

The Congressional Research Service
"Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information"
Jennifer K. Elsea
Legislative Attorney
September 9, 2013
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf (pdf)

You should also read the terms and penalties laid out in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement that Hillary Clinton signed. That states the statutes that may be applied to her for violating that oath. Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read it.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

?w=500&h=262

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.


Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
27. If you were really all that interested, you could confirm that. But I think you just want to harrass
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:16 PM
May 2016

someone. You're a frustrated sort of person. You don't have the facts or the law on your side, as events in the real world steadily confirm. Your idol just took a big hit, and things look like they'll get even worse when the Intelligence Community (IC) Inspector General issues its report confirming findings that Hillary's server contains classified information that should never have been on there. This is what the IC and the State Dept IGs have already said about that last July in a joint statement you may have missed:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

Then, soon thereafter, FBI Director Comey will issue his findings that will recount her unlawful actions in nauseating detail and legal specificity. So, you make yet another ad hominem attack.

But, you seem to continue enjoy stalking.

This obsession to go after me must serve some need you have to make issues you apparently don't understand into personal attacks.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
36. The number you have reached, zero zero zero point zero zero zero zero...
Thu May 26, 2016, 05:02 PM
May 2016

...is disconnected. Please hang up and never try again.

People get smarter who read leveymg. Those who don't understand that, that's their problem.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
37. OK. Give me some information to confirm the representations you are making
Thu May 26, 2016, 06:08 PM
May 2016

about yourself. I'll be happy to check it out.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
42. How about names of the books you claim to have authored or co-authored?
Fri May 27, 2016, 12:05 AM
May 2016

That shouldn't be too hard.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
50. How about the names of my children and their telephone numbers?
Fri May 27, 2016, 03:11 AM
May 2016

Hell no. Why should I trust you? The only thing I know about you is you've made this into some sort of personal obsession.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
52. Let's make it easy. You said
Fri May 27, 2016, 07:57 AM
May 2016

" If you were really all that interested, you could confirm that." OK. Tell me how I can 'confirm' your authorship (or co-authorship) of all those legal texts you say you have authored.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
39. How about the name(s) of the
Thu May 26, 2016, 06:46 PM
May 2016

"six professional law practice books and manuals published by major publishers, one of which is in its 5th edition, another in its 3rd ed." for a start?

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
41. Still nothing but crickets. Embarrassed to state on the record the names of
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:00 PM
May 2016

your "six professional law practice books and manuals"????

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
19. Gee. Your emoticon really does trump the facts.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:56 AM
May 2016

Seeing how you are unable to discuss the facts and resort to ad hominem and straw men shows what you are, Dr Hobbitstein.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
31. None of the cyber security analysts I work with have law degrees, but they all
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:38 PM
May 2016

know what the law says as part of maintaining their security clearances.

This crap that you need a law degree to read is stupid.

The SoS and anyone else who deals with classified information are required to train at least once a year to understand the law and how it applies to their positions.

Of course, Hillary only attended one such meeting the whole time she was SoS. Maybe that's why she's so confused about why she's being investigated.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
11. Right. Because state secrets should be preserved by going into Clinton's bathroom...
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:39 AM
May 2016

... and periodically unplugging the email server. Don't send any secrets for a couple of hours and all should be good.

We'll stop this ongoing hack attack as soon as the Secretary of State is done in there.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
16. At this point, I'd prefer to vote for Snowden.
Thu May 26, 2016, 11:49 AM
May 2016

At least
a) the secrets he released were for an ethical reason.
b) he knows what he released.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
26. This is an apt summation
Thu May 26, 2016, 03:31 PM
May 2016

The Bernsters tried their best, as the Indictment Fairy would've been their Hail Mary to get him to the nomination, but it fizzled out as we knew it would.

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #33)

snowy owl

(2,145 posts)
48. My "approved" list is just many, many different sources.
Fri May 27, 2016, 12:28 AM
May 2016

Never rely on a few. And what don't you get about people becoming part of establishment? All it takes is status and money. Don't get stuck in one source just because it used to be alternative. That's a long, long time ago now. Once these "alternative" types start appearing on mainstream media and Josh has any times start to be wary.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Josh Marshall: This was n...