WaPo/CNN ran a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has

[leveymg]

evidence that HRC had intent to violate the law. The initial reports used the following language: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules

Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules

When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.

The use of “Scant” and “intended to” are both spin

The modifier "scant" is spin. As we see below, the use of the phrase “intended to break” is also misleading. She can be convicted of two major felonies enumerated within the Espionage Act without specific intent to violate classification rules, as was explained at length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511898037

The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted knowing that unauthorized release "could" cause harm to the national security. That is a much lower standard of proof than proving someone intended to such harm.

The standard articulated in (f)(1), meanwhile, requires nothing more than "gross negligence" for losing or destroying documents. The subsection that follows, (f)(2) makes it a crime for merely "knowing" that someone else has mishandled classified information, but failing to report it.

As for the element of mens rea, or guilty knowledge generally required for conviction of serious crimes, Clinton was given notice by NSA not to use her Blackberry, but continued to use it hooked up to her unauthorized private server. She received Classified information from Blumenthal, who told her it was classified, but instead of reporting him as the statute at (f)(2) commands, she replied, "Keep 'em coming." She didn't report the apparent violation of information security. That was a direct violation of that part of the law. Furthermore, contrary to campaign spin, paragraph one of her signed Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement states, "classified information is marked or unmarked classified information."

She violated her security oath and that should be enough to disqualify her from seeking office that requires a security clearance.

The Espionage Act punishes stupidity in mishandling classified information as well as malice

Under the Espionage Act, one does not have to intend to 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.

So, as one sees, if the law is actually applied, Mrs. Clinton is not off the hook. Not at all.

[FreakinDJ]

1. "Sources close to the investigation" are Hillary Cronies in the State Dept.

Leaking Hillary's Talking Points trying to cover their own complicity in regards to violating the FOIA request

[rhett o rick]

54. "Close to the investigation" is rhetoric. Does it mean in the same room or same city or

someone following the investigation on the internet?

One of the good things we get from DU is a great exposure to how to read rhetoric. Clinton is a master. "I want to see," "We should have", "they will need", "I will only support it if" "I don't like the way it's written (doesn't mean she won't support it).

[catnhatnh]

72. Actually

anybody living in the mid-Atlantic region could be described as "close to the investigation"...

[KoKo]

90. ...!

[riversedge]

3. Take your Hillary smears to a RW site.

[Segami]

5. LOL! Truth has now become a 'smear' in camp weathervane!

[leveymg]

12. Just as meaningless as classified information law is to Hillary Clinton.

One bad act follows the other.

[brush]

55. You've been pushing this for quite a while.

By the time they drop this I hope you feel it was a worthwhile ROI.

[Gothmog]

118. A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'Knowingly'

Your attempt to understand the concepts here amuses me. There is no intent here http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Nonetheless, the law on mishandling classified information makes it illegal to "knowingly remove" classified information "with the intent to retain [it] at an unauthorized location." And after leaving office, Clinton hired a company called Platte River Networks in Denver to retain the server with all of her State Department emails.

Two former CIA directors ran afoul of that law for moving classified information to an unauthorized location. John M. Deutch faced a possible criminal charge in 2000 for keeping classified information on his home computer, and former CIA Director Gen. David H. Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in April and pay a $100,000 fine for having given several notebooks containing highly classified information to a woman who was writing his biography.

But unlike in Clinton's case, Deutch and Petraeus admitted they knew they had secret information that should have been kept secure. So far all of the Clinton emails in question were not marked as classified at the time she sent or received them, and only later were designated as classified.

Anne Tompkins, a former U.S. attorney in North Carolina who prosecuted Petraeus, disagreed with Mukasey's assessment that the former secretary of State could be charged with mishandling classified information. "Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct," she wrote in a USA Today opinion piece last week, but Clinton said she did not believe she had sent or received classified information by email.

In late July, two inspectors general — both Obama appointees — said they were troubled to learn that classified information that "should have been marked and handled at the SECRET level" had been on Clinton's email server and had been publicly released this year.

"This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," they said. They referred the matter to intelligence agencies and to the FBI, but added it was not "a criminal referral."

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

[puffy socks]

17. How is 'truth' taking out words so it has the exact opposite meaning? nt

[hootinholler]

22. Scant means nothing?

So if a recipe calls for a scant tablespoon of salt, I shouldn't put any salt in at all?



That's a bit of a stretch.

[puffy socks]

26. LOl I'm poitning out it DOES mean something

Scant means there's barely a hint of anything there. Lots of things can be evidence that appears to have relevant but isn't.
Taking it out changes the entire meaning, hence the word 'modifier'.
So of course it means something that's why it's IN the sentence.

Taking it out is dishonest but not unexpected from the Sanders camp of desperation.

[hootinholler]

44. Funny, the point was

Putting it in minimizes the fact there *is* evidence of chargeable offense. Dishonest but not unexpected from the MSM, eh?

Your argument seems to be that the bank robber got away with a scant bag of cash, so they shouldn't be prosecuted?

Thanks for letting me know that it's opposite day.

[Jemmons]

37. Imagine that your daughter tells you that she is a "little bit" pregnant.

Depending on the situation that might be great or less great. But the "little bit" part of the message is only there to mislead.

[bobthedrummer]

45. +1 K&R

[Jemmons]

47. This is damage control in high gear

I find that the phrasing about "intentions" are the most misleading in the piece:

"One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not."

This is exactly what you would wish if you are a high level Clinton staffer. It brings the whole matter into a subjective sphere of evaluation and pondering about motives.

In real life, it is not so. Her intentions might aggravate matters if they were on record, but they are not at the center of the case. You just dont throw lots of agents on case that hinges on intentions.

Also the phrasing is suspicious: "..wrestling with the question" can mean anything that you like it to mean.

If and when the hammer comes down, it will reflect that Clinton can be proved to have mishandled defense information. For all we know, they might have a strong case for that. That wont preclude that they take their time crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

[inchhigh]

61. Wrestling with whether she intended

to break the rules seems pointless if she hasn't actually broken them. Perhaps she intended to break the rules and failed? She really wanted to pass along classified information to our enemies and just didn't know how?

I think wrestling with intent means that have already decided that she broke the rules and they are just looking for mitigation.

[leveymg]

85. They are just looking for mitigation. Exactly.

[Gothmog]

120. Wrong again

Mens rea is an element of any criminal charge and your analysis is simply sad and wrong. It is illegal for laypersons to attempt to practice law and shoddy but funny attempts show why these laws are necessary Here is a very simplistic explanation that even a layperson might be able to understand http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html

Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea", which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed matters. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.

To give an example, imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a pedestrian. Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too late, tried his or her best to brake, but could do nothing to stop the accident and in fact ended up killing the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in civil court for monetary damages.

Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking for the pedestrian and upon seeing him, steered towards him, hit the gas pedal and slammed into him, killing him instantly. Driver 2 is probably criminally liable because he intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least he intended to cause serious bodily harm. Even though the pedestrian is killed in both scenarios (the outcome is the same), the intent of both drivers was very different and their punishments will be substantially different as a result.

Careless versus Criminal

Carelessness is generally referred to as "negligence" in legal terminology, and generally results in only civil, not criminal, liability. However, at some point general carelessness turns into something more culpable, and some criminal statutes have heightened negligence standards such as criminal or reckless negligence. For example, it may be simple negligence to leave items out on your sidewalk that cause a neighbor to fall and hurt themselves. It may be more than simple negligence, however, if you left out a chainsaw, some knives and flammable material on your sidewalk, resulting in your neighbor's serious injury.

Intentional versus Unintentional

Intentional harmful behavior is often criminal, but unintentional harmful behavior comes in two basic forms. The first is "mistake in fact" and the second is "mistake of law".

Mistake in fact means that, although your behavior fit the definition of a crime in an objective sense - you sold illegal drugs for instance - you were unaware that what you were selling was in fact an illegal drug. For example, if you gave someone a bag full of white powder in return for some money and honestly thought it was baking soda, then you are mistaken as to a fact that is critical to the crime. As a result, you likely lack the necessary mens rea or mental intent necessary under a drug law, because you never intended to sell an illegal drug, you intended to sell baking soda (note that almost no one will believe you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money).

Mistake of law however, will almost never save you from criminal liability. Almost everyone is familiar with the phrase that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and that's exactly how the law sees it. Perhaps in the above example, you did know that what you were selling was cocaine, but you honestly thought that it was legal to do so. It doesn't matter. It may seem slightly unfair that the person who was essentially dumb enough to believe that the white powder was baking soda gets off, but the well intentioned person who honestly thought it was legal to sell cocaine doesn't get off. The justification for having no tolerance for ignorance of the law is that allowing ignorance of the law as a defense would discourage people from learning the law and seriously undermine the effectiveness of the legal system.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html#sthash.OLHaBt76.dpuf

This not an area for strict liability. For example the Petraeaus case involved a ton of proof of actual intent to release material that the general knew was classified.

Thank you for the amusement.

[LiberalArkie]

163. I had a friend who accidentally dropped papers "to be shredded and incinerated" into the recycled

sealed disposal containers. Someone simply stopped to ask him some questions and he turned and dropped then into to wrong container. He called security and explained the problem and they came and emptied the recycled container into the shread and burn container. He was let off because he had no intent to dispose of the documents incorrectly.

More than likely the "mens rea" is what got him off. The guy that there before him had to serve time for improper disposal.

[KoKo]

92. Your reasoning seems very fair and balanced...

Trying to parse what the MSM says (given they only report anonymous "Official Sources" does make it hard for the average reader to understand what the issues are and what's at stake if they can't find a quote beyond "Leakers" (Official Sources) who may have their own "Skin in the Game."

There's just so much about this that reeks of "People Under Investigation or with "Special Interests" doing Butt Covering that it is hard to know where this goes. But, I go back to Watergate Era....and still feel that if Hillary does manage to be our Candidate and is Elected...that it is going to be a Rough Time for all of us dealing with what "comes out After her Election" and what the American People will be put through.

Still it is necessary for our Country to Survive that we go through this, once again. Sadly...

