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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
56. Answer: she violated her security agreement that says classified is "marked or unmarked" classified
Mon May 2, 2016, 04:08 PM
May 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.


I'll go NWCorona May 2016 #1
So she purposely and knowingly used a server that wasnt safe, right? Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #7
I can't answer that other than to say that one talking point was NWCorona May 2016 #13
No, the issue is destroy Hillary, at any and all costs. Even if that means world war three Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #14
I just don't see it like that. NWCorona May 2016 #16
Oh my god... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #18
Throwing a tantrum I see. NWCorona May 2016 #22
Your response was funny. Destroying Hillary is what matters, I know. Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #26
For some obviously but that doesn't mean that the isses NWCorona May 2016 #28
Good step forward, NWCorona. Now, Hortensis May 2016 #74
Just curious? LP2K12 May 2016 #86
Oh boy.... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #89
Yes, and Obama's FBI and DOJ are not going to destroy the Dem party and its . . . brush May 2016 #58
She may have allowed passage of sensitive material that wasn't marked. Marking is not the measure. CentralCoaster May 2016 #19
Remarkable, and it sounds real and sincere. The goal to make sure the Democrat does not occupy Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #27
She ran the business of this country on personally owned equipment in the basement of her home. CentralCoaster May 2016 #32
And she said that Kissinger and others had done the same thing. peace13 May 2016 #51
Do you think cabinet members should be allowed to use briefcases? anigbrowl May 2016 #66
It's the blind ignorance of privilege... dchill May 2016 #36
And used Blackberry she was warned was unsafe unc70 May 2016 #29
Trump is better, I know... Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #30
Quit changing the subject! I never mentioned Trump. unc70 May 2016 #46
If you want Trump, nominate Hillary. nt leveymg May 2016 #59
I know you must really want Drumpf if you continually, repeatedly post stuff about how Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #60
Don't make stupid insinuations. leveymg May 2016 #65
Calling me stupid wont change the fact there are people here who will work against Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #67
And the world ended horribly, all the suffering, the screaming, louis-t May 2016 #35
Security never examined the server to determine if it was secure. HooptieWagon May 2016 #39
"purposely and knowingly" probably not apnu May 2016 #48
I am sorry but I am calling bullshit TM99 May 2016 #85
Users do bypass security all the time in many ways apnu May 2016 #92
And when they do they are punished TM99 May 2016 #93
No, "the worst" that you describe is less bad than the actual facts on the ground. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #73
link to a reputable source on your claim #1? BootinUp May 2016 #24
If you understand the codes you can see it for yourself. NWCorona May 2016 #25
I didn't think you could provide that. nt BootinUp May 2016 #37
Lol! Just because you are oblivious and fail to even do a rudimentary search doesn't make you right. NWCorona May 2016 #40
Two key peragraphhs from the Reuters' article: truedelphi May 2016 #101
Yup! Some people don't understand the minutia of this stuff. NWCorona May 2016 #102
Here's something on his #1 2cannan May 2016 #81
Answer: she violated her security agreement that says classified is "marked or unmarked" classified leveymg May 2016 #56
Interesting paulthompson May 2016 #91
I found that interesting for exactly the same reason. leveymg May 2016 #96
Seems she conspired to spy on the CIA using the Clinton Foundation as a front to cover Blumenthal HereSince1628 May 2016 #104
What she did was allowed her server to be a conduit for unauthorized swapping of classified info leveymg May 2016 #106
It seems she conspired to get him -paid- for doing that. That's beyond simply unauthorized swapping HereSince1628 May 2016 #111
I'm just describing the charges most likely to be cited in the upcoming FBI report leveymg May 2016 #112
Yes, and I'm trying to say what happened in a way avg people get it. HereSince1628 May 2016 #113
About Blumenthal's time at the Clinton Foundation 2cannan May 2016 #114
Yep. A nice warm office in which collect and communicate information from CIA leaks. HereSince1628 May 2016 #116
statute paulthompson May 2016 #115
declassify date codes indicate that several were born classified...you forgot the links Bill USA May 2016 #90
