 |
| Hillary grilled for three and a half hours by FBI |
- (a) 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 under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
- (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
- (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
_______
- Was Hillary an officer, employee, etc? Yes.
- Did Hillary become possessed with documents or materials containing classified information? Yes, including all levels of classification.
- Did Hillary knowing remove with the intent to retain documents? Yes, in fact she hired an IT specialist (Brian Pagliano who was granted criminal immunity) to migrate the very emails containing classified information to her private server.
- Was she authorized to move them to her private server? No, multiple reports have now shown she neither asked for, or was granted authorization to house any state materials on her private server.
The only thing this code requires to have broken it... is possessing and housing classified information in an unauthorized location.
34 comments:
And fox covered the news like it was a conspiracy that it was done on a holiday weekend so no one would know. I found their fervid language and breathless voices most amusing. There was an interview which all knew was coming. I'm sure our host will agree that the meeting was nefarious and something was not legit. Sigh.
According to sources that are familiar with the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server, the former Secretary of State is not expected to face charges in the probe.
This, according to CNN’s Senior Producer Edward Mejia Davis, who took to Twitter shortly ago to indicate the likely announcement of “no charges”:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sources-hillary-clinton-not-expected-to-face-charges-in-federal-email-probe/
Two CNN people said that charges are very unlikely.
Tweets. Trump said the system is corrupt. The FBI is corrupt. Surprise?
A CNN producer has cleared Clinton? Well that settles it them.
There are no legitimate news stories on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Druge, RCP, or anywhere else that suggests there is anything "new" in regards to whether or not she will be charged.
Just the same old people making the same speculations, drawing the same conclusions, and repeating what they have been saying all along.
If there was a legitimate story from a legitimate source that could make a realistic prediction based on actual sources willing to go on record (even anonymously)...
It would be on the front page of every news site...
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago
It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!
But you are right, it's not anywhere else.
Now that the FBI has interviewed Clinton that seems to mean this whole thing is coming to an end. Most legal experts don't think Clinton will be indicted. The question is, How soon will we know?
An article in the Washington Post suggests that the results of this investigation must be made known before the Dem convention:
"The reason? If Clinton was indicted for her role in creating and maintaining her private email server, she would almost certainly be forced to leave the race. Nominating someone still under an FBI investigation seems like a massive risk.”
“Assuming that logic is right, then the next two weeks will be critical for the presidential race. The FBI won’t announce anything Sunday or July 4. Which means the agency will have between July 5 and July 25 to make public its decision on the case. That’s not a long time.”
The "most legal experts" line has been used non-stop by Washington Post and Politico for months. It's a throw away that means little or nothing.
Yet, when I do a tally of legal experts willing to go on record, I find that those who would be considered "liberal" tend to believe she won't be indicted, while those considered "conservative" either state that she will be, or should be but won't be for political reasons.
Personally, based on the fact that I can read and comprehend English... it's clearly evident that she at the very least broke 18 code 1924. The only reasonable defense would be that she didn't know that over 2000 emails (including several with top secret information on special access programs) were actually classified - which would mean you would have to convince a jury that the woman who wants to be our President is a complete moron.
That being said, when the President is on record of saying she did nothing wrong, and the Attorney General is smoozing with Bill just this week, it becomes clear that anyone in the DOJ is throwing away their career if they decide to try to buck their bosses. Especially considering that the person that they are deciding whether or not to indict, could be their boss someday.
Trump is only stating the obvious. The system is corrupt and the fix has been in from day one.
If anyone can give me a legitimate reason why this situation did not call for a special independent prosecutor, I'll eat my shorts.
Do you want Tobasco to go on your shorts?
It wasn't of the importance you believe it is. It was a decision that the alleged violation of a poorly written in house rules did not put the nation in danger. The decision to make a big deal out of this was politically motivated from day one.
People foamiliar with the case have said previously that charges against Clinton seemed unlikely and that there was a particular void of evidence showing she intended to mishandle classified information, although they asserted investigators were still probing the matter aggressively. The interview with Clinton was always seen as critical. If the former secretary was untruthful with investigators, she could be charged with making false statements. That charge was contemplated in the case against retired Army general and former CIA director David H. Petraeus, although he ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
With the Republican and Democratic conventions looming later this month, timing has also become a complicating factor. Justice Department guidelines specifically warn prosecutors against selecting the timing of investigative steps for the purpose of affecting an election or helping a particular candidate or party.
Washington Post
I think Clinton's legal defence will revolve around the word "authority".
She's going to argue that she was more the an "employee", that as secretary of state she authorized herself to receive classified information on her private server and that she has the authority to declare her server as a secure government location.
It wasn't of the importance you believe it is. It was a decision that the alleged violation of a poorly written in house rules did not put the nation in danger.
CH didn't quote any "poorly written in house rules". He quoted federal law and from any logical reading it's clear that she violated this section and possible the espionage act as well.
"Do you want Tobasco to go on your shorts?"
Forgive me, but in the spirit of someone we all know about, that deserves an LOL.
1:02AM is well stated.
There is no lack of evidence that the mishandling was intentional. Hiring a guy specifically to migrate email from government servers to your private server is, after all, an extraordinary action that leaves no room for someone lacking intent.
As stated by numerous legal experts, and touched on in this blog, intent is an aggravating factor but not required to have violated this law.
I am on record here already, months ago, with speculation that the timing and conclusion of the FBI investigation is dictated by political considerations. This was prior to the President's backing the person of interest, his several press statements that there was no crime, and the ex-President's secret meeting with the Justice Department. Clinton is steadily consolidating her political position which is already solid, so extending my logic there will be no recommendation of charges. But that limb I am on feels precarious and I really don't know what the FBI will do, nor what Justice will do with it.
It seems patently obvious that national security laws were broken, just from information publicly available before any investigation even began. So why so long, shrouded in such secrecy, unless the FBI is looking into potential crimes beyond these obvious ones? Is it possible that the FBI are just doing their jobs, taking as long as it takes, with no regard to politics whatsoever?
Yet, when I do a tally of legal experts willing to go on record"
Wow, CH now is running polls to determine whether an indictment will be served. As I have said numerous times, you have no idea what is being investigated and what will be found. Those yelling the loudest have been the likes of Napolitano of Faux who to date has been 100% wrong on his predictions. Your own tally is beyond absurd, CH, it is rather moronic.
There is no lack of evidence that the mishandling was intentional.
What does that have to do with the investigation? Since it appears the classification problem came after disclosure, it will be very difficult prosecute a classified document being mishandled. Having the server was stupid, but if we prosecuted stupid, Busch would be sentenced to life.
If by "classification problem" you mean the infraction of exposing classified documents, then it did not come "after" disclosure.
When classified information is exposed to the wrong people, it is a problem for national security. It is not a mitigating factor if the document was not marked with some classification tag, or if some classification tag was removed when the document was duplicated. Exposing the information is the infraction, both legally and in actual fact.
The absurdity with this defense is not only the legal irrelevance, it's the implication that the Secretary of State could be that ignorant of the nature of the information that she worked with on a daily basis. That most, if not all, of the information that crosses her desk is or should be classified is precisely why the State Department has inconvenient rules for the handling of information. It is why there are Federal laws about it.
The defense is ironic because, to my mind, it amounts to an admission of guilt. She is effectively saying "I was negligent with the information because I did not realize that it was classifiable. I didn't know it needed to be kept secret. I didn't know that the law required me to, unless it had a "top secret" stamp." Each of the three statements seem to me to be admitting guilt. Yet Clinton presents them as defenses.
Roger - as pointed out, I am referring to the federal law (which I quoted).
The fact that you shifted the discussion to "In House rules" is a pretty good sign that whoever you got that argument from (because I know you didn't come up with it on your own)... has squat. Since it is a blatant example of a logical fallacy that falls in the area of red herring and straw man.
Red herring, because it is intended to confuse those (like yourself) wanting to be confused.
Straw man, because they cannot realistically make the argument that 18 U.S. Code 1924 was not broken... but they can make an argument that breaking certain in-house rules could be irrelevant to the legal situation.
Bottom line: The FBI isn't investigating any "in-house rules"... they are investigating the law.
And as W.P. and myself pointed out... and nobody I know has been able to repute it. The fact that she "hired" someone specifically to migrate her government email systems to a private server is actual proof that she "intended" to do so.
The argument otherwise, would (as an analogy) be akin to suggesting that after you hired a painter to paint your house, you then come back and later and argued that you never intended your house to have new paint. Tje act of hiring someone to do it, sort of proves your intent to do it.
Wouldn't you agree?
