The investigation into Clinton's email server is very real.

[Fawke Em]

Denying it doesn't make it go away. Pretending the FBI is some partisan pack of petulant plebes tells those of us who have worked in cyber security and understand the rules that you truly don't understand the issue.

I realize her supporters here have their heads in the sand about this, but for those of you who want to clear and factual look at the timeline leading up to the FBI's probe into whether Clinton violated the law by hosting sensitive national security information on her very unsecure and private email server, please visit this website:

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

It's really NOT about emails. It's about a possible violation of 18 US Code 793: Mishandling national security data (and it does NOT matter if that data was classified or not - mishandling national security data is a crime, ipso facto).

I'm sure the Hillary supporters here will not go to the website to attempt to learn more, but don't say you weren't warned. To the rest of you, please visit and get armed.

[sufrommich]

1. It's about creating a new right wing fake

scandal when the fake Benghazi scandal failed to lose Obama the 2012 election. They pivoted to trying to bring Hillary down,it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

[Fawke Em]

3. Just as I suspected

The FBI, again, isn't a play toy. And the agents I know would never allow themselves to be used in a bunch of in-fighting. Please read some of this and you'll see why this ado is about something.

[sufrommich]

6. The FBI has to investigate the charge,no

matter how painfully obvious it is that it's a political witch hunt.

[Land of Enchantment]

13. See post #10. People have lost their^ for less.....

[zipplewrath]

66. No, they haven't.

The lost it for doing something they were told not to do, or lying about it after the fact.

[Land of Enchantment]

130. You ever had a Q Clearance?

I have. Nuff said. You do not understand how it works.

[zipplewrath]

143. Yes I do

I've worked through more data spills, violations, incidents that I can count. All of the people that got in serious trouble all did something intentionally (either before the fact or afterwards). People who merely made mistakes and owned up to them at the most got some "remedial training".

[Ash_F]

25. This was started by Obama's State Department

The State Department tried to get the emails from Clinton's lawyers in 2014 but they refused and it escalated from there.

It is true that the Boehner's Benghazi panel is what led the State Department to stumble on this whole deal, but these are separate issues.

How did the R's force a State Department run by D appointees into a witch hunt?

More at the link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[TipTok]

37. Is there any real doubt that laws and policy were violated?

The question is whether or not you think she deserves to be prosecuted.

[zipplewrath]

67. Exactly

And no, there isn't a prosecutor that would even try a prosecution on what they have shown publicly.

Alternately, it was a bone head decision of hers and is one in a long line of them which should bring in questions to a voters mind about her decision making.

[scscholar]

129. If laws were violated...

they would have arrested her months ago. Continuing to not do so proves they have nothing.

[TipTok]

133. False on its face...

Information in the public arena already shows that laws were violated.

The question is to what extent those laws were broken.

Don't worry though. She knows the right people and will get a pass.

[JudyM]

182. Are you aware that DOJ told the FOIA court last week that a referral (case) is forthcoming

about her use of her email server?

Referrals don't even get started by an agency or department unless the decision has been made to prosecute... They are a lot of work.

[bkkyosemite]

102. It is serious but it's the DOJ that can prosecute and will they is the question because the FBI

can't.

[AgerolanAmerican]

47. what's as obvious as the nose on my face

is that the Clinton quick-response team is in prime form here today.

[deathrind]

84. It is impressive.

[bjo59]

51. Believe what you want. Reality has a way of rearing its ugly head when you least expect it.

[dchill]

107. You don't put out a fire...

with hot air.

[silvershadow]

152. Now *that has always been true. nt

[JudyM]

181. If you have read up on the facts and still say this then your nose is surely a foot long, unless you

claim to not understand what is, in fact, right in front of your own nose.

[yourpaljoey]

2. Wave after wave of trouble is headed her way.

Let us hope she drops out before it sinks us down ticket.
Her goose is about to be cooked.

[Ferd Berfel]

44. If she securs the Nom they will pull the trigger

on multiple investigations, multiple hearings, leading to indictments. She will lose to the Republican (who ever they bait-and-switch with)

THe nightly 'news' will be all Hillary problems - all the time.

[bjo59]

54. That's what I fear.

It's crossed my mind that they'll wait until Bernie is out of the way (if that indeed happens) and then lower the boom, thereby making sure that a person who's against wars for profit, corporate tax relief, global "free" trade deals, etc. won't get anywhere near the white house. They don't need Hillary Clinton as president to continue doing business as usual.

[Ferd Berfel]

55. agree - I've said many times that they will wait until it's too late

for the Idiot Corporate 'leadership' of the neo-Dems can make a switch.
After that, the shit will be endless.

[Puglover]

118. I honestly believe that as well.

Good God do people not remember Clinton Fatigue on this website? People were so sick and tired of Monica etc. etc. etc. and because of that whole never ending deal (which of course the Repukes ratcheted up) that we ended up with Bushco. And please spare me the moronic Nader comments.

She has so much baggage, be it real or made up the Republicans will use it. Bernie aside there are so many people out there that would be fine Presidents. That we may end up with another Clinton is just unbelievable.

[madokie]

128. Her goose is cooked

and is only drying out with further heating.

By Hook or by Crook will she trudge on in hopes of winning so maybe she can pardon herself. At this point in time what else is in it for her?

[yourpaljoey]

136. I must admit, I am a little scared

Life did not have to be this way..... did it?

[haikugal]

151. No it didn't, but Clinton isn't in this for the good of the country is she?!

[yourpaljoey]

168. She will ruin us all to get what she wants

[tularetom]

4. WOW, you win the Spiro Agnew prize for alliteration

"...partisan pack of petulant plebes..."



And thanks for the link to the Thompson site. It's definitely the gold standard for factual information regarding emailgate, the crime and the coverup. More people need to see it.

[lagomorph777]

125. My thought exactly! Loved it!

And of course the content of the post too.

[farleftlib]

186. GMTA

That leaped out at me too! Bra-vo! The whole OP is golden.

[Tarc]

5. Ill-informed desperate gibberish keeps on a'flowin from Camp Sanders

"Gross negligence" is a high bar to meet. If Sandy Berger (stuffing documents in his pants) and Gen. Petraeus (giving copies of documents to his mistress for a book) got mild wrist slaps, then Clinton (used private server) would be far, far less than that.

You can clap really, really hard, but the Indictment Fairy isn't coming back to life to save Bernie's flailing campaign at the 11th hour, sport.

[HooptieWagon]

7. Wrist slaps as a result of indictments/convictions.

No one expects Clinton to see a day of prison...the 1% don't go to prison. But just an indictment alone will sink her candidacy and cause a down-ticket bloodbath, even if she plea-deals and gets a wrist slap.

[unc70]

48. Even indictment of staffers would be bad

Even if Clinton herself were not indicted, an indictment of even one person in regards to this would be really bad for the election. She would at minimum be characterized as an unindicted coconspirator. Not good.

[Tarc]

52. In the unlike chance that actually happened, it still won't put the Bern in the White House, bro

[HooptieWagon]

99. No one can predict the resolution of chaos,...

...and an indicted nominee is definately chaos. Clinton could continue on, Bernie could assume the nomination, or another Democrat (like Biden) could assume the nomination. We simply don't know how it will be resolved. But just the situation of it occurring, or possibly occurring, should be cause for concern and the forming of PlanB.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. You point to conspicuous weaknesses in our system as justification for perpetuating them

Nice!

Consider picking up a book about logical fallacies.

[leveymg]

19. Petraeus pled down from 793, a felony, to 1924, a misdemeanor. Berger also pled guilty to 1924.

18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material."

The real historical precedent is CIA Director John Deutch. He brought classified laptops home and connected them to his home internet in 1998. The CIA IG and the FBI recommended prosecution, but Attorney General Janet Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury or Special Counsel. On Bill Clinton's last day in office, Deutch was pardoned along with Marc Rich and a number of others.