No authority CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #2
Seconded. VulgarPoet May 2016 #4
Didn't she tell a staffer to remove certain headers... TCJ70 May 2016 #3
More than once nt NWCorona May 2016 #6
Yep. VulgarPoet May 2016 #8
Let's take the license plates off the car and go do... CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #9
"Emailghazi truthers" is one lame attempt at a smear. Scuba May 2016 #5
These phones baloney attempts to smear us CoffeeCat May 2016 #17
If the shoe fits. ContinentalOp May 2016 #42
This investigation is not a "direct extension" of anything. Scuba May 2016 #45
Emailgate originated from the Benghazi hearings ContinentalOp May 2016 #52
wiki? C'mon, man. Scuba May 2016 #54
Really? ContinentalOp May 2016 #57
Wiki is not a reliable source. Do you have another? Scuba May 2016 #61
omg, this stuff is common knowledge to anybody who has been following the issue at all. ContinentalOp May 2016 #63
You made the leap... Scuba May 2016 #69
She. Buzz cook May 2016 #77
"He" Scuba May 2016 #80
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #10
Caveat Emptor. VulgarPoet May 2016 #15
Really, really (did I say really???) CompanyFirstSergeant May 2016 #21
"holding her to different standards than every other SOS" vintx May 2016 #23
Eh. They've graduated from blinders. VulgarPoet May 2016 #33
Wow, total ignorance on display CoffeeCat May 2016 #31
Well said, Pri! Well fucking said. bettyellen May 2016 #41
Think about that sentence "Well they were marked classified after the fact" Kind of redundant AGH Joob May 2016 #11
If you truly care about transparency, then I don't know why you want to defend secrecy so badly ContinentalOp May 2016 #44
Regarding your classified question 2cannan May 2016 #12
"Classified" isn't actually the relevant standard. Orsino May 2016 #20
Neither of your questions gets at the fact that Hillary blatantly and intentionally violated FOIA Attorney in Texas May 2016 #34
Plus the "was it classified at the time" argument is legally irrelevant, particularly since all her JudyM May 2016 #68
Yep -- to which the State Department responded we have no records Samantha May 2016 #95
There are over three dozen lawsuits where State is going to get hugely fined because of Hillary's Attorney in Texas May 2016 #97
I knew there were several but not 3 dozen -- it is not surprising though Samantha May 2016 #98
It is unclear what the evidence will show in the criminal cases, but the evidence is clear Hillary Attorney in Texas May 2016 #99
The "classified" side of the story is what will save Hillary. ieoeja May 2016 #38
You've probably already seen some of this. IdaBriggs May 2016 #43
Thanks ContinentalOp May 2016 #47
I keep coming back to Yes, but I've been reading about this for IdaBriggs May 2016 #50
Classification level is not, as is often mistakenly stated here, based on marking, but on content. JudyM May 2016 #72
response paulthompson May 2016 #75
Still waiting on the indictment fairy I see leftofcool May 2016 #49
Shame on anyone who spends 5 seconds replying to this garbage. FlatBaroque May 2016 #53
Your two questions paulthompson May 2016 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author ContinentalOp May 2016 #62
You are right. But she also had a legal duty to report this breach of security, and failed to do so leveymg May 2016 #64
response paulthompson May 2016 #70
Yeah, sorry ContinentalOp May 2016 #79
answer paulthompson May 2016 #87
I doubt she needed Blumenthal to access materials on the interagency classified system. leveymg May 2016 #83
In order: lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #71
And there is no evidence that she used her server to communicate with the Commander of USCC. pnwmom May 2016 #103
Evidence? The emails themselves don't count? lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #107
Did you read Prof. Lempert's article? n/t pnwmom May 2016 #108
In what way does the article disprove the fact that Petraeus and Clinton corresponded insecurely? lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #109
So you are not going to read it. Your mind is made up so further discussion is pointless. n/t pnwmom May 2016 #110
With tens of thousands of emails, it seems as though you should have more than 2 questions. merrily May 2016 #76
I feel bad about the "truther" thing, ContinentalOp May 2016 #82
That was a very nice reply. merrily May 2016 #84
"truther" paulthompson May 2016 #88
Have you kept up with any of the proceedings? Thinkingabout May 2016 #78
Yes there were paulthompson May 2016 #94
You sound like Hillary's spokesperson Bob41213 May 2016 #100
This -ISN'T- going to end as a matter of HRC's outgoing email HereSince1628 May 2016 #105
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I have two questions abou...»Reply #56