Politicspoliticsclintonemailserver

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:43 AM

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Here are some facts for the silly conservatives to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”

Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.

There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails
Play Video1:56
The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.

Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. “Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there,” he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.

In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.....

The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.

My point here isn’t to praise Clinton’s conduct. She shouldn’t have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It’s certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldn’t be alone, especially given rampant over-classification.

The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That’s a far cry from an indictable offense.
Ruth Marcus is hardly a Clinton supporter and these facts are consistent with the analysis posted elsewhere on this board that are not from Fox

58 replies, 5356 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server (Original post)
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 OP
Cave Dweller Mar 2016 #1
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #2
spike61 Mar 2016 #5
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #12
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #15
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #16
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #25
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #26
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #35
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #36
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #37
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #38
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #39
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #40
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #43
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #45
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #46
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #48
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #49
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #50
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #51
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #52
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #53
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #58
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #56
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #57
Borscht Apr 2016 #55
exindy Mar 2016 #3
spike61 Mar 2016 #4
Muddling Through Mar 2016 #6
Borscht Apr 2016 #47
Gunslinger201 Mar 2016 #7
Pony Express Mar 2016 #10
Gunslinger201 Mar 2016 #11
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #17
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #22
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #23
Dukota01 Apr 2016 #41
MeatSandwich Apr 2016 #42
Gunslinger201 Mar 2016 #29
Trevor Mar 2016 #13
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #27
graham4anything4HC45 Mar 2016 #8
spike61 Mar 2016 #9
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #18
MeatSandwich Mar 2016 #28
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #34
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #14
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #19
johnaries01 Mar 2016 #20
Roger Cavu Mar 2016 #21
Letmypeoplevote Mar 2016 #24
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #30
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #31
JK1987 Apr 2016 #32
Letmypeoplevote Apr 2016 #33
bpilgrim Apr 2016 #44
BenHereB4 Apr 2016 #54

Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:52 AM

1. It is funny

when clinton apologist write pieces like this with no knowledge about classified information. I especially liked this In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified.

Almost spit out my coffee laughing at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:04 AM

2. Present some facts that back up your amusing claims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:50 AM

5. Simply read how govt employees are trained regarding sensitive info.

You wont, because you dont really care.
This fool saying Hillary wouldnt even know what material should be secure obviously doesnt know anything about govt procedure.
Its all bullshit & cover for hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 03:30 PM

12. I already have in another thread where you used this EXACT cut and paste.

I've clearly made my case using the facts at hand, and DIRECTLY addressed the issue of the what and the how concerning the classification of the material she was viewing and passing on. You on the other hand, just keep cutting and pasting the same garbage in numerous threads hoping it will stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:42 AM

15. So you have no facts to back up your claim-Why am I not surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 01:45 PM

16. I have nothing but facts to back up my argument. Ignore them at your own peril.

Go back to corporate law, where you at least have a grasp of the legal concepts involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:19 PM

25. Hillary Clinton did not break the law

Your understanding of criminal law is really amusing.. In the real world, one looks at similar cases. Here there is no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified at the time. In similar cases where there absolute proof that the defendants knew that the material was classified, there are some interesting results http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
Non law review types are amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:59 PM

26. Non criminal law types are not amusing at all. They are dangerous because they *think*

they know what they're talking about. Not even remotely close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:35 PM

35. Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted

Your attempts at analysis amuse me. Non-law review types have issues with applying other cases to the current case http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible.
Story Continued Below

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.

“They always involve some ‘plus’ factor. Sometimes that ‘plus’ factor may reach its way into the public record, but more likely it won’t,” one former federal prosecutor said.

A former senior FBI official told POLITICO that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases.

“If you look at the history of what they pursued, you really had to have a slam-bam case that met all the elements,” said the ex-official, who asked not to be named.

Statistics support the view that prosecutions in the area are sparing.....

Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.

“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744#ixzz45Z1lby70
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Any attempt at a prosecution based on the attempt at analysis presented on this board would be laughed out of court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:28 PM

36. This crimnal law type has no issue applying the current law to the current case.

If she is *not* indicted, it will be a political decision, and not one based on the the law as written.

Non-law review types have issues with applying other cases to the current case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:52 AM

37. Your analysis is wrong as normal

The case against Clinton would be laughed out of court. Again, in the real world one look at past prosecutions and the only cases prosecuted were cases where there are facts showing actual knowledge and intent. Non-law review types amuse me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #37)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:39 PM

38. You are wrong as ususal. Bluster does not win cases in court. Knowledge of the law does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #38)

Wed Apr 13, 2016, 10:54 PM

39. Your posts continue to amuse me

Thank you for the laughs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #39)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:32 AM

40. Your lack of knowledge concerning criminal law is stunning.

But feel free to continue amusing the board with your cut and paste replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #40)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 05:36 PM

43. I was thinking the same thing about you

Non-law review types often have trouble understanding the concepts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:56 PM

45. Non criminal law types should stick to corporate law. That way they don't look foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 02:07 PM

46. Your attempts to claim that intent and mens rea are not important are simply wrong

You seem to delight in being wrong and I am really having fun laughing at your posts. First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

Between in or about August 2011, and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials. ....

Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924
This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.

Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....

In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.
The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:14 AM

48. I've already (on numerous occasions) cited the criminal intent of Hillary in this matter.

That you choose to ignore or not understand it, is not my problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:02 AM

49. And your attempt at analysis is simply wrong

Read the materials on the Petraeus; plea or have someone who was on law review read these materials and explain them to you. The existence of a non-disclosure agreement does not eliminate the need to prove intent and the feds were careful to build a case that there was specific intent on the part of Petraeus without regard to the NDA. Even, then the charge against Petraeus was a slap on the wrist.

There will be no indictment of Clinton because there is no proof of intent. I am amused when non-law review types do not understand the concepts being discussed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:39 PM

50. I've already read through the Petraeus indictment a number of times, and the associated material.

His case is not even remotely related to the crimes committed by Hillary. But keep at it. I find it amusing when non-criminal law types try to explain concepts beyond their expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:41 PM

51. Non law review types are amusing when they are unable to understand the concepts

That is why they did not make law review

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #51)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:44 PM

52. Law review types are like teachers. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #52)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 06:52 PM

53. Non-law review types do tend to resent law review types

Have you ever figured out standing yet? I loved some of your prior posts on this issue.

Again, Clinton will not be indicted because there is not sufficient evidence to show intent. No DOJ attorney would want to be laughed at by making the claims set forth above

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #53)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:35 PM

58. Non-criminal law types. like yourself, amuse me.

You seem to think a law degree gives you expertise in all areas of the law. You'll notice that I don't opine concerning business/corporate law as it's not my area of expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:55 AM

56. And you failed on that thread also

Non law review types are cute and adorable when they fail to understand legal concepts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #56)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:32 PM

57. Actually, you have failed miserably in all of these threads by conflating one case with another

without regard to the facts presented in each. Cut and paste won't do. But keep at it, you just keep making my points for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:20 PM

55. wherever you work, do all your company's work on your private home server

against regulations. See how that would work out for you and the rest of the great unwashed.

Hillary's emails were public property, not the personal property of Clinton Mafia .con to do with what she liked like Hil Jong-Un.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:22 AM

3. Gelastic seizure is very serious

you should get it looked at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:47 AM

4. I know. That sentence makes the rest of the statement meaningless.

And too many people who have NO clue wont understand why!!
Here's why, for the idiots who want to excuse anything Hillary says or does:

Hillary, (along with everyone else in government & military), was briefed & trained on the handling of sensitive material at the beginning of her job. You are taught to KNOW what info is obviously sensitive and should be treated as such. NO messages are ever "Marked classified". Thats not one of the labels used, thats why she keeps using the term.
But when she read or sent emails about conversations with foreign leaders, she KNEW that State would consider that sensitive info and be considered secret, top secret or other levels of classification. When she had her minions copy info from official State sites and send them unsecured, she knew exactly what she was doing.
So either she is a liar or she is incompetent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spike61 (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 09:52 AM

6. "So either she is a liar or she is incompetent"

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 17, 2016, 12:14 AM

47. Just another 'It's someone else's fault and not mine' whinging from the Grate One.

Yeh, ffs, who else SHOULD know what classified is or isn't but the freaking S.o.S. Hillaryous and cowardly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:13 AM

7. Nice try, but no

18 USC 793 f does not require intent

The mere fact the incidents happened means you are guilty.

The fact she set up a Homebrew server to skirt the Federal Records act reinforces it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:40 AM

10. Hey Atticus Finch

“willfully communicates, delivers transmits”

will·ful

/ˈwilfəl

adjective: wilful

(of an immoral or illegal act or omission) intentional; deliberate.
"willful acts of damage"

synonyms: deliberate, intentional, done on purpose, premeditated, planned, conscious
"willful destruction"

antonyms: accidental, unintentional

•having or showing a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences or effects.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pony Express (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:12 PM

11. Keep hoping she makes it. ***Spoiler Alert***

She won't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pony Express (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 01:48 PM

17. For the last time - hopefully.

Once she signed the non-disclosure document, any spillage of classified information onto an unsecured server *was* willful. The intent to break the law was established. Bottom line, she has no defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 07:48 PM

22. Your analysis is totally wrong and sad.

Your attempt at analysis is sad and wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 23, 2016, 12:45 PM

23. You sound like Donald Trump.

You repeat yourself using the same words over and over. My analysis is spot on and factually correct. Please stick to what you know, corporate law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:22 PM

41. He wasn't repeating himself

First he said it was "wrong and sad"

Then he said it was "sad and wrong"

Obviously not the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dukota01 (Reply #41)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 05:29 PM

42. My mistake - clearly two different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pony Express (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:06 PM

29. Just following Judge Napolitano

and Carherine Herridge

They been right so far

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:41 PM

13. The law only seems to cover defense information

I don't know how many of the E-mails would qualify, but they don't sound like the type of information listed in the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

The law also prohibits gross negligence but do Hillary's actions amount to gross negligence? Seems like the kind of question that would take a lawyer to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:05 PM

27. For clarity since LMPV, a corporate lawyer type, doesn't seem to understand this.

I'm certain that setting up your own private server to handle such material would absolutely be considered gross negligence.

