Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama: Clinton’s Email Server Did Not Jeopardize National Security [View all]pnwmom
(110,328 posts)54. Law professor -- who wrote a manual on classification -- explains why Hillary won't be indicted.
http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.
Richard O. Lempert
March 20, 2016
News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clintons use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reportingand virtually all political discussionreads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.
What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of states email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.
What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information?
Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: Whoever knowingly and willfully [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] shall be fined or imprisoned.
The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.
SNIP
Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.
Richard O. Lempert
March 20, 2016
News reports suggest that the FBI is nearing the end of its inquiry into the legal issues surrounding Hillary Clintons use of a personal server for government emails and into the legal ramifications of classified information found in messages to and from her. Most of the reportingand virtually all political discussionreads as if reporters and pundits know little about the rules regarding the classification of information and what they imply not just for the likelihood of a Clinton indictment but also for whether she violated other rules regarding the proper handling of classified information, whether or not the violations constitute crimes.
What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of states email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.
What constitutes criminal conduct with respect to the disclosure of classified information?
Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: Whoever knowingly and willfully [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] shall be fined or imprisoned.
The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.
SNIP
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
70 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama: Clinton’s Email Server Did Not Jeopardize National Security [View all]
MariaThinks
Apr 2016
OP
Misleading. He said she didn't "intend" to jeopardize national security. Still a crime.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#2
She signed a security agreement, "classified info is marked or unmarked classified info">
leveymg
Apr 2016
#23
He said "intentionally jeopardize" and a minute later said "jeopardize" Doesn't matter, because
leveymg
Apr 2016
#45
Law professor -- who wrote a manual on classification -- explains why Hillary won't be indicted.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#54
Different statute, 798 isn't 793. If he discussed 793, let me know, and I'll take a look at that
leveymg
Apr 2016
#56
As I thought, he doesn't even mention the statute that's most referenced in her security oath.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#61
Yes Obama did. The headline isn't in quotes but all you have to do is listen to the video.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#24
Obama was asked another question after he said that he had to be careful. Why do you keep avoiding
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#55
It was Sanders who got 3 Pinnochios for only reading the headline a few days ago
riversedge
Apr 2016
#32
Mr President: in that case, don't forget to add Guccifer to the cc line on each email you write.
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2016
#9
Yes, he did say that. The email discussion begins at about 8 minutes into the interview.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#33
which would be meaningless if she knowingly/willingly created conditions where some could
stupidicus
Apr 2016
#13
Petraeus was originally charged w/felony Sec. 793. He was allowed to plead down.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#29
Actually, it did. But not in the way the right wingers and Sandernistas may want you to believe.
beastie boy
Apr 2016
#37
If you are unaware of a mountain of evidence against her, you haven't been paying attention.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#63