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

Gothmog

(180,171 posts)
122. Hillary Clinton didn't break the law
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 10:40 PM
Apr 2016

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Sounds like Sullivan is in trouble. Punkingal Apr 2016 #1
Meh. Sullivan can always plead the Fifth. merrily Apr 2016 #3
Pleading the 5th won't do him any good. Bob41213 Apr 2016 #13
Why not? The first guy to plead the 5th on this got one. merrily Apr 2016 #16
This OP is just as silly as the meme in right wing media that Clinton will be arrested any day now Gothmog Apr 2016 #111
Silly? Some more background - 2 other similar instances reported: leveymg Apr 2016 #188
Sullivan is not one of the players on the list to be interviewed by the FBI/DOJ. Possibly a target. morningfog Apr 2016 #39
Good catch. leveymg Apr 2016 #43
Or possibly has already been interviewed? n/t winter is coming Apr 2016 #57
And why Hillary is doing what she is doing scscholar Apr 2016 #77
Hard to be the fall guy when... Oilwellian Apr 2016 #130
Clear the room at once! merrily Apr 2016 #2
Just because it isn't "Marked" classified doesn't relieve responsibility from the law FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #4
Exactly. She's parsing words here, and treading carefully, but classified material is classified EndElectoral Apr 2016 #28
Your claim is simply false Gothmog Apr 2016 #123
That's my assessment, and I'm no student of the law. 2banon Apr 2016 #159
However that was March 20, 2016 pinebox Apr 2016 #162
The info has not changed Gothmog Apr 2016 #169
Wrong, info has changed pinebox Apr 2016 #176
Do you really believe this? Gothmog Apr 2016 #199
I do believe it. No reason to be condescending either. pinebox Apr 2016 #201
Agreed. Information can be born classified. HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #125
That's true creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #136
yep SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #177
There we go NV Whino Apr 2016 #5
It appears to me Hill is far far from off the hook yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #8
I see we've found the sword-faller. Jester Messiah Apr 2016 #6
The wheels on the bus go bump, bump, bump TalkingDog Apr 2016 #106
No one believes Hillary. 840high Apr 2016 #135
ok, leveymg, really dumb question because I don't know how all of this works... antigop Apr 2016 #7
I would say yes. Gwhittey Apr 2016 #9
Yup! NWCorona Apr 2016 #27
My AFSC coupled with where I work. VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #50
They all have to have some level of background checks and clearance. leveymg Apr 2016 #10
If they were on the same floor as her office, they had TS Recursion Apr 2016 #14
No, it wouldn't. MADem Apr 2016 #23
She could only declassify her own agency's materials. At least 4 TS/SAP were NSA, and many more CIA leveymg Apr 2016 #44
No, not entirely. And never "as a lowly aide." Not ever. MADem Apr 2016 #48
I don't think Obama wants her next. I think he gave her rope IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #49
Oh, I most assuredly think he DOES. He has said as much. I don't think he wants Sanders in the job MADem Apr 2016 #59
Unfortunately for her, you're wrong. She signed the same security oath as a lowly aide, and is leveymg Apr 2016 #56
I'm not going to argue this back-and-forth with you, but you're mistaken. MADem Apr 2016 #61
No. She can't declassify NSA, DOD, CIA information. Only the President can do that cross-agency leveymg Apr 2016 #75
Look, you can hold on to that ... "hope" or whatever. But I would not hold my breath if I were you MADem Apr 2016 #86
I am well aware that heads of agencies can declassify their own classified materials, if it was leveymg Apr 2016 #92
You do realize we're talking about media talking points, here? MADem Apr 2016 #95
You're diverting again. The point is, Sullivan sent "a number of Top Secret docs" leveymg Apr 2016 #96
No, he didn't. Only the super-duper wingnut blogs are saying that. MADem Apr 2016 #98
You really think? The email from Clinton to Sullivan - She said, "send nonsecure" here - CBSNews leveymg Apr 2016 #100
Send those unclasssified talking points that reside on the classified server "non-secure." MADem Apr 2016 #102
If what you claim were true, the original document would have been released. It wasn't. Not rocket leveymg Apr 2016 #105
