2016 Postmortem

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

132. The jury has spoken.

Reply to azmom (Reply #126)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:09 PM

Apr 2016

Guilty.

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:

Politico names HRC Staff who sent Top Secret materials and separated emails [View all] leveymg Apr 2016 OP

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