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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Politico names HRC Staff who sent Top Secret materials and separated emails [View all]Gothmog
(180,171 posts)122. 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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
202 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
Politico names HRC Staff who sent Top Secret materials and separated emails [View all]
leveymg
Apr 2016
OP
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
Sullivan is not one of the players on the list to be interviewed by the FBI/DOJ. Possibly a target.
morningfog
Apr 2016
#39
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
She could only declassify her own agency's materials. At least 4 TS/SAP were NSA, and many more CIA
leveymg
Apr 2016
#44
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
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're diverting again. The point is, Sullivan sent "a number of Top Secret docs"
leveymg
Apr 2016
#96
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
Because she was trained to know that "foreign govt information" is "presumed classified"
leveymg
Apr 2016
#85
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
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
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
Obama certainly would not just 'make it go away with a wave of his executive hand'
Kentonio
Apr 2016
#60
Nonsense. If Obama has passed an executive order to protect Hillary from legal trouble
Kentonio
Apr 2016
#68
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
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 claim it is normal and lawful to instruct an aide to transmit classified material "unsecure"
leveymg
Apr 2016
#184
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
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
Ah, the "overclassified" defense. Sorry, that hasn't worked in the courts, either.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#148
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
The issue is transmitting classified info via private server, not staff clearances. Another issue:
merrily
Apr 2016
#17
Assuming that is so, SOS staff clearances are pivotal to your statement of the issue how?
merrily
Apr 2016
#25
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
State wasn't the classifying agency, and the info was going cross-border to an aol.com acct.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#42
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
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
You no doubt heard it, but it's wrong. If someone's loved one gets killed, I'm pretty sure
merrily
Apr 2016
#79
Shhhhhhh, everybody! If we don't mention this disaster, maybe the Republicans won't find out
Karmadillo
Apr 2016
#37
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
It does contradict the HRC defense line that stated it is unknown whether he emailed classified docs
leveymg
Apr 2016
#97
This defense would get a defendant a nice long all expense paid vacation at Club Fed.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#112
She seems to have assumed 2 things: immunity from law; and NSA would minimize everything
leveymg
Apr 2016
#158
There it is, Sir. A convenience for the 1%, not we, the people at all-on her own personal server.
bobthedrummer
Apr 2016
#193
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