If the FBI has the 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted from her server, and just ONE
is state department business related (1 out of 30,000 is pretty good odds in this situation) then Hillary is guilty of a felony. Anyone in government, (say a Navy Captain) caught sending an email to anyone not authorized to see it, classified or not, is terminated immediately.
And, just because those 30,000 emails were wiped off her server doesn't mean they were wiped off every computer they were sent to.
Here is the point; Why are Democrats willing to take this gamble?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #1)
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #6)
they include doing Foundation quid pro quo's and laundering $$ - especially on government time.
But it's AT LEAST about how they were handled.
It's like the speech transcripts (if there were actually any speeches), the money she made is one thing, what was said in them, is another
See my post about how running for president is a clever way to forestall indictment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2022006
Cher
do tell, who is the right wing smear machine? It operations on $$, so who's paying them?
Jeb Bush?
Yeah, we all know how united the repukes are behind Don Trump.
So please answer my question: who's paying?
Cher
[link:
|
Leveymg review of Hillary Clinton's exposure to risk 2016
There are really only two things you have to read to understand what laws Hillary broke and why the excuses being offered by her lawyers and campaign are utter bullshit. One is the standard Classified Information Nondisclose Agreement she signed the day she took office. The other is the federal felony statute that is most frequently cited in that document as the penalty for mishandling classified information, 18 USC Sec. 793, most particularly subsections (e) and (f).
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
Here's some of the language of the statute that was violated. She did it despite and in spite of being told by ranking NSA security officers not to use her Blackberry in the very first days of her tenure as Secretary of State. When the NSA refused to clone a half dozen of the President's secure phones for herself and her staff, she literally did a runaround. Literally, within days, and without authorization or she had linked her unsecure Blackberry with an uncertified private email system, and continued to use both devices exclusively for all official business until she left office four years later. By then, her server held at least 1,100 classified messages, 104 from her, and 22 that were Top Secret/SAP. Then she refused to turn over these classified materials, again in violation of her security oath, and proceeded to wipe half the messages on the harddrive.
Here's how she specifically violated 793 (f)(2). Note that both (e) and (f) do not require a showing of specific intent to harm the national security or actual harm. Just mishandling of classified materials or failure to report that of others is enough to be convicted of a felony with a potential sentence of 10 years in federal prison.
When in 2011 Secretary Clinton received a series of emails containing obviously classified information from Sid Blumenthal, her response was "keep 'em coming." This classified information turned out to have originated with the NSA, and had been taken off a classified system just hours earlier. 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,
(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
How do we know that she's liable to found culpable for violating her nondisclose agreement and Sec 793 (e) and/or (f)? Because US Attorney General Loretta Lynch was recently asked about this by prominent Washington journalist, Al Hunt. Her answers point to the same basis for investigation and potential prosecution. Here is their dialogue:
Al Hunt Show on Hulu - http://www.hulu.com/watch/936368 15:00 minute mark
Lynch: It has to be treated like any other case, people have to have confidence...
We owe it to them to do a full thorough and independent review of everything that comes to our attention
Hunt: In trying to get her to say what the standard would be, intent, or gross negligence, etc..... She replied
Lynch: Well yeah, I think that what's been reported, is that we received an inquiry into the handling of classified information particularly by people who are no longer in government as to whether or not it had been improperly handled or properly handled,and that is a security review that we get in a number of situations, and that was the genesis of this matter. And so beyond that I can't comment on the specifics of it.. except to say that we do look at the issues presented, but as I said before we look at them thoroughly.
Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server
Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.
It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.
The facts:
NYT: F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.
They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.
F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.
Four para limit stops here. But, I will in all fairness stipulate that this article goes on to say that HRC is not at this point the target of the investigation. However, Reuters has since reported that her unsecured private server email system contained "presumed classified" materials. Hillary personally exchanged such presumed classified information with Sidney Blumenthal, and those communications were intercepted and publicly released by a Romanian hacker. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/
The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)
Secretary Clinton was trained in handling of classified materials, and acknowledges that she understood them. By transmitting and receiving email correspondence that contained information gleaned from foreign government sources on an unauthorized, insecure system, she violated the law. This was not something she did unwittingly, and that the foreign government sourced material was not stamped classified is irrelevant.
On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.
All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.
Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged and convicted even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141184063, see also,http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/ ; and, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html
Applicable statutes and Executive Order:
1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.
Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:
The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: "is to be used"
The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"
Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:
(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—
The differences between Sections (e) and (f) and the various other offenses covered in Section 793 comes down to the element of intent to injure the US or act to the advantage of a foreign power. These are not requisite elements of the offenses covered under these sections of the Espionage Act.
2) 1950 Federal Records Act
44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
That law requires heads of agencies -- no exception for DOS -- to preserve and turn over all official correspondence and records to the National Archives. She didn't do that until confronted after a Romanian hacker leaked Hillary's email correspondence with Blumenthal. Those emails were clearly official not private. HRC admits to destroying at least 30,000 emails she deemed private and turned over approximately 30,000 her lawyers found to be public documents. However, a number of other emails have subsequently been turned over and analyses by news agencies. Reuters reported that a number of them to contain presumed classified information.
Hillary had also failed to provide these records to meet a FOIA request and Congressional Committee subpoena, which violates other federal laws.
Those emails and many like them were most recently found to contain "presumed classified" materials about US communications with foreign governments. That was a violation of Executive Orders, and possibly the 1917 Espionage Act that criminalizes private retention or mishandling of classified materials.
Intent to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power is not required under Sec 793 (e) and (f). The mere fact of unauthorized removal or destruction of materials the official should have known were classified are all that is required for conviction under these parts of the Espionage Act. Hillary should have known.
Removal is obvious from the fact that she ran her private server out of her own house. There have been several recent convictions under these provisions of lower-ranking officials, as well as the forced retirement and referral to the Justice Department of CIA Director John Deutch for taking home classified materials on his personal laptop and connecting to the internet.
We know that she sent and exchanged presumed classified materials with Syd Blumenthal. Read the Reuter article linked. Bluementhal's email with Hillary on her server was intercepted and published by a Romanian hacker. That's how this whole thing came to light.
Sorry, she's done herself in, and has no one else to blame except some overzealous aides and risk-seeking lawyers.
Potential Prosecution:
At this point, the FBI is investigating the server and network history before a decision is made whether to proceed with prosecution and what charges to seek from a federal Grand Jury.
The facts are clear that she was operating her own private server and that "presumed" classified materials were shared on that unsecured device. The FBI won't come out and say she's the target until a series of decisions have been made. That Biden is signalling he's readying his candidacy tells me that probable cause exists and the system has already been found to have been breached. In fact, we know that a Romanian hacker obtained email containing presumed classified information between Blumenthal and Hillary, and that she responded to him. We also know that she was trained not to do anything like this, she acknowledges that, but she went ahead and continued to did it anyway.
This is serious, not a pseudo-scandal.
_____________________________________________
Complete copy of relevant sections of law and Executive Order
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
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
(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.
2) Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information
This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.
. . .
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.
C) 1950 Federal Records Act
44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
More on Hillary Clinton's felonies. She held guilty knowledge to sustain 18 USC Sec. 793(e) charges
Many people have asked, what crimes exactly would the FBI find the former Secretary of State violated? This and previous posts linked below provide a detailed picture of Hillary Clinton's violations of her signed Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, and the primary federal statute referenced within it, specifically, the three felony crimes specified at subsections (e), (f) and (g) of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
While Hillary Clinton has characterized it as a "mistake", the evidence shows she set up and operated her email server as an end-run around information security requirements. She signed her security oath on January 22, 2009 and in the the following days received explicit warnings from NSA about the vulnerability to hacking of her hand held device. See,http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-request-for-secure-smartphone/
Not only did she continue to use the Blackberry in spite of this warning, she operated it for official Department messaging connected to an uncertified server, which made her communications even more vulnerable to interception. She operated this unauthorized system for the rest of her term in office knowing 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 Sec. 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 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 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')."
; 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...." .
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.
If you are neither of these then you don't know what you are talking about 
That's a big, fat no, then. 
Not much longer. It's coming!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
SIPRnet and JWICS are where we store classified information and while they were compromised by an insider's thumb drive, they haven't been "hacked."
Yes, the OPM was hacked, but it can be accessed outside of government via email and other outward facing servers.
SIPRnet and JWICS are closed-loop systems, are monitored by a security team 24/7 and you are supposed to only access them from a SCIF.
Like this:
Hillary had classified information on an unsecure server. The OPM doesn't keep classified information on their servers.
I found out about the executive order from Wikipedia last month. I am not clicking on that guy's link but I guess lots of people know she's in trouble.
Off to take a shower now and done with you.
means I listen to hate radio. Extremely insulting.