When classified information is exposed to the wrong people,
And it has to be proven that there was criminal intent to provide that information to those who are not cleared to have it. . Classified documents are distributed to only those with a need to know and have the proper clearance. It is a self policing policy that works very well Petraeus got a break with Holder reducing the charges when his squeeze who had no need to know was given the data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-david-petraeus-avoided-felony-charges-and-possible-prison-time/2016/01/25/d77628dc-bfab-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html
And it has to be proven that there was criminal intent to provide that information to those who are not cleared to have it.
Nope. Absolutely 100% wrong on fact. I really don't care how many people claim that... it's still 100% wrong on fact.
Sandy Berger plead to misdemeanor mishandling charges for removing classified documents in his suit jacket, to take home and study before a briefing... no intent was ever shown or 'required' to be shown, based on the misdemeanor mishandling statute.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) 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 under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
____
There simply is no such legal standard applied to code 1924
The intent to distribute to someone else only applied to felony espionage charges.
The fact that you don't acknowledge the difference is further proof of your ability to be brainwashed by the media. Baaaaah! Sheep!
Nope. Absolutely 100% wrong on fact
Care to bet, now expert lawyer?????? You can try to read what you want into the law, the fact remains you ain't a lawyer or an expert on classified decisions. Keep trying to bs your way to conclusions that are not true
Thanx for playing, CH Seems previous decisions do not support your BS.
se of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744#ixzz4DMwWNBoW
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Deliberately putting classified information on a private email server is not an aggravating circumstance?
Care to bet, now expert lawyer??????
Will you go away forever if you are wrong?
*Deliberately putting classified information on a private email server...*
How can you "deliberately" do that if you don't know it's classified since it's not so designated?
By hiring a technician to migrate your state department mailbox to you private server account.
Clinton knew the mail being migrated contain classified documents she was after all Secretary of State.
And don't insult everyone's intelligence by bringing the marked vs not marked canard. It's not relevant to the law and it's simply not believable to anyone with an intelligence above the level of a slimemole.
Deliberately putting classified information on a private email server is not an aggravating circumstance?"
Yes it was.
It is her job as A Cabinet Member to understand the laws that apply in handling the State Secrets entrusted to her.
She is after all soooo smart and a Lawyer, yet at the same time the Socialist tell us that, they now tell us she is so stupid and just didn't understand the applicable laws.
Can't have it both ways!
With the indictment, do you now dust off Biden or hug Bernie?
Line of Succession
1 Vice President
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives
3 President pro tempore of the US Senate
4 Secretary of State
Opie - read this for yourself
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) 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 under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Or go look up the statute on the internet... if you doubt it.
and tell me where there is any mention of having to prove intent that the information was going to be distributed or given to anyone else. If you can provide anything in that statute (not some other statute) that requires intent to distribute information... then you would be correct. If you cannot, then you would be wrong.
So I will take you up on the bet that you that you cannot find anything within 18 U.S. Code § 1924 that requires any intent to provide the information to anyone else.
____
Of course, knowing your pattern of not thinking for yourself. You will simply link another article to another political hack talking about a completely 'different' statute... and pretend like it proves something about 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - because, you that is just the way your brain thinks.
For the simple minded... I hate to point this out, but there are several levels of criminal statutes involving classified materials. Everything from misdemeanors that carry a 6 month jail sentence to felony espionage that puts you away for a long time.
This would be similar to the several levels of any crime, such as sexual assault. You don't have to prove that there was sexual penetration to charge someone with a misdemeanor assault for groping.
So just because someone shows you "one" statute that isn't relative to her situation, doesn't mean she didn't violate one of the others. You are being brainwashed by your liberal media... baaah!
Let's also not forget that these hacks conveniently forget about Sandy Berger, who there was never any suggestion that he intended to provide any information to anyone. He was charged for mishandling, simply because he removed the documents on purpose.
Easy to make an argument based on past precedents, if you ignore the ones that put a hole in your argument.
Of course, knowing your pattern of not thinking for yourself
And your pattern of making shit up.
You keep reading CH and slant it the way you like. Sandy removed clearly marked documents which have protocol for handling. Hillary had no such document in her server, only after release were they marked, maybe. Your proclivity to making false analogies to server your purpose does not make your statements correct or applicable. Your naivete' is astounding and funny for me to watch the desperation of your spin. Nothing similar to berger ch. Keep digging and maybe you can find a precedent that works....BWAAAAA!!!
According to the charges, Berger -- between September 2 and October 2, 2003 -- "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places," such as his private Washington office.
Thanx for looking like a fool again.
Post a Comment