Not if the original document (the part that was NOT transmitted, forwarded, faxed or what have you) MADem Apr 2016 #119
Now, you acknowledge the source document was classified? leveymg Apr 2016 #145
Wait, what? AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #152
There are three gov't systems available to HRC staff at DOS. leveymg Apr 2016 #62
Let's assume your scenario is correct. MADem Apr 2016 #69
Because she was trained to know that "foreign govt information" is "presumed classified" leveymg Apr 2016 #85
Sorry, no. Not going to "go back and read it." MADem Apr 2016 #89
I answered that at #100. leveymg Apr 2016 #101
I didn't ask any question. There was no "classified material." There were talking points. MADem Apr 2016 #103
That document would have been released with the rest if it wasn't classified. Only the most highly leveymg Apr 2016 #104
But nothing classified was transmitted, so it isn't the same thing at all. Not even close. MADem Apr 2016 #117
Even Hillary didn't deny the source document was classified. leveymg Apr 2016 #107
The information transmitted was not classified. It was removed from a secure server. MADem Apr 2016 #116
If it wasn't classified, she can reveal exactly what she instructed Sullivan to send. But she hasn't leveymg Apr 2016 #146
If I instruct you to commit a crime, and any action is taken in furtherance, that's conspiracy. leveymg Apr 2016 #149
Removal from a secure server in furtherance of a crime is a crime. leveymg Apr 2016 #150
Now you're just making stuff up. nt MADem Apr 2016 #164
No. The element of unlawful combination fits 793 (g) leveymg Apr 2016 #168
You haven't proven your case, here. You insist that she received classified material MADem Apr 2016 #175
You aren't reading carefully and missed this: it doesn't matter if the material was ever sent. The leveymg Apr 2016 #180
It's not unlawful to transmit unclassified portions of classified documents. Sorry. You are wrong. MADem Apr 2016 #182
If not classified, then why was it eventually sent via secure fax? intrepidity Apr 2016 #195
Obama certainly would not just 'make it go away with a wave of his executive hand' Kentonio Apr 2016 #60
The point I was making is that this is not a problem. MADem Apr 2016 #64
Nonsense. If Obama has passed an executive order to protect Hillary from legal trouble Kentonio Apr 2016 #68
You don't need an EO to reclassify a document. smh! MADem Apr 2016 #71
Him saying something was declassified AFTER the offense was commited wouldn't matter a jot. Kentonio Apr 2016 #72
There was no "offense," though. If you read right wing blogs, you might believe this. MADem Apr 2016 #90
She has no authority to declassify any information that doesn't originate at DOS leveymg Apr 2016 #147
Here is Section 3 of E.O. 13526 that controls declassification. She didn't follow it: leveymg Apr 2016 #161
Here's the DOS regulation that mandates any declassified document must be annotated to show that. leveymg Apr 2016 #163
Who says her material didn't originate at DOS? An RTQ surely would, even if it MADem Apr 2016 #165
Because if it did, she would and should have declassified it. leveymg Apr 2016 #172
You aren't making any sense at all. You keep coming up with IF-BUT scenarios that aren't MADem Apr 2016 #174
Thank you for the Italian lesson. But, unlike you, I actually read the EO and FAM. leveymg Apr 2016 #178
You keep creating these "What If" scenarios and playing judge/jury/executioner. MADem Apr 2016 #181
You claim it is normal and lawful to instruct an aide to transmit classified material "unsecure" leveymg Apr 2016 #184
Jake Sullivan already had classification and declassification power leveymg Apr 2016 #186
I didn't read that tldr mess. See, you keep insisting that an unclassified portion of a document is MADem Apr 2016 #187
Sullivan wouldn't have expressed reservation about emailing unclassified information. leveymg Apr 2016 #189
Reservation? He was getting frustrated because he couldn't get a secure system to function. MADem Apr 2016 #190
You evaded the central question again: why delay sending it by secure if the info was unclassified? leveymg Apr 2016 #191
Why don't you read your gish galloping links? The answers are IN them. MADem Apr 2016 #192
Another bob and a weave, there. I meant the source document in the "talking points" instance. leveymg Apr 2016 #196