The CIA IG report found: https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

[Fawke Em]

28. And don't forget this:

The security mistakes that Deutch made during his brief post as DCI were plentiful. A report released by the CIA in February of 2000 revealed that Deutch had transferred a virtual file cabinet full of classified files on nothing less than loose floppy disks. The data consisted of seventy-four files and hundreds of pages of classified information.

To make matters worse, not only did Deutch transfer the classified material to his government-owned computer at home, but then he used that same computer to access pornography – the sort of sites that are notorious for hiding malware and viruses created by both malicious hackers as well as foreign spies intent on landing a “big fish” with one of their spyware viruses.

This threat was very real. In fact, the CIA director at the time, George Tenet, told the press that he really couldn’t guarantee that the material handled by Deutch hadn’t been compromised.

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2014/02/mishandling-sensitive-data-the-john-deutch-cia-case/

Yes, Bill Clinton pardoned him, but, pornography aside, he was using his personal computer to access both sensitive documents and average Internet websites that could contain malware or other phishing exploits.

[The Second Stone]

50. Not just from Camp Sanders, as Bernie Sanders correctly dismissed it as crap

himself. This is a direct import from Fox News adopted over the objections of Bernie Sanders by a bunch of suckers for conspiracy theories.

The minority of conspiracy theory Sanders supporters (who disagree with Sanders on the email subject) don't seem to understand (or want to understand) that the FBI investigates what it is told to, and doesn't have the power to indict anybody. The DOJ has the power to bring to a grand jury (in D.C. in this case) in a secret proceeding, the secrecy of which cannot be broken in any way by the government, but by an accused only, and to ask the grand jury (of 24 local citizens serving for a year) to follow the recommendation of the prosecutor (the US Attorney for D.C.) as to whether they believe they have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty such that the accused should be put to a trial. There is no target person of this FBI investigation. Neither Hillary Clinton, nor any of her assistants. There is no evidence they sought to mishandle information, nor that any information fell into the wrong hands, nor that there was such intent, when intent is required for an indictment and conviction. Hillary Clinton asked that an adequate server be set up and relied on experts to do so. Perhaps one of those experts over-represented his/her qualifications, even so, it would be stretching it to call it fraud.

For Fox and some of Sanders irresponsible supporters (not all of them, but over the objections of Sanders himself) to insist that this is criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt that 24 citizens of DC would be led by the US Attorney to return an indictment on is, in the case of legal and political experts, a fraud on the public.

No one with any expertise sincerely thinks this is going to happen, particularly in view of how the Benghazi committee had its ass seriously kicked by Hillary Clinton when she was under oath and not entitled to formally fight back on this issue. The non-expert might be forgiven for not knowing all these things and buying the propagandist lies because they haven't thought it through.

An indictment would require proving for 24 DC residents, by the US Attorney, that Hillary Clinton acted in bad faith in setting up a server similar to her predecessors for the same purpose and charging Colin Powell and Condi Rice too. This DOJ has preserved the long American tradition of not crapping all over public servants acting in good faith in doing their jobs. The only exceptions made have been people who deliberately compromised intelligence operations (Scooter Libby with the Plame affair) and whistleblowers who went to the press rather than through channels.

In short, people who think that Loretta Lynch is going to indict Hillary Clinton are completely out of their fucking stupid and ignorant minds because (1) the evidence isn't there; (2) we don't do that in this country (see the ancient Greeks for why not); (3) it is politically unlikely by the US Attorney and the DC residents.

If a lot of people ignore the facts and abuse their power (like Trey Gowdy and Fox News), it could happen in the same way that I could win the Powerball if I bought a ticket.

Now, if the Attorney General were a Republican, I could see it happening for political reasons. But she isn't.

[bkkyosemite]

116. Neither one of them that you mention were SOS head of handling all secrets for the security of

this Country!

[Tarc]

120. Since nothing was classified at the time, it hardly matters.

Keep digging, though.

[Bob41213]

187. Really? The State Department disagrees

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

"These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these em ails 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."

[Tarc]

189. Yes, really, Mr. Cherry-Picker

What you are reading is one interpretation

State Dept., intel watchdog tangle over Clinton emails

[timmymoff]

166. If you had an ounce of reading comprehension skills

you would see the majority of posts were about after Bernie was gone. But since you live in a bubble that ignores every problem as a "witch hunt
or vast far-right wing conspiracy" you refuse to acknowledge the course that will be taken in the general election. Good luck , get to work it is up to you Hillary supporters to win the election for her. It has been stated many times you don't need us or our votes. We will honor your statement.

[Tarc]

169. The Indictment Fairy isn't going to deliver you the nomination, bro

[timmymoff]

188. ain't seeking indictment nor someone to vote for president.

I made my choice, it doesn't involve any frontrunner.

[Tarc]

190. Don't lie and backpedall when caught, kiddo

We see through it.

[timmymoff]

191. Show me once where I mentioned indictment

Just once. Kiddo.

[Faux pas]

9. Kickin' with gusto!

[Land of Enchantment]

10. People have lost their livelihoods and freedom for less....

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/14/if-your-name-isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets

-snip-

If Your Name Isn't Hillary, the Hammer for Mishandling Secrets

Peter Van Buren can’t wait for the court-ordered release of Hillary Clinton’s work emails from 2011, a nearly ruinous year for him that resulted in a negotiated retirement from the State Department.

I cannot conceive any other person in government being able to do what she did without being punished,” he says. “Lots of people have lost their clearances, lost their jobs and in some cases lost their freedom and gone to jail” for allegedly being careless in protecting classified documents.

-snip-


The foreign affairs arm of the federal government, then led by Clinton, had accused the longtime foreign service officer of mishandling classified information and unsuccessfully asked the Justice Department to prosecute him.

Van Buren says his travails demonstrate a double standard at the State Department, which now defends Clinton’s use of a private email system that this week was revealed to contain highly classified top secret information.

I read the long version a while back...Thanks for posting this--much better! I have always thought the Clinton Foundation would be the last straw that breaks the camel's back but it is a long time coming.

[zipplewrath]

18. Bull Hockey

None of those cases are parallels to the Clinton situation. Van Buren was told specifically NOT to publish his book, and chose to anyway. Other cases are where people knowingly and intentionally mishandled classified information, despite knowing they should not. In some of these cases they doubled down on stupid by not cooperating with the investigations and in some cases apparently misrepresenting what they did.

Clinton did none of this. She had approval to use the servers for public business. She didn't intentionally mishandle classified information. And when she was investigate, she got lawyers (she has lawyers) to handle everything so that there could be no "misrepresentations".

Sure, if any of those things turn out to be significantly false, she'll be in trouble. But so far, no one has established that.

I'm not crazy about her either. But she's not about to be indicted any more than Karl Rove was EVER "frog marched out of the White House".

[pdsimdars]

93. people knowingly and intentionally mishandled clasified information, despite knowing they should not

That is EXACTLY what Hillary did and she signed an agreement under oath stating that she understood.

If you doubt it, you should go do some research on what they have already learned. It is ASTONISHING.

And lest you want to dismiss this as some RW conspiracy, it would have to be the Obama administration, the FBI the DoJ, Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC, the NYT, etc. Everyone BUT Hillary would have to be in on the "conspiracy". If you think that implausible, well, it is.

[zipplewrath]

148. No one has made that claim yet

No one inside the justice department has made that claim yet, and of the publicly available information, there is no admissible evidence to that assertion.

Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by ignorance.

What is astonishing is that anyone with any experience in working in and around classified information would think that it would be a good idea to use private servers. I suspect security at State is relatively lax or they would have been searched and cleared many times for all of the data spills that assuredly happen on a weekly basis.

[Maedhros]

113. I believe the Justice Department has a better handle on these things than you do.[n/t]

[zipplewrath]

147. How many indictments?

Really, how many have been issued? You're all so sure that indictments are coming. It's Karl Rove all over again. Prosecutors have relatively high standards for taking things to trial and this doesn't come close.