[Renew Deal]

66. You forgot BENGHAZI!!!!!1111

[KoKo]

95. It gets old...it gets stale... So much investigation has moved on...

It's like those who shout "FITZMAS" who miss the point of what that was all about.

[TrueDemVA]

108. The truth has always been a problem

Her biggest weakness is the truth. The Hill folks have been so angry for months trying to shut people down claiming a "smear" everytime someone brings up her own record.

It's amazing. Her own record is thought of so badly, they even acknowledge it as something negative.

[Gothmog]

117. Why go the free republic when we can get silly stuff here

[840high]

132. It's all over the net.

[NastyRiffraff]

136. Oh, wow, it must be true then!

It's all over the net!

[840high]

162. They are ALL lying - feel

better now?

[redstateblues]

151. Pathetic Sanders acolytes clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination

I guess it at least means you have accepted the reality that Bernie math does not lead to victory. That's progress!

[leveymg]

10. I've been here a decade longer than you, and no one has ever accused me of being RW.

I am not a single-issue poster or campaign operative. What about you?

[Dem2]

11. So you claim that you're not a single-issue person here to slander Hillary?

Could have fooled me...

[leveymg]

14. Truth is always a full defense against libel and slander charges.

Everything I have posted here is factual. If you can find an exception to that, please let me know.

[questionseverything]

75. thank you for writing this op

the first thing i thought when i originally read the "scant evidence" was, well then they have established law was broken and are pretending it matters if it was "willfully"

[Gothmog]

123. I love laughing a laypersons who get simple legal concepts wrong

It is fun watching laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. There has to be a culpable mental state which is called mens rea. The are no strict liability crimes and your attempt to claim that there is one is amusing but wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laypersons are amusing when they try to understand legal concepts

[hobbit709]

18. In Camp Bansalot any position not in 150% enthusiastic support of Clinton

is evidence that you are somewhere to the right of Temujin.

[Gothmog]

119. Silly and foolish laypersons are funny when they attempt to understand the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will be no indictment. The views of a layperson on the issue of mens rea is amusing but wrong

[FreakinDJ]

13. Maybe Hillary's Party needs a much smaller tent

[bahrbearian]

16. "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" Vast I tell ya, Vast

[rhett o rick]

23. Funny how conservatives will post an article that includes spin, but when the spin lie is

exposed, it becomes a RW smear. What strikes me is that her followers don't really care if she broke laws. Now that's devotion. I think some equate winning by cheating as toughness. Progressives will turn on a favorite candidate, like Obama when they are exposed as lying, but not conservatives. They prize toughness and that includes lying and cheating.

The conservatives accepted the story that there was "scant" evidence. Scant means that there was some evidence.

[CoffeeCat]

31. I feel sorry for you

You really want Hillary to be President. I can understand being in denial. If this was happening to Bernie, I may wonder if it was a manufactured scandal too.

However, this is not a right-wing smear. This is a serious FBI investigation and nothing about that is right wing.

This is a DEMOCRATIC issue that centers around our Democratic nominee facing a potential indictment. If the FBI recommends indictment, Clinton will be out.

And this does not help Bernie. Hillary would never release her delegates to Bernie. She would release to someone else.

Are you, and people like you--who call this a "right-wing scandal" prepared for these possibilities? Don't be stupid. Stop spinning for five seconds and do some research.

My biggest fear is that the FBI recommends indictment (and based on reading about what she did and about the law--it's very probable) our party and our election will be upended.

We may not agree on candidates, and we all may despise each other--but we will have to come together if this bomb is dropped on us. Otherwise, the Democratic Party implodes and Trump is our next President.

Saying that this is a right-wing issue is bullshit. This is about the Democratic party. Fuck the Republicans. i strongly urge people like you, who are in serious denial, to stop with the childish bullshit.

No one is "praying" or "hoping" for an indictment. And this is not a right-wing issue. Any decent Democrat who cares about the party and this election should be discussing this issue openly.

You damage our party when you position this as a non-serious issue. You are encouraging Democrats to be ignorant and uninformed.

You do Democrats no favors when you behave this way.

[RufusTFirefly]

107. Thank you. A wonderful, thoughtful post!

Which means, I fear, that the people who need to read it most probably won't.

[merbex]

156. Bravo! Ignoring and minimizing this issue will only make things worse if and when the FBI announces

it's findings.

Being prepared for all possible consequences is the best thing all Democrats should do right now.

[pangaia]

76. Nothing to do with RW.. This is just a little deflective technique used

over and over and over..

Personally, I do not know if she did anything wrong. I do not hope it was true, or not true.

[creeksneakers2]

157. The whole thing

started with the Benghazi Committee subpoenaing her E-mails. While it has gone beyond partisan now, its false to claim this has "Nothing to do with RW."

[Ferd Berfel]

77. The reality is that they did in fact find evidence and she is in trouble

as someone said here already "If the law is a applied to her". LEt me boil that down for you;
If Clinton is not above the law, she has a felony to deal with

[840high]

130. You are funny.

[Dem2]

4. My gosh, another screed of copy and paste drooling over Hillary's potential demise

My gosh I've never seen somebody so intent on slandering the Democratic likely nominee for president.