Question: If there is a pattern by the agency head to declassify based on convienience karynnj Apr 2016 #45
The higher you climb, the less the rules apply. MADem Apr 2016 #53
Thanks karynnj Apr 2016 #66
Ah, the "overclassified" defense. Sorry, that hasn't worked in the courts, either. leveymg Apr 2016 #148
Look at all that IF in your sentence! MADem Apr 2016 #166
On a fundamental level, where are the alleged "talking points"? leveymg Apr 2016 #170
Do you not understand what an RTQ is? MADem Apr 2016 #173
RTQs can be released by FOIA. Where are those "talking points," if they ever existed? leveymg Apr 2016 #183
If her boss doesn't have a problem with it, OR if the material was generated in house, there's no MADem Apr 2016 #83
Doesn't change the rules for handling classified materials. nt revbones Apr 2016 #11
Pretty much everybody in State has TS and SCI Recursion Apr 2016 #12
Please see Reply 17. Thanks. merrily Apr 2016 #19
The issue is transmitting classified info via private server, not staff clearances. Another issue: merrily Apr 2016 #17
No, that's not remotely the issue, and you're missing the point entirely Recursion Apr 2016 #22
Assuming that is so, SOS staff clearances are pivotal to your statement of the issue how? merrily Apr 2016 #25
antigop asked what the aides' clearances were Recursion Apr 2016 #29
The question did not make SOS clearances relevant. If you want to call out red herrings, that merrily Apr 2016 #32
Same goalpost as always: the mishandling of classified material isn't related to the private server Recursion Apr 2016 #35
If Hillary had been swapping NSA classified materials across a .gov unclassified channel she would leveymg Apr 2016 #40
Doubtful; it probably happens all the time. It certainly did at DoD Recursion Apr 2016 #41
State wasn't the classifying agency, and the info was going cross-border to an aol.com acct. leveymg Apr 2016 #42
This is not correct. Kentonio Apr 2016 #65
And the illegality of doing that is the exact same as sending it over the SBU network Recursion Apr 2016 #70
No, that was not your original description of the issue. And using a private server is very much an merrily Apr 2016 #74
That was entirely my description of the issue. You should be applauding this, btw Recursion Apr 2016 #78
Her staff, yes, but what about Sid Blumenthal karynnj Apr 2016 #46
Blumenthal never had clearance, which is one of the issues. IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #52
Blumenthal was not part of the OP or of the question in Reply 7. merrily Apr 2016 #76
The issue is about both the server and clearances. leveymg Apr 2016 #47
Even from your post, the issue is not that uncleared staff was handling classified info. merrily Apr 2016 #73
I'm not too worried about thread derailment. The illegality involved is clear enough. leveymg Apr 2016 #80
Also that she has repeatedly lied and obfuscated about this to Americans. merrily Apr 2016 #82
That form of fraud has other penalties. Or should, and will. leveymg Apr 2016 #87
Or not. Time will tell. merrily Apr 2016 #88
Yes NWCorona Apr 2016 #24
Please see Reply 17. merrily Apr 2016 #34
They all must have some level of background checks and clearance. leveymg Apr 2016 #38
Jake Sullivan definitely Depaysement Apr 2016 #151
... PonyUp Apr 2016 #15
Quick, call the plumbers! merrily Apr 2016 #18
Call someone to stop the 'water' from leaking out the 'gate' valve! PonyUp Apr 2016 #21
Stick a fork in the HRC campaign. It's done. berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #20
DING DING DING ^^^^ Thread Winner Folks ^^^ FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #31
If she's the nominee this is going to be a mess in the GE EndElectoral Apr 2016 #26
Did I hear somewhere... dchill Apr 2016 #30
Its BOTH FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #33
Yes, but it's the coverup that is usually seen as... dchill Apr 2016 #36
Yup. It started with a W, which stands for Watergate nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #54
When you cover something up, you know it was wrong to start with. n/t PonyUp Apr 2016 #63
You no doubt heard it, but it's wrong. If someone's loved one gets killed, I'm pretty sure merrily Apr 2016 #79
No, I was wrong. I meant no harm. Two original quotes: dchill Apr 2016 #99
You did no harm. If I made it sound as though you had, I apologize merrily Apr 2016 #108
