Obama: Clinton’s Email Server Did Not Jeopardize National Security
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Huffinton Post
U.S. President Barack Obama said Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton never jeopardized national security in the handling of her emails as his secretary of state.
Obama, in an interview broadcast on Fox News Sunday, said Clinton has recognized a carelessness on the email issue in which she used a private server for government business.
“But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective,” Obama said. “This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state, and did an outstanding job.”
Clinton, secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, has said her email arrangement broke no rules and that she will be vindicated in investigations of whether any laws were broken.
The government forbids sending or storing classified information outside secure, government-controlled channels.
The FBI has taken the server and is investigating the case with U.S. Justice Department attorneys. At least two Republican-led congressional committees are also investigating.
The Democratic president was asked if the Justice Department investigation would treat the Clinton case impartially.
“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,” said Obama, who leaves office next year.
“Guaranteed. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department. Because nobody is above the law,” he said.
The State Department said this month it has suspended plans for an internal review of whether classified information was properly handled in Clinton’s emails at the request of the FBI. The department, complying with a judge’s order, has released more than 52,000 emails from Clinton’s private server.
Republican rivals in the battle for the Nov. 8 presidential election have cited the email controversy in saying Clinton is unfit for the presidency
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-clintons-email-server-did-not-jeopardize-national-security_us_570a59f9e4b0836057a17b40
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
revbones
(3,660 posts)I don't think he does.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It's about time someone stood up and said this out loud. 
Designit
(1 post)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We've discussed this at length this afternoon. Please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1697189
Please pull your post. It's inaccurate.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)When nothing comes of this.
No matter how much unhinged hate-filled spittle you direct at Secretary Clinton, no matter how much you try to twist the law into saying something it doesn't say, being sent an email is not a crime.
And neither does classification after the fact apply to actions taken before the information was classified.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Hate to burst your bubble, but her Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement states in paragraph 1 - "classified informtation is marked or unmarked classified information." The "retroactively classified" meme you repeat is a campaign PR fiction, not a legal defense.
Also, note Sec. 793, a felony, is referenced at multiple places in the agreement she signed under specified penalties of law. Subsections (e) and (f) of 793 don't require a showing of either intent or effect of harm to the national security in order to convict:
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) 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 States 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 classffled 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.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)The email discussion on the emails starts at about 8 minutes in, and begins with replaying the October video. After talking for a minute or two, he confirms what he said in October.
Please pull your post. It's inaccurate.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)a felony statute stated on her security agreement, 18 USC 793, specifically subsections (e) and (f), do do not require a showing of either intent or the effect of harm to US national security. She merely had to be reasonably aware of actions that carry the potential of causing unauthorized release of classified information could jeopardize the national security. That seems to be pretty clear on the face of it.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.
Richard O. Lempert
March 20, 2016
News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reporting—and virtually all political discussion—reads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.
What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.
What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information?
Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … 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.
SNIP
leveymg
(36,418 posts)pnwmom
(110,255 posts)It shouldn't be read piecemeal, though I know that's your preferred way of doing things.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Not a very direct analysis. Not even a good analysis, very misleading. I skimmed the whole thing, and have seen similar misleading pieces that omit reference to 793 written by her apologists going back to last August.
awake
(3,226 posts)It has not been determined if Hillary's home server "jeopardize National Security" or not. The headline could have just as easily read "Obama will not stop the DOJ investigation of Hillary's email"
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)The discussion starts about 8 minutes in.
awake
(3,226 posts)"....she would never intentionally put America in any kind of Jeopardy" He did not say whether her emails did or did not "put America in any kind of Jeopardy" which was the headline.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)Listen to the whole segment about the emails again. This is an exact quote:
“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security.”
awake
(3,226 posts)the headline was "Obama: Clinton's Email Sever Did Not Jeopardize National Security" Obama said that he had to be carful about what he said of the "emails" because of on going investigations, which is very different. The headline suggests that Obama had info that he shared about whether Hillary's emails "Jeopardize National Security"
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)the answer he THEN gave to THAT question?
“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security.”
awake
(3,226 posts)I do not disagree that Obama said “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security.” My point is that he said that while that was his belief that "she has not jeopardized national security" he first said that he had to be carful what he said about her email because she was under investigation he went on to say that he has not and would in no way get involved with the DOJ or their investigation.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
riversedge
(80,767 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Kokonoe
(2,485 posts)but I doubt the words came from herself.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
FarPoint
(14,759 posts)Obama will endorse Hillary Clinton... President Obama loves to build up to his formal endorsements this very way...It's his style.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The title of this OP is absolutely accurate!
SCantiGOP
(14,717 posts)But I fully expected all the nitpicking and they didn't disappoint.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but the truth has never mattered to some.....