[Maedhros]

149. The FBI is conducting an investigation - this is fact.

The FBI has granted immunity to the guy who set up and maintained the server - this is fact.

There IS an investigation, and it MAY result in an indictment. Legal experts believe that the FBI would not have granted immunity unless their investigation was going somewhere.

I work with federal prosecutors and federal investigative agencies regularly - I understand how the process works. And yes, the situation with Hillary's emails does warrant an investigation and possible prosecution - cf. Tom Drake:

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

[zipplewrath]

150. They conduct alot of investigtions

precious few end up in prosecutions. For one thing, it's not even their decision. The immunity grant could have been done for alot of reasons, among them is that it would allow them to finish their investigation.

I strongly suspect that the likelihood of indictments here is about as good as the indictment of Rove.

[Maedhros]

158. I work with the FBI. They investigate cases I bring to them, sometimes.

The vast majority of cases are below their notice. They only begin an investigation if the AUSA believes that a prosecution can be secured.

I get it - you desperately want your hero to be absolved of any wrongdoing. So much so that you ignore the horrible things she's done. Unfortunately, you can't wish her transgressions away.

However, I am one up on you. I can wish YOU away.

/ignore list.

[zipplewrath]

173. You are grossly mistaken

I might add "again".

I am far from a Hillary supporter. I'm band from the HRC group. I sent money to Bernie. I held my nose both times I voted for her husband and I was horrified to see Obama hire so many from the Clinton past.

But on this specific issue, despite the fact that I think it AGAIN shows her poor judgment, she ain't gonna be indicted because (unless new facts come in evidence) she didn't do anything that will bring on a prosecution. They started an investigation because they were directed to and they are going to do "due diligence" until they are done. They will turn over whatever they find and the Justice Department will decide if any charges are to be brought. (Various other agencies will decide if certain personnel can keep/get security clearances as well going forward).

[NewImproved Deal]

179. Indeed. The Clinton Machine...

...is America's answer to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos...

[NurseJackie]

11. The Indictment Fairy laughs at this!

[Fawke Em]

30. Proving my point: You don't know jack about what you're talking about.

This isn't about emails, honey.

This is about our national security information out on an easily hacked server. SIPRnet, NIPRnet and JWICS are closed-loop systems and guarded by a team of IT security experts. We're not talking the hack of the OPM, which obviously has open servers so it can do business with the people, we're talking about restricted data from one of those closed-loop systems that was copied and pasted and emailed and ended up on her rinky-dink home-brew server.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

[NurseJackie]

33. That for which you wish will never happen.

Not even the Indictment Fairy can grant your wish, "honey".

[zipplewrath]

12. You're wrong

I mean, I get what everyone is talking about, but your reference ignores two very important points.

1) Her use of a private server was supposedly "approved" for use. I've never seen who did that, and if they had that authority, but none the less, that's a HUGE fig leaf (legally) for her problems.

2) By all representations, she believed she was storing unclassified information on those servers. You don't go to jail for mistakes. You go to jail for either intentionally storing classified, or for carelessly, repeatedly, and intentionally ignoring your responsibilities. No one has suggested this was the case.

I'm no Hillary supporter. And I think she made this decision out of a fairly paranoid attitude of wanting to control all of her emails. This is just another example of her poor decision making. But she's not going to jail and she's not going to be indicted until someone determines that the above points are based upon false information (i.e. it was intentional or she actually didn't have approval to use private servers for public business).

[rhett o rick]

23. I don't believe the defense of "I didn't know it was classified material" will wash.

I understand your "intent" argument but it doesn't wash with classified materials. Just because something isn't marked as classified doesn't mean it isn't. The responsibility lies with the user to know what is and what isn't classified regardless of the markings. She will not be prosecuted because she is a "friend" of the Powers That Be.

[zipplewrath]

59. No one would be prosecuted

Classified info gets mishandled all the time. As long as there is not obvious intent, it is handled administratively. Mostly you get a hand slap. In the case where it results in a serious loss of information, there might be some consequences. But none of it will result in prosecution. Now, if after the fact you try to hide your mistake, you'll be in a heap-o-trouble.

[rhett o rick]

68. Where I worked, if you mishandled classified material you'd lose your security clearance

which meant you lost your job. Cant do the job w/o a security clearance.

[zipplewrath]

72. Intentionally

If you intentionally mishandle classified material you will. If you received a unmarked classified email and didn't notice that it was classified, you'd get a "counseling". Have it happen too many times and you could get your clearance pulled.

[polly7]

73. What about if you intentionally, using a private server, converse with someone like

Sid Blumenthal who was banned by Obama, re the horror that was the Libya ruin.

[zipplewrath]

75. Showing poor judgement

But you're not doing anything for which you will be indicted.

[polly7]

77. He was being paid by her Foundation at the same time, right?

How would going behind Obama's back using Blumenthal's 'advice' not be something illegal?

[zipplewrath]

79. Because it's not

She's allowed by law to solicit advice from anyone she wishes. She'd have to be careful what she told Sid. But she can listen to anyone or thing she wants. Obama could have fired her for it. He can fire her for anything (...at the pleasure of....). But the Justice Department isn't going to prosecute her for it.

[polly7]

97. How could he have fired her if he didn't know about it? nt.

[zipplewrath]

100. That is a problem

But if he did find out, especially after asking folks not to, that was easily one of his options. However, he could not prosecute her for it. He'd need a law to do that.

[pdsimdars]

101. She exposed state secrets at the highest level, people's lives were in jeopardy because of what

she did. And she says she did it because it was too "inconvenient" to do it the legal way.

There have been people who have read those most secret emails and said some of them listed the names of covert agents and their handlers. I have heard 2 congressmen talk about what was in those emails, in a general way.

[zipplewrath]

103. She did not

She was the recipient of these kinds of emails, but the sources were primarily responsible for sending them over unclassified channels. They are the ones that "put lives in jeopardy". Admittedly, having those emails on private servers was one step dumber than having them on unclassified government servers. But OPM servers were hacked into so it wasn't all THAT much more dangerous. In someways it might have been just a touch "safer" because who would have thought she'd be allowed to use a private server for public business.

[leveymg]

165. Did she report Blumenthal as Sec 793 requires? No.

By failing to do so, she committed a felony. Instead, her response was, "Keep 'em coming."

[zipplewrath]

174. And when was the last time someone was prosecuted?

When was the last time someone was prosecute for failing to report this? Remember, what he was reporting to her was apparently coming from unclassified sources (which doesn't mean the information is unclassified).

[pdsimdars]

95. You don't know what you are saying. I'd suggest you talk to someone who is an intelligence

professional and ask them about it. What you are saying is simply nonsense.

[rhett o rick]

121. If one handles classified materials they are trained to recognize it. "I didn't know it was

classified" isn't an acceptable excuse. Nice talk, by the way.

[zipplewrath]

144. It is not "acceptable"

However, that is a LONG way from, "you're going to be prosecuted".

[silvershadow]

153. you know what it is *not a long way from, though? Dragging my good name

through the mud with her as I have to once again defend her and the party against the next four years of unceasing right wing onslaught. I look forward to that like I look froward to getting a sty in my eye.

[zipplewrath]

184. Been there, done that

This whole email thing is just another example of both her extraordinarily bad decision making and exposes her penchant for control, approaching paranoia. I lived through the FIRST Clinton years. I'm really in no hurry to live through 8 more.

[zipplewrath]

145. We do, all the time

Predominately the reaction is that we can't believe anyone authorized/approve/agree to this arrangement. We've been fairly curious exactly who that was and if they had any real authority to do such a thing. One wonders if they were the type that can't say no to power.