(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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:29 AM

8. While the Republicans keep hoping to take Hillary out, HIllary has opened a 50-41 lead on Trump

the more they smear her, the more popular she gets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 11:37 AM

9. Yep, they COULD nominate Kasich, who easily beats HRC,

but as usual, the "base" is too stupid to understand what "winning" means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 13, 2016, 01:49 PM

18. Wilfull ignorance on your part. She will lose to any Republican challenger. Trump included.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything4HC45 (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:06 PM

28. Keep dreaming. The GE season hasn't even started yet. Get back to us in about four months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:26 PM

34. Republicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can’t say so.

Here are some facts for the conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/

So for instance, David Petraeus got charged because he showed top secret documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it). But there’s no evidence that Clinton did anything even remotely similar. That’s why, when Politico’s Josh Gerstein examined prior cases similar to this one, he concluded that an indictment is highly unlikely. As Gestein writes:

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules, as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
.......But if you’re a Republican pundit, you know that the idea of Hillary Clinton being led away in handcuffs is just too tantalizing for your audience to resist. And so when the Fox News Sunday panel (consisting of two conservative Republicans and two objective reporters, which is their idea of balance) had the chance to weigh in, the conservatives — Karl Rove and The Post’s George Will — expressed the proper degree of faux outrage at Obama. What’s most interesting about their comments (here’s the transcript) is that neither one of them even tried to make a case that Clinton should be indicted. Instead, they both brought up former IRS official Lois Lerner, to argue that the Obama Justice Department engages in cover-ups of criminal behavior. They implied, without saying outright, that the Justice Department would never issue indictments that would damage Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton).

For the most part, the Clinton email story has been a disappointment to Republicans. They were desperately hoping that the emails would reveal some kind of ghastly malfeasance on Clinton’s part, some smoking gun that would make all Americans realize that she should never be elected president. When that turned out not to be the case, they pinned their hopes on the idea that she would just have to be charged with a crime eventually. I have no doubt that people like Will and Rove now understand that that isn’t going to happen either.

But having gone this far, they need to keep up appearances, and they also know that just talking about her emails serves to convince people that something scandalous must have happened. So they are laying the groundwork to argue, if and when she doesn’t get indicted, that it must only be because Barack Obama’s corrupt administration quashed the investigation and hid the truth from the public.

And down where the conservative rank and file get their information — the talk radio rants, the right-wing blogs, the breathless chain emails — these two contradictory ideas are both widely circulated. Clinton is about to be indicted, and Clinton won’t be indicted because the fix is in. The assumption in either case is that of course she committed crimes, even if no one can say exactly what they were. Because she’s Hillary Clinton, right? What more do you need to know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:41 AM

14. For this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 05:20 PM

19. Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

Here is a good legal analysis as to why Hillary Clinton will not be indicted http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

The statute also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: “lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for … restricted dissemination.”

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified “documents or materials” and “knowingly removes such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location.”

Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.

But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer......

Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.
There will be no indictment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:20 PM

20. Any day now, any day now....

Seriously, any day now....

BENGHAZI !!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:34 PM

21. Stephen Vladeck is hardly unbiased

He's a liberal who clerked for liberals and professes at a seriously liberal school.

It's also unlikely he has clearance, so maybe we just wait for the director of the FBI, who I'm pretty sure does have clearance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 12:16 PM

24. Fed Source: About 12 FBI Agents Working on Clinton Email Inquiry

You got to be kidding http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

Sources close to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's email are knocking down suggestions that 147 federal agents are working on the case, a figure first reported — and now revised — by the Washington Post, citing a lawmaker.

The Post updated the figure on Tuesday, stating that while the "FBI will not provide an exact figure," there are "fewer than 50" FBI personnel involved in the case.

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.

"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

A former FBI official, also speaking anonymously, says many in the law enforcement community view the large estimates of people assigned to the case as completely improbable.

"147 was such a ridiculous number," said the source, adding that 50 also sounded unrealistic for this kind of inquiry. "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something," said the former FBI official.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 07:56 PM

30. Boehlert Details The Problematic Consequences Of Washington Post's Erroneous Clinton Email Report

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:14 PM

31. Clinton likely didn't break law with her handling of emails

Here are some more facts for the silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-dmcol-0405-20160405-story.html

But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is "no." While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody "with the intent to retain" it.

So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated "top secret" — but they weren't classified when she sent or received them.

Second, did she "willfully communicate" classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

Third, did she remove classified information "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"?

"If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything," a former top government lawyer told me.

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. ("Highly classified," he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:16 PM

32. Bahahaha!

Keep dreaming Goth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:22 PM

33. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

There will be no indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 05:56 PM

44. E S T A B L I S H M E N T

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Letmypeoplevote (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 09:17 PM

54. I think the shit will hit the fan on April 26th

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/protest-lodged-over-secrecy-in-clinton-email-case-222207#ixzz46PyoUnfb

You guys keep ignoring this investigation. Too bad we can't do the same for her transcripts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsclintonemailserver