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: Preview of the FBI report. [View all]

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
61. I have a hint 4U. If you want to know the prevailing standard, look at similar cases. Here's two.
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:38 PM
Jun 2016

There is abundant precedent for the prosecution of heads of federal agencies for classified information violations. Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.

Petraeus plead down to Sec. 1924, a Misdemeanor, while Deutch was referred for prosecution by the CIA IG, but Attorney General Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury and Deutch was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day. Both of them were found to have committed acts of mishandling classified materials. Deutch hooked up CIA laptops to his home internet, which was a chargeable offense under the law as it stood in 1996, and as it remains today.

Here's what the Deutch CIA IG Report found in 2000. (The forthcoming Clinton Intelligence Community IG Report will likely contain very similar findings): https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?

109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

Recommendations

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

Preview of the FBI report. [View all] DCBob Jun 2016 OP
you are way closer to being right on this.... beachbum bob Jun 2016 #1
LOL. Funny, funny, funny. floriduck Jun 2016 #31
What we do know for certain is that Hillary's lawyer was Gen Petraeus's lawyer in his case. politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #59
He got off without jail time, so his lawyer isn't half bad. But, he won't become President, either. leveymg Jun 2016 #62
What Petraeus did was willful and intentional which makes what he did much worse than politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #64
No, it's the other way around. The exposure of classified materials in HRCs case is far worse. leveymg Jun 2016 #65
That's your opinion. I'll stick to mine. I worked many years in the environment and I know how politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #67
Baloney Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #69
The damn investigation has gone on for 9 months. Either they have something or they don't still_one Jun 2016 #2
I suspect its going to come out in the next few weeks during the down time before the convention. DCBob Jun 2016 #3
I hope you are right Bob. This has gone on too long, and it is ridiculous. I also think your OP still_one Jun 2016 #5
Comey is being super careful and cautious.. for good reason. DCBob Jun 2016 #8
Comey has been reported as hating the Clintons 1-on-1 conversations. May be the opposite ashtonelijah Jun 2016 #14
That is what is a concern to me, that this is no longer and investigation, but a political maneuver still_one Jun 2016 #20
I'm getting frustrated too democrattotheend Jun 2016 #21
Isn't that the same stuff we hear every single time something is released? ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #4
Your credibility on this matter is shot when you use kcjohn1 Jun 2016 #6
I guess you will be leaving on June 16 Gomez163 Jun 2016 #7
Here is what President Obama said about this matter.. DCBob Jun 2016 #10
OMG, from a RIGHT WING SOUCE. floriduck Jun 2016 #32
Obama is the source.. Fox News Interview. DCBob Jun 2016 #34
Journalists file multiple FOIA requests for the same document because tandem5 Jun 2016 #28
Was the report leaked by e-mail? JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #9
Nope.. my prediction.. DCBob Jun 2016 #12
There is absolutely no way LoverOfLiberty Jun 2016 #11
Very good point. DCBob Jun 2016 #13
I was just telling my husband the very same thing! MoonRiver Jun 2016 #17
That sums up my feelings as well Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2016 #18
3. It helps the United States of America. senz Jun 2016 #23
Agreed, that seems pretty obvious. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #55
That is a very likely outcome Gothmog Jun 2016 #15
I just wish they would issue their report, so the country can move on. MoonRiver Jun 2016 #16
Exactly.. they do owe it to the nation to put this matter to rest.. DCBob Jun 2016 #19
I don't think they have interviewed her yet yeoman6987 Jun 2016 #27
They may not interview her if they think they have everything they need. DCBob Jun 2016 #46
I do, too. One thing is certain: PJMcK Jun 2016 #54
Agreed, this is getting a little ridiculous. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #58
I hope the FBI is also looking into the Foundation. senz Jun 2016 #22
So not a preview of the report, just an opinion piece. Kentonio Jun 2016 #24
That sounds pretty close to what it will actually be. MineralMan Jun 2016 #25
Your first point is a truism. tandem5 Jun 2016 #26
Res ipsa loquitur DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #29
Precisely. DCBob Jun 2016 #36
Wow I Somehow Missed That Stallion Jun 2016 #48
yes, mens rhea; "guilty mind" DLCWIdem Jun 2016 #63
That's as good as official since there will be no significant penalties. oasis Jun 2016 #30
FYI... these are my predictions.. no official source. DCBob Jun 2016 #35
I'm sure Hillary's already put the issue in her rear view mirror. oasis Jun 2016 #41
Yep. DCBob Jun 2016 #43
She did not do it knowingly or willingly? Skwmom Jun 2016 #33
Gross negligence. DCBob Jun 2016 #40
Using your own private service in your closet is not serious carelessness? PLUS, with the importance Skwmom Jun 2016 #47
Intent. DCBob Jun 2016 #49
She was aware that her Blackberry and server were uncertified for classified info, was warned leveymg Jun 2016 #60
You best hurry and gets this crap out of your system.. DCBob Jun 2016 #68
Incompetent rather than criminal? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #37
Not incompetent.. just didn't follow all the rules and regs perfectly. DCBob Jun 2016 #44
I suspect you are correct. NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #38
Key words: not official. Vinca Jun 2016 #39
Doesn't mean: not correct. DCBob Jun 2016 #42
Meh Tarc Jun 2016 #45
Sounds as though you've followed the case closely. kstewart33 Jun 2016 #50
Have to to keep up with the "indictment fairy" believers! DCBob Jun 2016 #52
Congrats! You just made a gross negligence case under 18 USC 793(f)(1) and (2). That's two felonies! leveymg Jun 2016 #51
What will you spend your time on when this all goes away?? DCBob Jun 2016 #53
Still hoping for the "absolution fairy" I guess tk2kewl Jun 2016 #66
I am only hoping the report comes out as soon as possible.. DCBob Jun 2016 #71
Only if you have no idea what gross negligence is. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #57
I have a hint 4U. If you want to know the prevailing standard, look at similar cases. Here's two. leveymg Jun 2016 #61
These cases are not similar. DCBob Jun 2016 #70
I read your OP and this instantly sprang to mind - Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #56
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Preview of the FBI report...»Reply #61