[rhett o rick]

25. How is it slander? I assume you accepted the article that said there was "scant evidence", the

OP is merely pointing out that "scant" means some. We don't know how much evidence they've found so far as the investigation is still underway.

I don't think it's very liberal to demand that investigations and discussions stop just because she might be the Democratic nominee. I think that's a very conservative approach.

[Dem2]

27. If someone's sole intent is to destroy our likely candidate

I think that is something that is worth noting.

[rhett o rick]

29. I like "sole intent" as if you can devine that. I believe Hillary's sole intent is to amass

huge wealth and power. The liberal thing to do is refute the argument not try to silence someone with ridicule (RW smear).

Pointing out that "scant" means some isn't a smear.

[Dem2]

33. Yes of course

I am sure the original poster thanks you for defending them.

[CoffeeCat]

38. You think that a messageboard

Discussion will destroy your candidate? Seriously? I think you're grossly overestimating what goes on here. People come here for entertainment, to discus politics and to read news. We aren't changing lives here. Maybe putting things in perspective, is in order.

And since we're here to discuss politics--why is discussing an ongoing, year-long FBI investigation into our frontrunner's use of an unsecured, private email server "bashing"?

Your ilk spent untold hours ranting about Bernie's trip to Italy. You started more than 150 threads about it, within a two-week period. But it's not ok to discuss the facts of an FBI investigation and the ramifications for the Democratic party and our Democratic primary and presidential election?

SERIOUSLY?

[Dem2]

106. I defend both candidates

"my ilk" is a Democrat who defends Democrats against what see as unfair attacks.

[hrmjustin]

6. Let it go.

[BernieforPres2016]

7. Somebody posted a video yesterday of Hillary from 2008 saying she wasn't going to use email

because she had been investigated so many times. It was at some type of gathering where she was mingling and didn't realize she was being recorded.

[xloadiex]

35. It's this one

It comes in around the 3:20 to 3:32 mark. The whole video is very eye opening.

#t=220

[BernieforPres2016]

43. Thanks

The clip yesterday was only the short bit where she talked about not using email because of all the past investigations. It has been obvious from the beginning that she used a private email server to try to shield herself from FOIA requests. It should have disqualified her from running for President.

[KoKo]

104. Recommend watch....very revealing.

[KoKo]

115. And, that's why she used a "Private Server" during her time as SOS...

Which would seem to say that she had "intent" from the beginning to shield her correspondence from any investigative oversight and that her decision wasn't a "Mistake" as she has recently apologized for. I hope the FBI and FOIA investigation legal teams have seen this snip of Hillary in her own words.

[Skink]

8. Sort of like scantily clad

Whatever that means

[hootinholler]

20. Doesn't that mean they should be raped?

Note to jury: I am in no way advocating that anyone should ever be raped, I'm simply playing on the scantily clad rape defense of well, rapists, that is all too common.

[MisterP]

69. "somewhat pregnant"

[pdsimdars]

9. The parts of this that didn't hurt my brain to read, I am in total agreement with.

I like the way one guy put it (can't put his name or some people would dismiss out of hand). . .he said that
if you tell a judge that you mishandled secure information but didn't mean to, all the judge would hear was that you mishandled secure information.

[puffy socks]

15. modify it again so it says

what you wish?

The desperation is intense.

[pinebox]

19. This is getting bad...........

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Just like her little "out" tag of "as far as I know." All she knows how to do is spin.

[floppyboo]

24. Bookmarked. Thanks. nt

[rhett o rick]

28. "Scant" means some, we just don't know how much because the investigation

is still going on and we haven't seen an official report only heard rumors attributed to "government officials".

[Onlooker]

30. You're reading way too much into things

Besides, the article also states:

One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

...

U.S. officials also dismissed claims by a Romanian hacker now facing federal charges in Virginia that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server. The officials said investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion by Marcel Lehel Lazar to Fox News and others, and they believed if he had accessed Clinton’s emails, he would have released them — as he did when he got into accounts of other high-profile people.

[JTFrog]

124. +1 n/t

[antigop]

32. leveymg, you need to enlighten Cenk Ugyur

[leveymg]

46. If someone has his email address, please forward it to him.

Just don't enclose classified information. They WILL prosecute YOU.

[Gothmog]

125. Under your sad but wrong analysis talking about NYT articles on drones is illegal

The theory for an indictment relies on Clinton knowing that the material was secret and not protecting it. None of the e-mails were classified at the time and were later re-classified. To indict Clinton you would have to find a DOJ attorney stupid enought to think that the e-mails about a story published in the NYT were protected The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT Good luck finding a DOJ attorney stupid enough to bring a claim based on stories published in the NYT

Laypersons are so silly when they attempt to understand legal concepts

[Gothmog]

133. Even Fox News is not stupid enough to believe that there will be an indictment

[rhett o rick]

34. Those handling confidential information are trained extensively on how to recognize

confidential information EVEN IF IT ISN'T APPROPRIATELY MARKED. The training includes the discussion on the responsibility of "knowing". "I didn't know" isn't an excuse for this anymore than "I didn't know it was loaded," is an excuse for pointing a gun and shooting someone. The specific crime may be different but it's still a crime.