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)
SharonClark
(10,497 posts)"I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America's national security," Obama defended Clinton.
2naSalit
(102,701 posts)and there it is.
BAM!!!
riversedge
(80,767 posts)"I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America's national security," Obama defended Clinton.
Kokonoe
(2,485 posts)Where is James Bond.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)have in violation of the law.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/10/two-ways-hillary-private-email-operation-was-obviously-criminal.html
riversedge
(80,767 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)from a garbage dispenser
but thanks for making it clear you're completely impotent in rebutting the case the author made there, which will come as a surprise to no one here.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)It is such a waste of time and focus. It has little or nothing to do with truth or fact. Let it go and let's talk about real issues. Like the fact that Hillary Clinton is a Hawk, that Hillary Clinton believes that Henry Kissinger provides her with expert advice, or that Hillary Clinton is willing to use abortion limitations to spark conversations with Republicans to move other programs forward.
Mustellus
(416 posts)... who traded Top Secret information to a Journalist, in order to get laid.
Of course, if you are a Republican, that's only a misdemeanor.
2naSalit
(102,701 posts)but he was hot to trot and she was willing to dance in order to get those docs. I wonder, still, why she got off scot-free and he only got a slap on the wrist. That was an obviously blatant violation and they both knew it... and isn't there a rule in the code of conduct that forbids sexual interaction between uniformed personnel?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
riversedge
(80,767 posts)onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)She purposely did what she was told no to, by the NSA
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)one would need evidence to accuse her of jeopardizing national security, no?
So far all I see is accusations flying around like swarms of mosquitoes, but no evidence.
Yawn.
2naSalit
(102,701 posts)I can understand the vitriol but this Hillary hatred among Democrats is disturbing, especially when their RW talking points vaporize before them like dust in a windstorm. And then disregard the truth when it is presented to them.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)there is complete rejection of facts
its like the tea party of the left.
BlueMTexpat
(15,689 posts)and never have been. Some who call themselves Dems now are recent Dems - only for the duration of this election and, even then, only if it is their candidate who is the Dem nominee. Some have made that crystal clear. That and their CDS make anything they say automatically suspect.
The much smaller number of those on DU who sincerely believe that they are Dems, yet still have Hillary hatred to the degree that they manifest on DU on a daily basis really need help, likely much more than we on an anonymous internet forum will ever be able to give. 
2naSalit
(102,701 posts)most are trolls of one stripe or another. I just think they should tend to their own instead. But then, I realize when you have nothing to convince anyone that you have a plan that works for everyone, you will have to try to decimate the unity of your opponent's supporters. Divide and conquer seems to work for some on occasion, for lack of real solutions.
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)We have a congressional investigation going that was supposed to address national security in the case of the Benghazi 9/11 attack.
Instead, we have a years' long partisan witch hunt using Hillary's server as an excuse to continue baseless attacks on Hillary at the expense of investigating matters critical to national security.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)but it's against the law to drive intoxicated and if you're caught you should be prosecuted.
beastie boy
(13,283 posts)They don't do this to the drivers unless conclusive evidence is presented, do they?
dragonfly301
(399 posts)beastie boy
(13,283 posts)I am sure you can reach a mutually accommodating agreement.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Continue to hide that little head in the sand.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)is his downright disgusting and dishonest claim that "no one is above the law'....
Javaman
(65,694 posts) 
MADem
(135,425 posts)
WHAT was that Barack said?
U.S. President Barack Obama said Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton never jeopardized national security in the handling of her emails as his secretary of state.
For real?
He said WHAT?
U.S. President Barack Obama said Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton never jeopardized national security in the handling of her emails as his secretary of state.
GRRR! GRRR!!!!
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)The crime, President Obama, is not "jeopardizing our national security."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511699892
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Not quite the same thing.
The fact is Obama has no idea how much damage may or may not have been done. Nobody knows for sure, but dollars to donuts the CIA, NSA, etc. probably assume that the server was hacked and all classified info on there seen by China, Russia, and whoever.
And it's interesting to note that he never mentioned possible damage to individuals or specific missions.
Or the *legality* of the "carelessness" that Clinton "has owned."
TM99
(8,352 posts)of some repute, I am disappointed that Obama would comment at all on this matter.
There is an ongoing investigation by the FBI that will eventually involve the DoJ. It is not his place to comment on whether he believes Clinton jeopardized security or not. And tacking on the 'I guarantee there is no political influence' after doing so tells those who pay attention that indeed there likely will be inappropriate political influence. 
Omaha Steve
(109,168 posts)Please see the earlier post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141409684
Remember there is a 4 paragraph limit.
Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.