[Maedhros]

115. You are looking at your candidate's actions through rose colored glasses.

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

[CentralCoaster]

91. Here's some of the language of the statute that may have been violated:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#e

[FlatBaroque]

27. You know what I admire about the Clinton's?

Their immense ability to waterboard a specific word until it confesses to meaning exactly what the Clinton wants it to mean.

[Land of Enchantment]

64. Waterboard a Word!!! Getting up off the floor...

I read somewhere yesterday the private, homegrown server was Bubba's idea.
It took a while but I found it---interesting stuff, this!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/27/monica-crowley-the-linchpin-of-the-fbis-hillary-cl/

[Fawke Em]

31. Her server wasn't approved for use.

No one knew about it in order to approve it.

Oh - and look up the word "ipso facto," which I've used above. It's simply a violation to mishandle this information whether you intended to do so or not.

[zipplewrath]

57. That's not the story being told

I have to admit, I've always wondered who could have possibly approved such an arrangement. It couldn't have been anyone who actually understood what they were approving, or they were careless, one of the two. But the official story so far was that she was told that this was an acceptable arrangement.

And no one gets indicted for mishandling classified information unless they can show intent (or wanton carelessness). Regardless of whether the law would allow it or not.

[pdsimdars]

104. Ask General Pitreas about that.

there are zillions of examples. You're just making things up. Did someone feed you this misinformation? It is incorrect.

[zipplewrath]

105. He did it intentionally

He knowingly and intentionally transmitted classified information to a private citizen not cleared to receive it. He admitted to it, including the fore knowledge and the intent. This is so different from the Clinton situation one struggles to find the similarities. And the differences are significant and fundamental to whether she will be charged.

[haikugal]

157. So did Clinton. She set up an unsecured private server and used it the entire time she was SOS.

How is that transparent? She ran classified information through it and somehow Blumenthal had
classified information (where did he get it) and she conferred with him even after being told not to bring him into the State Department, all while the Clinton Foundation payed him a nice salary.

You don't think that's the epitome of corrupt, dark and secretive then you aren't interested in a responsive government. She set this up intentionally to circumvent the existing laws and FOIA. There is no other explanation that makes sense.

It was very intentional.

Also the server was very poorly secured, very poorly.

[zipplewrath]

172. No

Not even close to the same. Clinton has not been shown to have intentionally used her server to transmit classified information to those she knew were not cleared to receive it. That is different from it happening anyway, and that it was an entirely predictable event. Since she is representing that it was an approved server, it bears no correlation to Patreaus at all.

[haikugal]

178. The information was clearly marked and she told them to take the classification off and send to her

private server anyway...that's intentional or are you going to redefine that term also?

[zipplewrath]

183. Actually, what she said was

She told them to turn them into "nonpapers". I'm not even sure what that means. But from reading what she wrote (apparently on her blackberry) I would have presumed she wanted the unclassified information stripped out and sent. What I do know is that this information has been around for a while and so far no one has attempted to indict anyone yet. (There would be two from such and exchange, the person that did it, and the person that directed them to do it.)

[leveymg]

42. Conviction under Sec. 793 requires neither intent nor actual harm. Mishandling is enough.

Hillary Clinton's use of a private, uncertified server for official business and to transmit and store classified information was never approved. In fact, the NSA warned her that her Blackberry was unsecure and she shouldn't use it. When that Agency refused to clone a half dozen duplicates of Obama's secure smart phone for her to email her staff, her reaction was to set up and use her own private email server for all private and official business. Defiance isn't the word for this. It was a willful and criminal violation of her security oath.

Her violation of both her signed classified information agreement and federal felony law is clear if you actually read her security agreement and the statute, below:

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 classlfled 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.

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

[zipplewrath]

63. Necessary, but not sufficient

You won't find cases of people being prosecuted for what she did, unless they lied after the fact, or did it despite being told not to. In this case, the official explanation was that she was advised that she could use her private server for official, unclassified, business. The fact that classified material ended up on that server (a very predictable event) doesn't really change anything. If she had been advised not to do this, she'd been in more trouble.

People aren't prosecuted for unintentional data spills, especially ones they did not create. They get prosecuted because they try to cover them up, or lie about it.

[leveymg]

87. She did it despite and in spite of being told not to use her Blackberry. She's in serious trouble

When she received a series of emails containing obviously classified information from Sid Blumenthal, her response was "keep 'em coming." This information turned out to have originated just hours earlier with the NSA, and had been taken off a classified system just hours earlier. She's in serious trouble. If one reads her Classified Information Agreement, posted above, it makes repeated reference to Sec 793 of Title 18 US Code. That's a felony statute for violation of the oath. Keep her response to Blumenthal in mind -- and the fact that she didn't report the breach, and expressly encouraged more of the same -- as you read subsection (f)(2) of that section, below:

(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.


She's in serious trouble.

Full text here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

What is the context of Sidney Blumenthal's email that Hillary should have recognized as classified and reported?

Here's what the NYT says: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/politics/benghazi-emails-put-focus-on-hillary-clintons-encouragement-of-adviser.html

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters last month that the memos about Libya she received while secretary of state from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime adviser whom the Obama administration had barred her from hiring, had been “unsolicited.”

But email records that Mrs. Clinton, according to officials briefed on the matter, apparently failed to turn over to the State Department last fall show that she repeatedly encouraged Mr. Blumenthal to “keep ’em coming,” as she said in an August 2012 reply to a memo from him, which she called “another keeper.”

All or part of 15 Libya-related emails she sent to Mr. Blumenthal were missing from the trove of 30,000 that Mrs. Clinton provided to the State Department last year, as well as from the 847 that the department in turn provided in February to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The emails were reviewed by a reporter.

The department had asked Mrs. Clinton last year for copies of all of the work-related emails she sent or received on the personal email account she exclusively used when she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. (She has said that she wiped the server clean thereafter, deleting the emails that she had not turned over to the department, which she said were personal.)

In sifting through and producing such a large number of emails, it stands to reason that some would be missed. But the fact that some of the missing correspondence contained expressions of gratitude and encouragement to Mr. Blumenthal is being seized on by Republicans, who plan to use the apparent contradiction, and the missing emails, to raise new questions about Mrs. Clinton’s credibility.

The missing email records — nine complete messages and parts of six others — were discovered after Mr. Blumenthal turned over to the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks his own batch of Libya-related email correspondence with Mrs. Clinton.

Angered that the State Department had not already provided it with some of those emails, the committee asked the department whether it had received them from Mrs. Clinton. The department determined that it had not received all or part of 15 emails.

On Thursday, the State Department acknowledged the missing correspondence, but it did not specifically say which parts of those emails were missing.

According to officials briefed on the matter, among the emails the State Department could not find were those in which Mrs. Clinton encouraged Mr. Blumenthal to keep sending memos or in which she asked additional questions about their contents.

In response to an intelligence memo Mr. Blumenthal sent Mrs. Clinton in July 2012, she said: “Greetings from Kabul! And thanks for keeping this stuff coming!”

And, responding to a March 2012 memo, she wrote: “This strains credulity based on what I know. Any more info about it?”

Mr. Blumenthal replied, “Will seek more intel.”

What exactly was in Mr. Blumenthal's emails to Hillary?

Some Blumenthal emails were deigned so sensitive by the Dept. of State that they were redacted in full. State Department releases of Hillary Clinton emails have contained messages from her longtime friend and intelligence-provider, Sidney Blumenthal, that have been deemed to contain some classified information. More than 1,100 emails and attachments on the server were found to contain some classified information, including 104 sent by Clinton herself. 22 emails were classified Top Secret/SAP (Special Access Program)

Four Blumenthal emails released by the State Department on Friday, January 28 were completely redacted:

A June 20, 2011, email entitled “memo hrc Bahrain/Iran” is also classified as confidential and redacted in full because it contains information related to foreign activities.

On June 23, 2009, Blumenthal sent an email to Clinton with the subject line “N. Ireland/Shaun,” an apparent reference to Shaun Woodward, who then served as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Likewise with a June 28, 2012, email with the subject line “some intel on internal german/euro maneuvering.”

Another email from Blumenthal to Clinton, sent Aug. 3, 2012, is nearly completely redacted save for statement that the email contained information from “sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions.”

The State Department also withhold in full 22 emails that contain “top secret” information. The agency also acknowledged that the information was classified at the time the emails were created. The agency gave no indication one way or the other if any of those emails came from Blumenthal.

Clinton has claimed that the records were not “marked” classified when she sent or received them. However, her nondisclosure agreement signed on January 22, 2009 states that she received training in recognizing and handling classified information. The agreement states in the first paragraph that classified information is classified regardless of whether it is marked or unmarked as such. See the complete text of her signed agreement at #42, above.

She's in seriously grave trouble.

The emails to and from Sid Blumenthal about Libya cover material that is clearly classified as foreign government information. https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

Two weeks after France began bombing Libya, in March, 2011, Hillary Clinton's old friend and advisor Sidney Blumenthal passed her an intelligence memo that supposedly revealed France's true — and quite unflattering— motivations for toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. While France's then-President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly said he wished to free the Libyan people from tyranny, Blumenthal's memo argues that he was driven by a cocktail of less lofty incentives, including a desire for Libyan oil, and a fear that Qaddafi secretly planned to use his vast supply of gold to displace France's primacy in the region.

Libya watchers aren't so sure that Blumenthal was passing the US Secretary Of State solid intelligence. "For me, it's not credible," former French diplomat and Libya expert Patrick Haimzadeh told VICE News when asked about the Blumenthal memo. Haimzadeh worked at the French embassy in Tripoli from 2001 to 2004, and wrote the 2011 study In the Heart of Qaddafi's Libya. "In 2011, everyone was saying anything and everything about Libya," Haimzadeh said. "But in fact, no one really knew what was going on. At the time, the French intelligence services and the CIA were in the dark. For example, the French services said the war would last three days — in reality, it took eight months."

It appears that Clinton's office too was awash in Libya rumors. Nearly a third of all the emails she received on the security and political situation in Libya during her tenure as Secretary of State came from Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton associate who was not formally employed by the State Department. He was on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation, bringing in $10,000 a month as a consultant, while pursuing his own business interests in Libya. Blumenthal's emails to Clinton now have been made public in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by VICE News.

Clinton's correspondence reveals that Blumenthal regularly sent her intelligence-cable-style updates on Libya that cited anonymous sources who claimed to be close to the country's political elites.

These briefs were prepared by Blumenthal's business partner and former CIA operative Tyler Drumheller, a consultant with plans to take advantage of economic opportunities in a post-war Libya. Both Drumheller and Blumenthal worked with a Libyan company called Osprey, a start-up that hoped to profit off medical and military contracts in the chaos after the war.

Though those contracts may have eventually needed the approval of Clinton's State Department, Blumenthal has repeatedly denied he intended to use his connections to the Secretary of State to further his business interests. Since Libya fractured after the NATO-led intervention in 2011, the lucrative business opportunities didn't materialize, and Osprey never really got off the ground.

She is in serious trouble for trading these emails with Blumenthal. Indeed, they point to her involvement in a wider pattern of criminal conflict of interest, such as abuses in State Department contracts in Libya.

[zipplewrath]

98. So far you have nothing

She was warned about using unclassified systems (i.e her Blackberry) because of the exact spills that occurred. But you'll note that in there no where are you explaining about the confusion about what was classified. Remember, Blumenthal had no security clearance (he lost it years ago because of blatant mishandling). So however he was obtaining the info, it was ostensibly from unclassified sources. (A bigger question is how he was supposedly getting info straight out of NSA so quickly). Hillary (presumably) acknowledged that she couldn't use the blackberry for classified communications, but the NSA had no "legal" authority to tell her she couldn't use it for unclassified. She would have been well served to realize that the possibility of a classified data spill was about 100%. Which, again, goes to the quality of her judgment.

[pdsimdars]

106. There is no confusion about what is classified and not. That is a typical Clinton red herring

Right in that agreement she signed it says that classified information can be marked or not marked. It is about the CONTENT and not the marking.

If you see a satellite photo of a military site in the middle east. . whether or not it is marked, someone who has been briefed will KNOW that is classified. And she is also supposed to mark it when she comes across something like that. And if she sees it coming from an source like that, being handled in an improper way, if anyone sees that, they have sworn to report it. She did not.

There are laws and you should go look into it instead of simply extrapolating on talking points Hillary has put out. Pretty much everything she has said about it has been proven to be wrong.

[leveymg]

111. Everything you have posted so far is misinformation or disinformation.

She was warned by ranking NSA security officers not to continue using her Blackberry in the very early days of her tenure as SOS, which began on the day she signed her classified information nondisclose agreement, Jan 22, 2009. Literally within days of the NSA's refusal to clone the President's secure phone for her and her inner staff, she started using her home server that was connected to the Blackberry. In her agreement, she acknowledged that she had received training in recognizing and handling classified information. At least 2,100 separate pieces of classified information were found in the server, including 104 from Hillary, herself, and 22 Top Secret/SAP. Much of the email she traded enthusiastically with Sid Blumenthal -- "keep 'em coming," HRC responded -- was found to be classified. She never used any email except her Blackberry hooked up to uncertified server for official business.

She never reported the apparent violation of information security of others, as she was bound to do by law and oath. She sent classified information across unsecure devices on at least 104 occasions. When she left office, she did not return classified materials, as her signed oath instructed. Instead, she wiped half the contents of the server, and turned over only partial contents of classified materials when discovered and pressed to do so by the State Department.

Her judgement isn't just bad, what she did was criminal, and she had been trained to know that.

[zipplewrath]

146. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Patreaus got in trouble because he knew what he was doing was a violation. Hillary was warned that what she was doing was risky. The two are not synonymous in a legal sense. I'll agree it was ridiculously stupid on her part. But unfortunately stupid is not illegal. I suspect there was no small part of hubris either.

[leveymg]

163. Petraeus was allowed to plead down to a different charge, Sec. 1924.

That one does require a showing or admission of intent. While a misdemeanor, the standard of proof in a 1924 case is actually higher than the felony Sec 793 violation HRC committed. The only proof needed with 793 is that she mishandled classified materials or failed to report others. Much easier to prove.

[zipplewrath]

176. "Allowed"

The decision was made to "allow" this for a variety of reason, often among them is that the more severe charges can be harder to gain convictions upon. Same thing here. A conviction on her mistake will be hard for them to gain and will influence their decision on whether to bring charges. Typically, in these kinds of spills, they do not bring charges if the person has not lied or otherwise tried to cover it up.

[leveymg]

185. You're calling it a "mistake", whereas the evidence shows she set up her server as an end-run around

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 10:46 AM - Edit history (3)

information security requirements. She received explicit warnings from NSA about the vulnerability to hacking of her hand held. Not only did she continue to use the Blackberry in spite of this warning, she arranged to have that device connected to an uncertified server, which made her communications even more vulnerable to interception. She understood that she was defying NSA. That provides the element of guilty knowledge, or mens rea, that some courts have held is a requirement to conviction under 793(e) for unauthorized transmission or retention of classified information.

Subsection (e) makes the following acts a felony. Note that the courts have held there are two types of classified materials referenced, tangible documents and intangible information. The distinction is important, as will be explained below:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

Her actions show general mens rea, or guilty knowledge, that what she was doing could "be used to the injury of the United States." Note that is different from a more specific intent to injure the United States, which is not a requirement under this subsection. Nonetheless, mens rea is a requirement under one line of legal interpretation for conviction for sharing intangible (unstamped) classified information under 793(e). The same line of interpretation distinguishes marked documents from unmarked (intangible) information in the following fashion, according to a government Motion filed in a recent Sec. 793 case: US v Hitzelberger, Case 1:12-cr-00231-RC Document 51 Filed 04/05/13, .pdf

Section 793(e) differentiates between “tangible” information, i.e., the laundry list of items in the statute and “intangible” information, i.e., knowledge. For intangible information, the government must also prove mens rea: that “the possessor has reason to believe (the intangible information) could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign power. 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). The House Committee, in its report on § 793(e) in connection with the 1950 revision of the Espionage Act, explained that this qualifying language addressed concerns that the category of illegally communicated intangible information was potentially overbroad. H.R.Rep. No. 647, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (1949), at 4. The Committee left it to the courts to define this limiting phrase on a case-by-case basis, but stressed that the “qualification [was] not intended to qualify the other items enumerated in the subsections.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the government must address the limiting phrase only where the information at issue is intangible.

Meanwhile, this same reasoning is reflected in a filing in the Manning case. A Government brief observed on the topic of what it takes the phrase "reason to believe" to mean, as used in Sec. 793(e): http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/715582/ae-509-government-targeted-brief-reason-to.txt.

under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), the Government is not
required to prove that the accused had reason to believe the
information "could be used to the injury of the United States"
when the accused had unauthorized possession of any "document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or
note relating to the national defense." See 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). In
other words, the "reason to believe" scienter requirement only
applies to intangible information relating to the national defense,
not the tangible items listed above. See United States v. Kiriakou,
2012 WL 4903319, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 1 6, 2012) ("Importantly, §
793 [e] differentiates between 'tangible' NDI, described in the
'documents' clause ( 'any document, ... or note relating to the
national defense'), and 'intangible' ND I, described in the
'information' clause ('information relating to the national
defense').&quot ; United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 612
( E.D. Va. 2006) ("Second, Congress expanded the category of
what could not be communicated pursuant to § § 793(d) and (e) to
include 'information relating to the national defense,' but modified
this additional item by adding a scienter requirement....&quot .

However, the courts have differed on the strict scienter requirement for a 793(e) conviction as found in the 2006 Rosen decision. According to the Congressional Research Service: Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information, Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney (September 9, 2013):

ftn. 115 - See United States v. Drake, 818 F. Supp. 2d 909, 916 (D. Md. 2011) (distinguishing intent requirements between disclosures involving tangible documents and those involving intangible information); United States v. Kiriakou, 2012 WL 4903319 at *3-5 (E.D. Va. October 16, 2012) (surveying case law and noting that 4th Cir. interlocutory appeal in
the Rosen case cast doubt on the district judge’s interpretation).

Furthermore, HRC should have reasonably known that she was violating Sec 793(e) by willfully allowing her email system to be a conduit for the swapping and storage of classified materials in violation of the terms of her Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement signed by her on January 22, 2009, which states at Paragraph 1:

"For the purposes of this Agreement, classified information is marked and unmarked information."

Given the sheer volume of classified materials found on her uncertified server, more than 2000 with 104 originating with her, and that 22 were classified Top Secret, she meets the standards for prosecution under USDOJ and JAG guidelines.

In addition, this pattern of willful evasion of the law in concert with others establishes scienter, or willful intent, for an additional conspiracy charge under 793(g), the next relevant subsection of 793:

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

[zipplewrath]

192. That's a heck of a deduction on your part

typically a prosecutor would actually want more direct evidence of your assertions, not just your presumptions about her motives.

[leveymg]

193. The intent is clearly on the face of the acts in evidence.

The theory of the case follows the facts and a conventional reading of the law. The FBI analysis will look like this. I am open to other interpretations.

[zipplewrath]

194. Not to a prosecutor

If one starts from a position of presumed innocents as a prosecutor must, then the "case" becomes less clear. Again, never presume malice where stupidity will suffice

[leveymg]

195. Under the Espionage Act, stupidity is a crime. One does not have to intend to harm the US or

actually do harm. The mere fact that one transmits or retains classified materials that could do harm to national security is enough to be convicted under 18 USC 793 (e). The threshold of intent is even lower under (f)(1). Gross negligence resulting in delivery to an unauthorized person, loss, abstraction, or destruction of documents. Under (f)(2), the mere failure to report knowledge that classified information has fallen into unauthorized hands is enough for conviction - there is no further intent requirement beyond "knowledge of" under (f)(2).

It's right there in the statute:

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[zipplewrath]

196. In a court of law

This case wouldn't stand under the current facts as we understand them. A prosecutor wouldn't even take it TO court.

[leveymg]

197. I might agree, if she hadn't herself posted classified info or encouraged Blumenthal to do so.

But, it only takes proof of one count to convict. Under the facts as we understand them, there are dozens, no, hundreds of identifiable culpable acts on HRC's part in this case.

[zipplewrath]

198. Intent

There's that word again. It has yet to been have been shown that there was any intent. Without that (and presumption will be on her side) the system isn't going to try to bring charges. People who get in legal trouble either admit to intent, or they attempt to cover it up after the fact (which is considered a form of proof of intent).

[frylock]

76. Her use of a private server was supposedly "approved" for use.

Link?

[zipplewrath]

78. Her testimony

She testified to this. Her lawyers also asserted this. I've been wondering for some time exactly what this means because anyone with any real knowledge of computer systems, and the ability to say no to power, would not have approved this. I've always been of the opinion that it must have been some lawyer at State or something.

[Capt. Obvious]

85. I hope the response satisfies your request

[frylock]

124. Absolutely!

[leveymg]

90. There is no link because that never happened.

[pdsimdars]

108. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^

They just make that stuff up apparently. Because it has no basis in fact. You have to wonder where they get that nonsense from.

[Scuba]

14. So many, many, many good reasons to reject Hillary Clinton.

[silvershadow]

154. Can you imagine how enthusiastically she will be supported? nt

[Scuba]

156. Well, I do see the Republicans drooling at the chance to vote against her.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Fawke Em.

[Sheepshank]

16. good god...not this fucking shit again

I swear to god, henceforth, any BS supporter complaining that a topic regarding Bernie is raised more that one time, should have to read every single fucking post about emails. It would serve(r) them right.

[Fawke Em]

32. I see you also know little about cyber security.

Thanks for proving my point.

[libdem4life]

41. Naw, just living in the Clinton Bubble. She who can do no wrong.

Hell, that's why she did it. The rules and laws just don't apply to the Clintons...but that's about to be in the past.

The Foundation is such an example of pay to play that it's depressing. The Republicans have that "little" tidbit just waiting. Why? Because that's one arena none of them have, to my knowledge, sunk to.

[NV Whino]

17. Reccing for the alliteration alone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Where is the alliteration?

All I see is persistent partisan pettifogging.

[NV Whino]

86. Cute.😏

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Thanks, been trying to put that together myself

In between everything else.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I'm now in the middle of reading the medium version timeline and this is worth bookmarking.

Thanks again, Fawke Em.

[pdsimdars]

24. It just remind me of the tea baggers and climate change denial. . . . the refuse to accept facts.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

26. GOP central

[Fawke Em]

35. The dude who wrong the definitive guide to the 9/11 timeline...

The dude who wrote, "The Terror Timeline," that Richard Clarke uses to teach his courses is "GOP Central."

That's funny.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

36. Endless attacks of HIllary is GOP central. You may not even know you are doing it.

[frylock]

81. Poor Hillary.

[KoKo]

171. Recommend....

[griffi94]

29. I realize Bernies supporters wish this would turn into something.

But so far it hasn't.

I'm not inclined to think it's any more of a real issue
than Benghazi, Whitewater, or any other of the
dozens of offenses the Clintons have supposedlt committed.

Hillary is going to be our nominee.

[peace13]

34. What Bernie supporters do not want is Clinton elected to a term of eternal impeachment proceedings.

That is what we don't want. What a phenomenal waste of effort. This will be no different than the last Clinton administration.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

39. And yet FAR better than ANY con, right?

[peace13]

49. It is senseless to vote for someone with these problems.

The primaries are not over. Wake up! She is not the inevitable candidate. Why do you expect other people to choose her when they have voted otherwise already. You figure it out.