[BernieforPres2016]

40. And of course the Secretary of State is going to GENERATE a lot of classified communication

The idea of a Secretary of State pretending that something isn't classified until somebody else marks it classified is beyond disingenuous.

[Jemmons]

49. "Wiped? You mean like with a cloth?"

I think it is safe to say that she has form with regards to slipping a bit of disingeniousness into your drink when you dont look.

[rhett o rick]

51. First of all she is trained and fully knows what is and isn't confidential.

And as SoS she should have staff well versed in the knowledge with which to confide in if she needed help deciding. Funny how her followers say she is brilliant but she seems to falter with something so important.

[XemaSab]

59. You can be smart and have terrible judgement

QED

[Gothmog]

134. Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non lawyers are funny when they attempt to understand legal concepts

[rhett o rick]

138. Interesting that those that don't handle confidental information think lawyers know all.

She was trained to recognize confidential material. Failing to recognize isn't an acceptable excuse for violating the law.

[Gothmog]

150. It is even more interesting seeing laypersons attempting to understand legal concepts

The OP is a great example as to why the laws that make it illegal laypersons to attempt to practice law are necessary

[DCBob]

36. Good grief.. you never give up on this nonsense.

Here is the wording from their latest article..

Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html

That means she did nothing illegal.

[leveymg]

50. No, it means the charges under Sec 793 are limited to subsections (e) and (f).

Both are felonies. Go back and read the post and the statute, Bob. You can take the test over again.

[DCBob]

52. You are too much! Its gonna really hurt when the FBI report finally comes out.

I suggest you stay away from all sources of media for few days afterwards.

[Gothmog]

126. The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained

Here is a good explanation of the issue that even some laypersons should be able to understand http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?

Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.

The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."

But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The e-mails were not marked classified when received and so later reclassification is meaningless

I love laughing at silly laypersons who attempt and fail to understand legal issues

[ljm2002]

67. Actually, her use of the Blackberry...

...for all of her communications, after being specifically warned not to do that because of its know security vulnerabilities... would seem to me to show intent.

But, IANAL.

[catnhatnh]

74. Try reading for content...

try this quote "U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN"...

There are 2 organizations involved in the investigation-DOJ and FBI. Tell me which one gave a briefing to outsiders?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Just like there's "no malicious intent" when someone cheats on their spouse. .

Just a fling. A meaningless bit of fun. A lapse in judgement. A mistake.

[Surya Gayatri]

41. Interesting illustration of the OCD syndrome...

[JoePhilly]

42. + 1

[leveymg]

48. The law is against you, and there are no facts on your side, so go ad hominem.

Attacking the messenger is all you got left.

[Surya Gayatri]

53. Reminds me of the "disapppointed" scene from "A Fish Called Wanda"...

[COLGATE4]

80. You really are in no position to be lecturing anyone

on what the law is or is not. Go ahead - prove me wrong. Tell me (and the rest of DU) where you studied law and in which state(s) you are licensed to practice.

[Gothmog]

127. No, the law is clear and it is the silly attempts of laypersons to understand the law that is wrong

Your posts are really sad because you do not understand the concepts and keep on asserting things that would get you laughed at if you were in law school. Again, there are only a very few crimes that do not require specific intent such as statutory rape and DWI. The fact that non of the e-mails were marked confidential at the time will control the criminal liability here. All of the so called top secret emails were retroactively reclassified and many of such e-mails involve material such Clinton staffers discussing NYT article on drones. That is why people like Senator Feinstein have dismissed these silly claims http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.

Keep up the good work of proving why the laws that make it illegal for laypersons to attempt to practice law are necessary

[HereSince1628]

56. Everything they say seems possible to parse. The communications seem intended to obsfuscate

We're told via the media that Hillary says - the FBI did not interview Clinton's aides-. We are told by the media that aides to Clinton were interviewed. We're arguing over shit because words don't mean what they seem to mean

What words are weasly in all that? Most of them it seems. And since sometimes it's HRC or her spokespeople talking and sometims 'officials' we can't be sure if all the words mean the same thing when used by different people.

FBI we are told is also working with a prosecutor working in Virginia Is that prosecutor outside what was meant by FBI even though the prosecutor is working with the FBI?

What is meant by interview? Maybe a dialog of an aide with the FBI wasn't an 'interview'.

What is an aide? Were aides only people that employed to serve the SOS by the State Department? Was Sid Blumenthal an aide? Or was he just an acquaintance?

[tex-wyo-dem]

57. Thanks, leveymg. I'm glad someone else noticed that...

When I first read the story, that word "scant" popped out at me...1.) that it was a rather odd and not often used word in this context and 2.) that the sentence basically said that they found evidence that Clinton intentionally violated the law, which is extremely serious in this case. Whether the evidence reaches the threshold of the FBI recommending indictment to DoJ is something we will just have to wait and see.

Yet all the Hill supporters were crowing that this was an exoneration, where in fact the story said very much the opposite. I guess the the use of the not often used word "scant" had its intended effect...to make the situation sound better for Clinton than it really is.

[BootinUp]

58. Whatever it takes to STOP HER! YES! YES! YES! CROOKED HILLARY!

[Demsrule86]

60. No it does not

She will not be indicted no matter how you spin it...and how sad for Bernie that would be his only path.

