2016 Postmortem

paulthompson

(2,398 posts)

115. statute

Tue May 3, 2016, 06:44 PM

May 2016

Mark,

Could you quote the exact relevant felony statute 18 USC 793(f)(2), with a link? If you did elsewhere, I missed it.

Also, you mentioned elsewhere that Clinton should have had complete access to all the info the CIA and NSA had anyway. Can you elaborate on that? When I did my 9/11 research, stovepiping was a really big problem. I'm not sure how much interagency cooperation has improved since then.

If Clinton could get access to all classified info, then it seems strange to be risking get that from Blunenthal. Unless it's a matter of having someone helping her separate the wheat from the chaff. Clearly, she was super busy and wouldn't have had the time to closely analyze what other departments were doing, so she'd want someone to do that for her. But why not have some expert inside the State Department do that?

I find it puzzling, unless the various departments weren't good at sharing. Then one can see a better motive.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I have two questions about the email controversy [View all] ContinentalOp May 2016 OP

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