[griffi94]

43. I thought the last Clinton administration was a success

Of course your mileage may vary.

As for what Bernie supporters want.
Sometimes it doesn't go your way.

This is one of those times.
She's going to win.

Even in the face of an investigation more voters chose her.


Continued harping about Emailgate isn't going to have any more effect than when the RW continues to scream Benghazi.

The reality is Hillary hasn't been indicted so any talk of that is simple speculation.
She's certainly been investigated enough that if there was anything there I think we'd all know it by now.

[Land of Enchantment]

58. A success? For who? Apparently you did not live through that era, I did.

I voted for Jerry Brown in the primary race but they had to have Bubba....The entire 8 years was full of turmoil. Failed economic policies, NAFTA, Central America, bimbogate, Travelgate FBIgate, jesus, it never ended. I DO NOT wish to live through Clinton Squared.

They haven't even gotten warmed up on the SOS and Clinton Foundation shenanigans...drip, drip, drip...

[griffi94]

62. I'm 53

After the Reagan Bush era I was able to find work again.

[jcgoldie]

70. that's bullshit

How much credit the president deserves for such things can be debated. What is fact is that Bill Clinton oversaw 8 years of nearly continuous economic expansion and tremendous job growth. All the stupid scandals you mention and the fact that he was reelected and left office very popular only serve to highlight just how well things were for the majority of Americans comparatively speaking in the 1990s.

[zipplewrath]

74. DOMA, DADT, NAFTA

Do we have to go through the list of stuff from that time? And let's not forget that there was a crash of markets virtually as he was leaving office. He rode a Dot Com boom for 8 years but that came a crashing down into the post NAFTA era. And of course he was there when Glass-Steagle was eliminated and no regulations put in its place. But we did "end the era of big government" and "reform" welfare. We also started mass incarcerations.

[jcgoldie]

80. "failed economic policies"

That's the charge that was made. They were 8 years of continuous economic and job growth. The recession did not occur "as he was leaving office" it occurred in 2001.

[Land of Enchantment]

88. Hellloooooo...

Let's start with this.....

However, in the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.

Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

Here are some other facts....

But for more than a year before Hillary Clinton launched her latest presidential campaign, Bill Clinton has been selectively telling media outlets that he made some mistakes as president and might have acted otherwise. He's even tried to recast actual events and been taken to task by fact-checkers who recall his leading role in what became major crises, such as the 2008 global financial implosion. What follows are 15 ways Bill Clinton’s presidency did not serve America or the world, and in many ways deepened and perpetuated the problems we face today.




1. Prison-loving president
2. Punitive welfare reform.
3. Wall Street’s Deregulator-in-Chief.
4. Gutted manufacturing via trade agreements.
5. No LGBT equality: Defense of Marriage Act.
6. Expanded the war on drugs.
7. Expanded the death penalty.
8. Returned to Cold War priorities.
9. Joycelyn Elders and the culture war.
10. Turning Lincoln Bedroom into fundraising condo.
11. Bombed Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.
12. Doubled down on Iraq sanctions.
13. Political smears: Sistah Souljah.
14. Knew about coming Rwandan genocide.
15. Escalated America's foreign drug wars.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

[zipplewrath]

89. The instablity was clearly there prior however

It was clear the Dot Com boom was peaking. And George took office in January of 2001, so yeah, it was "virtually" as he was leaving office.

[Fawke Em]

38. What you don't seem to understand is that investigations aren't like they are on TV.

Over, done with and adjudicated in an hour.

This is an on-going investigation. I realize it takes time. It's also NOT being investigated by a GOP committee like Whitewater and Benghazi were. This is being done by the FBI.

[griffi94]

46. What you don't seem to understand

is that the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters thinks this is just
another "get the Clintons" project.

The majority have chosen Hillary.
What happens next. Who knows but it's not
going to be Bernie.

[frylock]

82. The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are going to be in for quite a shock..

when the Indictment Faerie waves her wand.

[griffi94]

83. That's not going to happen

She'll finsih up with Bernie and then bury
Trump in November.

She's got this in the bag.

[Land of Enchantment]

96. LOL, now THAT is funny!

You may have been around in the 90's but you seem to not understand the R's possessed hatred of all things Clinton. I fear she will be crushed because she has lost the Independents, the millennials and about half of the Dems. That doesn't leave a lot of votes for her.....
Why not go with a candidate who can draw all those voters into the arms of the Democratic Party plus some of the R's who have not completely lost their minds? Some of my family are R's and are beside themselves because of their incredible hatred of the Clintons in addition to having NO candidate on their side who is 'half-human' as they put it. They plan to stay home unless it's Sanders on the Dem side. Go fish.

[griffi94]

109. Hillary is leading Bernie

by 300 delegates and 3 million votes.

For the majority of the voting Democrats Bernie isn't
a solution.

Bernie didn't get women or POC.
About all he got was indies and millenials.
Registered Democrats prefer Hillary by a large margin.

Hillary will pull enough Indies and women and POC.
She'll also pull moderate Republicans who view Trump and Cruz as clowns.

Hillarys coalition is ver broad much broader than Bernies.

That's why he's losing so badly.

[frylock]

123. Yep.

Quite a shock.

[griffi94]

127. And yet she's blowing everybody else away

300 more delegates and 3 million more votes than Bernie.

She's obviously more popular.
Bernie had a great run. He had some good points.
They just didn't resonate with voters.

Voters preferred Hillary.

She's got this in the bag.

[frylock]

131. Can't imagine how the former First Lady who has the entire Party structure backing her..

could possibly be beating a virtual unknown from a small NE state. It's a fuckin mystery.

[griffi94]

132. More people like her is all

More people voted for her.
3 million more people.

300 delegate lead.
I don't think Bernie can close that big of a gap now.
He's too far behind.

300 delegates behind in fact and 3 million voters.

Any Democrat will win this year.
Bernie would have won the GE easily.
He just didn't seem to ever win over the majority of Democrats.

[frylock]

137. Yeah, that must be it.

Wonder why the Party Machine felt a need to stack the deck so favorably for someone who is so universally liked and respected. Just another part of the fuckin mystery I suppose.

[griffi94]

138. I really don't see a mystery

Democrats just seem to prefer her to Bernie.

That's why she's 300 delegates and 3 million votes ahead.
That's big gap.

She's got this in the bag.

[frylock]

139. Good thing only Democrats get to vote in the GE.

[griffi94]

140. That's not true

All registered voters can vote in the GE.

Like women, a demographic that Hillary is very popular with.
POC another demographic that really likes Hillary.

She'll attract some Indies and even some moderate Republicans.

Any Democrat was going to win this year.

Bernie would have easily beaten Trump or Cruz.
He just didn't attract enough Democratic primary voters
to win the nomination.

[virtualobserver]

40. maybe the "powers that be" don't want Bernie.

As risky as it sounds, they would rather let Hillary take the nomination....and then if this blows up, she can step down and then they put someone else in her place...like VP Joe Biden.

[pdsimdars]

110. I have also thought this.

[libdem4life]

45. In the Land of Enchantment where facts become attacks. LOL. n/t

[beachbumbob]

53. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi whitewater whitewater whitewater

Vince foster Vince foster Vince foster

[gordyfl]

56. Hillary's Comment - "You Mean With a Cloth?"

That comment has stuck with me. It seemed like an absurd comment coming from someone like Hillary. Maybe that is going to be her legal defense - that she knows virtually nothing about computers. Any "wiping" of the computer would just have been a misunderstanding. I think the FBI is, or has been focusing on the obstruction portion in their investigation. If Hillary comes out of this unscathed, then hats off to her.