[amborin]

62. KNR

[aspirant]

63. When she is interrogated, is she a target then?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. All this makes me nervous

[aspirant]

65. Why would anyone be given immunity

if there is no criminal evidence?

Don't you present the valuable evidence you have before immunity is considered?

[Stallion]

68. "Scant Evidence" under the Law Means "No Evidence" ie Insufficient Evidence to Meet Burden of Proof

ask any Lawyer-100% of litigators will agree. You are overthinking this

[COLGATE4]

81. No. (S)he is just a lawyer wannabe.

[grasswire]

70. thank you for the thoughtful and comprehensive analysis.

I see the article as just another peg for deniers to hang their hat on for now.

Akin to the "no criminal investigation" blahblah of weeks ago.

Soon, another adjustment will be required by the deniers so as to keep the plates spinning.

[Peace Patriot]

71. leveymg, I think you are right about the word "scant," also about "intended."

To me, it means that FBI investigators think she did break classification rules, and the question now (to the investigators) is, did she intend to do it? For the latter, there is some evidence but the case is not overwhelming on intent. I would say she has a serious problem--and so do her aides--on negligence and failure to report.

This is "according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter" (NOT the actual FBI investigators or DoJ prosecutors). Anybody's guess as to who these "officials" are or what they are up to.

Last week, President Obama invited a reporter into the White House and answered questions about the FBI investigation of Clinton by stating, four or five times, in adamant language, "NO political influence on the FBI investigation. Full stop." And again, "NO political influence...". Again, "NO political influence...". Makes you wonder.

I found this interesting in the Washington Psst article:

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter.--from the OP

Moussaoui's computer was the one that FBI "headquarters" wouldn't let FBI field agent Colleen Rowley open up before 9/11. That computer also had connections to Nicholas Berg, the American who was beheaded in Iraq in May 2004 (a very strange tale, indeed). Should we trust these top security-related FBI and DoJ teams to do the right thing--the just thing--on the Clinton matter (whether or not she is guilty of anything)? I don't know. I really don't. The only clue I think may be that the DoJ and special prosecutor Fitzgerald went after Cheney on the outing of CIA agents (likely at the prompting of the CIA), jailed only an aide ("Scooter" Libby) who fell on his sword, and backed off, with Fitzgerald stating, in his final press conference, that "there is a cloud over the vice president's office" but that that is "a political matter" and not his venue.

Could they be waiting to see if she gets the nomination, and will then exonerate her, no matter what she's done? Or wait until after the GE on the same premise--that "politics" should decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't, when it involves the rich and powerful? Obama certainly thought so on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and their massive war crimes, massive corruption and grand theft.

Rowley exposed a lot of serious problems with the FBI:

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles like Robert Hanssen who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis's effort.) [3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

[leveymg]

73. The difference between intended and not intended is only which felony to charge her with. nt

She broke the law, didn't report law breaking by others, and knowingly induced others to break the law. That's what occurred. The DOJ can decide what to charge her with, but I think she'll be pardoned first.

[Gothmog]

128. There is no specific intent or mens rea here

Here is a good explanation as to why the silly but funny hopes of the conservatives that the FBI will find a criminal violation by Hillary Clinton are so funny http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

I am enjoying watching the conservatives keep on claiming that Hillary Clinton broke the law. Such claims are really funny. Keep up the good work.

Are you claiming that one can violate the law without having to prove any intent or knowledge? That is very funny

[KoKo]

149. This artice is from September 8, 2015 and look at what he said, again:

A lot more information about the Server and from both the FBI, Justice Department, plus the FOIA Civil Suits have been revealed since then... Also, Guccifer's claims that anyone could have gotten into her computer since it was so easy for him to get in after he hacked Sid Blumenthal's computer e-mail.

Here's the quote you snipped in your post of what Savage said with the rest bolded. He cautioned that more could be revealed and then the "drip, drip, drip."

-------------

A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'knowingly'

David G. Savage Contact Reporter -- September 8, 2015
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

[pmorlan1]

78. What Kind of Evidence?

"Scant" Evidence.

scant
skant/
adjective
adjective: scant

1.
barely sufficient or adequate.
"companies with scant regard for the safety of future generations"
synonyms: little, little or no, minimal, hardly (any), limited, negligible, barely sufficient, meager; More

Even an anonymous source spinning for her in this piece wouldn't say NO evidence. They did the next best thing by trying to minimize it ahead of time.

[COLGATE4]

79. Playing lawyer again?

Another proud graduate of the 'Close Cover before Striking' School of Law.

[Gothmog]

121. Laypersons are so silly when they try to understand legal concepts

Here the OP is simply so wrong that it is funny

[COLGATE4]

159. Pure babble.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. LOL

[Gothmog]

131. I am also laughing at this thread also

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. LOL (REPRISE)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. LOL (REDUX)

[leveymg]

112. LOL ( ad nauseum)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Why don't we make a wager?

Loser leaves DU.

It's an open wager.

DSB

-The absolutely fearless DUER

[JonLeibowitz]

129. leveymg contends that HRC has broken the law

A FBI/DOJ/Jury never returns an "innocent" finding.