Shhhhhhh, everybody! If we don't mention this disaster, maybe the Republicans won't find out Karmadillo Apr 2016 #37
.... 840high Apr 2016 #139
.... .. .... (code) leveymg Apr 2016 #144
And like that, Politico just became a right-wing publication. VulgarPoet Apr 2016 #51
Politico has always been a RW site. riversedge Apr 2016 #55
ROFL! Truth to Power! IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #58
Well, just because she can't run her own office doesn't mean she can't run the country. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #67
Yeah, it's not like people's lives are at risk, like Iraq..er..Honduras..er nevermind. n/t PonyUp Apr 2016 #81
Well, if things turn out bad in those endeavors she can always point out that her underlings Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #84
Did you see Hillary’s top 4 aides are using the same attorney? riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #91
Jake Sullivan spent hours and hours under oath in front of Congress lovuian Apr 2016 #134
Politico report does not contradict earlier reports - that is bogus Justice Apr 2016 #93
The right-wing Hill? Dem2 Apr 2016 #94
It does contradict the HRC defense line that stated it is unknown whether he emailed classified docs leveymg Apr 2016 #97
The OP is very misleading in many instances and take material out of context Gothmog Apr 2016 #109
Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous' Gothmog Apr 2016 #110
This defense would get a defendant a nice long all expense paid vacation at Club Fed. leveymg Apr 2016 #112
Do you tire of being wrong? Gothmog Apr 2016 #113
Dan should read Sec 793 (e) and (f). Not strict intent charges. leveymg Apr 2016 #115
Your analysis is simply sad and wrong Gothmog Apr 2016 #118
Is that the best defense you guys have? leveymg Apr 2016 #124
The sad conservatives who listen to hate radio and fox news believe this Gothmog Apr 2016 #127
You don't have to be conservative to recognize bad intent behind her acts. leveymg Apr 2016 #129
Hillary Clinton didn't break the law Gothmog Apr 2016 #122
This assumes a jury can be persuaded she didn't know what she was doing. leveymg Apr 2016 #128
You assume that this would ever go to s petit jury. okasha Apr 2016 #197
The basic concept that the prosecution has to prove BainsBane Apr 2016 #198
Decaf. nt leveymg Apr 2016 #200
Your attempts at analysis were amusing and you are wrong yet again Gothmog Apr 2016 #120
She could have lost classified materials by leaving them on a bar stool leveymg Apr 2016 #131
BTW, your quotes in the OP are very misleading and inaccurate Gothmog Apr 2016 #114
Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server Gothmog Apr 2016 #121
She was wreckless in a position that azmom Apr 2016 #126
The jury has spoken. leveymg Apr 2016 #132
That's my opinion. azmom Apr 2016 #133
In a just world she would get prison. 840high Apr 2016 #141
In a just world, she would never have been the leading Democratic candidate. leveymg Apr 2016 #143
Well, Hillary admits that it wasn't a very wise decision, delrem Apr 2016 #137
It was also a reckless & illegal decision. reformist2 Apr 2016 #138
The USA will never be called to account. Never. delrem Apr 2016 #140
This is certainly going to affect the primary. Major Hogwash Apr 2016 #142
OFFICIAL & UPDATED: Why did Clinton use her own email account? Octafish Apr 2016 #153
She seems to have assumed 2 things: immunity from law; and NSA would minimize everything leveymg Apr 2016 #158
Gee. Those with power seem to assume immunity. Octafish Apr 2016 #160
There it is, Sir. A convenience for the 1%, not we, the people at all-on her own personal server. bobthedrummer Apr 2016 #193
Channeling PNAC Octafish Apr 2016 #194
People seem to be missing the bigger point here... Docreed2003 Apr 2016 #154
That's my take on it too. smiley Apr 2016 #155
Thanks smiley!! Docreed2003 Apr 2016 #156
You're welcome! smiley Apr 2016 #157
Did that poor seaman take a camera into a place where there's a sign plainly posted MADem Apr 2016 #171
Curious as to how Mills can have the same common defense as the other three, considering TwilightGardener Apr 2016 #167
Sloppy, but not criminal, I predict. HassleCat Apr 2016 #179
Interesting. K&R EndElectoral Apr 2016 #185
bttt n/t bobthedrummer Apr 2016 #202
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Politico names HRC Staff ...»Reply #122