I don't know if it's completely accurate, but I found this interesting. It's from Reddit....

https://m.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4h4l82/clintons_fbi_woes_tie_back_to_bill_clinton_and/

[pdsimdars]

112. And I saw a couple of people report that at the time she was reading a book about how to

remove data from a hard drive.

[ucrdem]

60. Oh it's real enough. They've used this trick to knock out a few small fry.

The Clintons are not small fry. Caveat emptor.

[JoePhilly]

61. Any second now!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zipplewrath]

65. Frog marched

Yep, right after they get done frog marching Karl Rove out of the White House. The FBI investigated that one too, and I heard for weeks about how soon we were going to get to see THAT too.

[NWCorona]

94. I think we have a bit more waiting to do actually nt

[emulatorloo]

69. Of course it is real. The Fox News spin, not so much.

[frylock]

71. Hillary Supporter thinks Paul is a Freeper looking only to sell books.

Sure, they can't dispute anything in the timeline, but they're certain none of it is true.

[Bayard]

92. Trashed

Trump will completely trash Clinton on all of this. The media will be all over it. Talking about the issues will be drowned out by the love of scandal, and Trump's world view won't even make it to the table.

Clinton hasn't been able to get Bernie on any scandals because there aren't any. I have a lot of confidence in him taking on Trump.

[pdsimdars]

114. As soon as the FBI makes an annuoncement about it, the feeding frenzy will begin

And yet, none of the Hillary supporters will pay attention to the mess that is going to happen.

[pampango]

119. Nor is it a secret for our primary voters. n/t

[Progressive dog]

122. The new version of the truthers

and the birthers has arrived. I wonder when we'll see the fake documents to support this.

[Waiting For Everyman]

126. Denial will work fine until the FBI reports.

Then, not so much.

The "I told you so" will be deafening.

If we had a Dem party that wasn't completely sold out, HRC wouldn't even be allowed to run by any halfway responsible party leader. But we have DWS, the crookedest, biggest loser of all time. And it's no coincidence that such a slimey person is the gatekeeper now.

If HRC is nominated, this election will be an epic disaster. And if she is somehow elected, her administration will be short and make Bill's look amiable.

[Demsrule86]

135. No

It is right wing crap and nothing will come of it.

[Demsrule86]

134. So we post the entire Thompson piece ...a Bernie supporters opinion

which is worthless in my opinion and now we post stuff citing it...nope not going to even look at more anti-Hillary crap from the Bernie Sanders losing side.

[ucrdem]

141. Remember that FBI lawsuit against Apple? The one that crashed and burned?

Same deal here. A big Bhengazi bluff. And if they do pull an indictment out of their BVDs I expect Hillary to tell them politely to stuff it back in.

[Demsrule86]

170. Absolutely true

I think if they had anything, they would have done it. Pretty obvious, the GOP want Bernie in the GE...the rightie FBI (Bush leftovers) are merely prolonging this crap in the hope of long lasting damage to Hillary. But we have heard all the crap before.

[seabeyond]

142. Nu uh.

[Whimsey]

155. Old liberal that I am

even the Wall St Journal ran a bleeb several months ago that the FBI was not looking at Hillary for any criminal wrongdoing in her e-mail set up. Of course after Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice had the same set-up, hard to just say a democrat flouted the law.

Vote socialist if that is what you want. There is a party for that. Just do not denigrate the only real democrat still in the race for president.

[Maedhros]

159. Oh, look, another one.

/ignore.

[Whimsey]

161. Really?

Do you read the paper? Or just your bros?

[haikugal]

160. It wasn't the same they used email she used a private server..completely different. I think they

should have been prosecuted but in this country the movers and shakers aren't held accountable for their wrongs, only the people have to pay a price for 'criminal' behavior. Funny how that works, not!

[Whimsey]

162. You are wrong.

There were no restrictions on the way she set up her e-mail when she did it. The law has changed since then. You are just repeating the same crap the republicans used to start the investigation into it. Why do you think it has been more than four years since she left and two years since the republicans started investigating it and no indictment? It is political and Bernie supporters eat it up like milquetoast. Even Condi and Colin have complained about the new reclassifications of e-mails they sent while they were secretaries. Do some research instead of just espousing the opinions you have read. Reading posts are no substitute for doing the research and reading real sources.

Why don't you try writing in seventeen syllables for a change.

Bernie is a joke
But real to young supporters
They pay his tax soon

Not grammatically correct, but working within the boundaries!

[haikugal]

164. I not using a keyboard so I shorten things for my own comfort...it's really none of your business.

Nice try though.

None of these folks really seem to get the crux of the FOIA angle, how inexpensive it would have been—how much BETTER for ease of compliance it would have been—for that system to be designed/configured differently. It MUST be assumed that it was NOT designed that way, purposefully, because the alternative is just so brain-dead dumb to not be credible. All which means it WAS done purposefully, and that purpose was to deliberately thwart FOIA. Can be no doubt of that. That is a felony. And it should cause to give pause for anyone who believes in open, responsive government. That alone should disqualify her. Beyond that, the classified stuff, is just icing on the cake. She is on a hellbent crusade to take power, by any means necessary. Anyone who supports that has to and can only do so with knowledge of that intent…and if they STILL support her, the rest of us should realize they do so only with malice in mind.

[Whimsey]

167. BS

I was a school board member 2007- 2010 and I am an attorney. I used a private server because that is what we had at home. It was easier for me to have a link to my home e-mail than to have to check my school e-mail everyday. Fault me for being lazy. I was well aware of the FOIA rules and I still have all of the e-mails I received or sent because I am well aware of my legal responsibility. Of course, that computer is close to dead now, so I will lose them eventually. But I will deal with all those lawsuits at the time. You are inserting a motive when you have no evidence of it. Think for yourself instead of regurgitating talking points.

The seventeen syllables refer to your handle, not your posts. Did I dis you by writing in 17 syllables? Do you know what haiku is? Do any of the Bernie supporters?

And Bernie is clearly hellbent on taking power any way possible. Why else his crusade to turn superdelegates to his side - which will require a super proportional percentage of superdelegates as compared to his popular vote. But that is ok because he is pure? If he were pure he would not be a politician. That is the only job he has ever had that he has been able to make a living at. Hillary at least made a living working - practicing law.

[DFab420]

177. Lol 33 posts. Guys I think they are correcting the record over here.

[2cannan]

180. What Rice and Powell did

snip

March 3, 2015: A Clinton aide makes misleading comparisons to previous secretaries of state. An unnamed Clinton aide says about Clinton's use of a private email account and server, "Nothing nefarious was at play. She had a BlackBerry, she used it prior to State, and like her predecessors she continued to use it when she got to State." (Politico, 3/3/2015) However, a week later, The Wall Street Journal will report that Condoleezza Rice, Clinton's predecessor as secretary of state, had a government email account and no private email account for work-related matters. Rice only used the account occasionally, but she did use it. (Wall Street Journal, 3/10/2015) Furthermore, Rice did not use a BlackBerry or similar device. (Ars Technica, 3/17/2016) Earlier secretaries of state did not use BlackBerrys and did not use private email accounts for government work. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_4

August 2015: Secretary of State Powell received two classified emails, but under very different circumstances than Clinton. Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall writes a letter to the State Department claiming that Clinton's "use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other secretaries of state." Kendall points in particular to Colin Powell, who appears to be the only other secretary of state to use a private email account while in office. But Powell had a government email account in addition to private one. According to The Washington Post, "Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews." He also had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private email account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. The State Department's inspector general did find that Powell's personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained "national security information classified at the 'secret' or 'confidential' levels." (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016) It will later come out that the two emails were at the lowest 'confidential' level and did not actually contain any intelligence but were classified for other reasons. (ABC News, 3/4/2016)

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Long_Version_-_Part_5

[Scurrilous]

175. Yawn.

Who hasn't been investigated by the Feds at some point in their lives. This tempest in a teapot isn't going to save Bernie. What's very real is that his campaign is finished.