You can both be right: leveymg that she broke the law and you that HRC will never be charged with a crime.

In fact that is what I would place my money on, if the pure truth were knowable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Will you admit you are making a semantic argument?

Either she will be indicted or she won't. Besides death and pregnancy I can think of few other such dichotomous situations.

[JonLeibowitz]

143. Of course I don't admit that; I am trying to show how you are arguing different things

leveymg is making a case that HRC broke the law. Responding by saying "she won't be indicted" is like saying "nuh uh" -- the questions are orthogonal.

And before you claim that the only arbiter of who breaks the law is a court of law: did James Clapper violate law in committing perjury before congress, did George Bush commit war crimes?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. It doesn't matter if I think someone violated the law.

I am not the judge, jury, and executioner. We have the rule of law in this nation, the fondest dreams of some to undermine it notwithstanding. The bottom line is there will be no indictment and that is why no one would accept my wager, no one..

Also, there's a fair amount of obscurantism afoot here...The seminal poster is as much arguing she will be indicted as she should be indicted. The former is aberrant nonsense and that is why no sane DUER will accept my wager.

[JonLeibowitz]

146. Well in a civil society we have a free exchange of ideas over whether public officials break the law

To say that the reins of justice are not in our hands is dodging the point, really.

And you present your wager as some evidence that the poster is incorrect, when we both now agree that you both can be correct. So it is a silly wager.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. I believe you missed my edit.

Also, there's a fair amount of obscurantism afoot here...The seminal poster is as much arguing she will be indicted as she should be indicted. The former is aberrant nonsense and that is why no sane DUER will accept my wager.

[JonLeibowitz]

148. I agree. It is fine to argue that she should be indicted (it is how I read it)

At the same time, nobody can seriously suggest she will be indicted. Won't happen.

That doesn't mitigate my disappointment in our presumptive nominee, of course.

[hill2016]

86. scant means it doesn't meet the probable cause standard

for a grand jury indictment let alone a conviction

I'm also pretty sure the federal prosecutors assigned to the case have a much better interpretation of the relevant statutes than you or I do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I read it is dangerous to interrupt a person when he or she is dreaming.

[BootinUp]

97. lol nt

[ViseGrip]

87. They cannot let this continue up to the convention.

[Buzz Clik]

89. Good lord. Parsing words until the words beg for mercy.

Did Hillary's 4 delegates from Guam put her over the top? No? sigh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. If words could cry...

[demwing]

93. I was mocked for saying the Hillary Primary Math ignores the FBI variable

For Hillary, the Math we have to look at is not as simple as 2+2=4, we need to use variables to show that
(2+2)*FBI=WTFKWWH (Who The Fuck Knows What Will Happen).

The Math says Hillary is too risky.

[Octafish]

94. Battle for what remains of the soul of the Republic.

HRC has a right to privacy.

And so do I. And every other citizen of the USA.

Just not when conducting the People's business.

That is supposed to be on the record.

Thank you for the report and OP, leveymg. Takes guts to tell the truth to many whose livelihoods depend on it being covered up.

[silvershadow]

96. Wow, good call. Bookmarking. nt

[eridani]

98. Irrelevant. Members of The Club are not accountable for anything n/t

[emsimon33]

99. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

[Jitter65]

100. Yeah, like "Hillary says Bernie is unQualified to be President." nt

[Skwmom]

102. There are some statutes where intent doesn't even come into play.

[NCTraveler]

103. Read what Warren said really close. She hasn't ruled out a run. Nt

[randome]

105. Your prayer circle called. They need you back for the hourly coin-toss.

Give until it hurts. Then give a bit more.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[kgnu_fan]

109. Kick

[Waiting For Everyman]

110. Couldn't "scant" mean the ONE SAP email (Special Access Programs).

Out of thousands of emails, if a spokesperson were spinning, they could call that scant.

I know enough about this scandal to know that she's guilty of quite a bit that she could be indicted for.

Her denials, bluff, and spin are not going to convince me that isn't so, no matter how many times it's said. I want to see a full report from the FBI, sourced on the record.

And I don't think "too big to jail" is going to cut it with the public. I don't see any way at all, zero chance, that she can get elected and remain in office for a whole term.

[leveymg]

111. Thing is, there were 22 TS/SAP. Even the lowest Classified are illegal

to place on an uncertified system, and there were more than 2000. One is enough to convict.

[Gothmog]

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

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

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

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

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

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

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

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

[KoKo]

153. Not So Fast! Here: from "The Hill"

Decision time for FBI on Clinton
By Julian Hattem - 05/08/16 06:00 AM EDT

The FBI investigation swirling around Hillary Clinton’s presidential run appears to have entered its final stages.

Many of the former secretary of State’s top aides have been interviewed over the course of the last month, and Clinton herself is expected to answer investigators’ questions about her use of a private email server in the coming days or weeks.
-----------------

Multiple media outlets have reported federal officials have yet to find any evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law.

Still, that might not necessarily get her off the hook from some misdemeanor charges, according to national security lawyer Bradley Moss.

“[T]he extent to which the person intended to remove classified documents is irrelevant,” he said in an email to The Hill. “All that matters for strict legal purposes of culpability is whether the person, by virtue of their official position, came into possession of classified information and affirmatively removed the information to an unauthorized location (i.e., the private server).

“Whether the person knew or suspected the information was classified is irrelevant.”

Other legal experts questioned the claim, hinting at the legal minefield that could await any potential criminal case.

The FBI did not respond to an inquiry about the investigation. A spokesman with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, which is reportedly assisting in the case, declined to comment.

In addition to the interviews, federal investigators will have reams of files to go through.

It remains unclear whether officials have managed to recover any of the roughly 30,000 emails Clinton deleted from her machine, which she claimed were personal. If they did, the messages could provide a treasure trove of information.

Bryan Pagliano, the IT specialist believed to have helped set up and maintained Clinton’s server, was granted immunity in exchange for his help with the investigation.

Whatever the outcome of the case, the political controversy over Clinton’s email setup is unlikely to subside.

Even if the Justice Department comes up empty, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits are currently making their way through the courts and are likely to shed additional light on Clinton’s setup for months to come.
Over the next two months, at least six current or former aides to Clinton will be asked to give depositions as part of those cases, which are being led by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. Clinton herself could be asked to testify as well, a federal judge has ruled.

“Out litigation’s going to continue,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told The Hill in a recent interview.

“It doesn’t really matter what the FBI does, what the Justice Department does, in the sense that we have an independent right to get some accountability and to have the FOIA law vindicated.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279077-decision-time-for-fbi-on-clinton

[KoKo]

154. Deleted duplicate...

[Recursion]

169. Anyone who has mentioned that we operate drones in Pakistan has revealed an SAP

Guess we're all going to jail soon...

[chervilant]

114. The Democratic Party du jour

has sunk to a new low, offering up a candidate WHO IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION!!!

If this were the Republican Party, Democrats would be vociferously demanding that such a candidate be disallowed.

SMDH...

[Gothmog]

116. You are wrong again

Laypersons are silly when they attempt to understand legal issues. Your analysis is wrong now and was wrong in all of your other silly and sad threads. There is no mens rea for a violation and without culpable mental state there is no violation of the law Your attempt at analysis is simply wrong but fun to laugh at. You seem to delight in being wrong and I am really having fun laughing at your posts. First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

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

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

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924

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

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

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

In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.

The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.

Remember that the Special access material being discussed are e-mails discussing New York Times articles about droned. Material published in the NYT is not classified and no DOJ attorney will be silly enough to bring an indictment based on that claim.

Keep up the good work. Your posts are really funny. Lawyers enjoy it when laypersons make obvious mistakes on legal questions

[JoePhilly]

122. + 1

[Tarc]

139. The air smels of Bernie-suporters' desperation today

If that is the sad, sad spin you're trying to wring from that article.

[Gothmog]

140. Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. It won’t matter.

Here is the latest on this silly issue. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.....

Just to be clear: I’m not defending Clinton’s decision to use her own email for work, and house it on a private server. That was a mistake. It violated State Department policy. She shouldn’t have done it. But acknowledging that is very different from saying she broke the law or jeopardized national security. As of now there is zero evidence that she did either.

There will be no indictment. The attempts at analysis by a silly layperson are wrong

[Fuddnik]

141. Let's stop playing dumb.

The entire purpose of a private server is to keep things off the record. It's a clear violation of the law, and any two-bit, bottom rung lawyer knows that.

May I introduce Madame Inmate #202666.

[beachbumbob]

142. Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

Same old right wing smear tactics that still don't work

[NastyRiffraff]

144. I can't wait

for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when the wet dream of an indictment doesn't happen. Sorry, not only will the Indictment Fairy not show up, it doesn't exist.

Too bad, so sad.

[redstateblues]

152. Pathetically, Sanders' acolytes are clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination-

The Indictment Fairy. Bernie's believers have finally realized the math will not magically open a path for him to win the nomination. As Bernie sees it slipping away, he gets angrier and angrier.

[speaktruthtopower]

155. Well

it looks like she was authorized to have it, so the first part doesn't apply, at least against her.

[anigbrowl]

160. You're applying the rules of stautory construction ot newspaper copy

This is no more meaningful than pulling random sentences from judicial opinions and claiming that they set legal precedent.

[creeksneakers2]

161. Perhaps

there is more evidence that she didn't intend.

[pnwmom]

164. Give it up. You have lost and you're not going to win this way. This is pathetic.

This is the bottom line, a sentence from the same link that you cleverly left out:

One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

[leveymg]

165. She has the facts and the law against her. As her supporter, start looking for another candidateandi

The fact that you aren't means you don't plan for all possible outcomes. You have abrogated any choice in less than optimum outcomes. Who is pathetic?

You're really not going to like what's in the FBI report.

[pnwmom]

166. LOLOL. nt

[leveymg]

167. Well, what are your contingency plans? More LOL?

Seriously, what if the FBI finds she violated her security agreement? You plan to plunge on into the GE, regardless?

[pnwmom]

168. Whoever her VP nominee is would be fine. And it won't be Bernie. n/t