Hillary For President

[icenine]

OPM was breached, and Hillary's server never was.

WTF? over.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well, can you summarize briefly what's beyond the paywall there?

It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than a year to keep “documents or materials containing classified information . . . at an unauthorized location.” Note that it is the information that is protected; the issue doesn’t turn on whether the document or materials bear a classified marking...

Moving up the scale, the law relating to public records generally makes it a felony for anyone having custody of a “record or other thing” that is “deposited with . . . a public officer” to “remove” or “destroy” it, with a maximum penalty of three years. Emails are records, and the secretary of state is a public officer and by statute their custodian...

The Espionage Act defines as a felony, punishable by up to 10 years, the grossly negligent loss or destruction of “information relating to the national defense...”

The highest step in this ascending scale of criminal penalties—20 years maximum—is reached by anyone who destroys “any record, document or tangible object with intent to impede, obstruct or influence the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter...”

The common-sense issues in this matter are more problematic than the criminal ones. Anyone who enters the Situation Room at the White House, where Mrs. Clinton was photographed during the Osama bin Laden raid, is required to place any personal electronic device in a receptacle outside the room, lest it be activated involuntarily and confidential communications disclosed.

Mrs. Clinton herself, in a now famous email, cautioned State Department employees not to conduct official business on personal email accounts. The current secretary of state, John Kerry, testified that he assumes that his emails have been the object of surveillance by hostile foreign powers. It is inconceivable that the nation’s senior foreign-relations official was unaware of the risk that communications about this country’s relationships with foreign governments would be of particular interest to those governments, and to others.

BTW, you can just paste their URL into Google and do a search on it. The first hit will be the article and you can directly link to it.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Nope! Hit the wall again.

Weird. Google searched - Clinton Defies the Law and Common Sense - and I can read the whole thing. It's an op ed by Mike Mukasey.

[finnbow]

The drip, drip, drip continues:

A federal judge on Thursday said he would push the Federal Bureau of Investigation to see if it can recover any deleted government records that may exist on Hillary Clinton’s private server.

If the FBI accedes to the judge’s wishes, it would expand the scope of its review from questioning the security of the Clinton system to probing whether all relevant government records were provided by Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers.

At a court hearing over a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit surrounding the communications of Mrs. Clinton and one of her top aides, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan urged government lawyers to begin talks with the FBI about how to review any new data investigators might find.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-pu...ils-1440101131

[bobabode]

Drip, drip, drip? Is that a Chinese water torture technique or an STD?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm hitting the wall too but not without discovering that the article linked to is an OpEd and, as most of us realize, the editorial board of the WSJ under Murdoch is screamingly right wing and Murdoch himself hates the Clintons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mukasey

You mean Rudy Ghouliani's best bud and Alberto Gonzalez's successor isn't to be trusted?

[icenine]

At least Hillary is not blaming all of America ills on immigrants.

Hillary Good, Trump Bad.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by icenine

Hillary Bad, Trump Worse... Much Worse.

I guess I have higher standards.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than a year to keep “documents or materials containing classified information . . . at an unauthorized location.” Note that it is the information that is protected; the issue doesn’t turn on whether the document or materials bear a classified marking...

Moving up the scale, the law relating to public records generally makes it a felony for anyone having custody of a “record or other thing” that is “deposited with . . . a public officer” to “remove” or “destroy” it, with a maximum penalty of three years. Emails are records, and the secretary of state is a public officer and by statute their custodian...

The Espionage Act defines as a felony, punishable by up to 10 years, the grossly negligent loss or destruction of “information relating to the national defense...”

The highest step in this ascending scale of criminal penalties—20 years maximum—is reached by anyone who destroys “any record, document or tangible object with intent to impede, obstruct or influence the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter...”

The common-sense issues in this matter are more problematic than the criminal ones. Anyone who enters the Situation Room at the White House, where Mrs. Clinton was photographed during the Osama bin Laden raid, is required to place any personal electronic device in a receptacle outside the room, lest it be activated involuntarily and confidential communications disclosed.

Mrs. Clinton herself, in a now famous email, cautioned State Department employees not to conduct official business on personal email accounts. The current secretary of state, John Kerry, testified that he assumes that his emails have been the object of surveillance by hostile foreign powers. It is inconceivable that the nation’s senior foreign-relations official was unaware of the risk that communications about this country’s relationships with foreign governments would be of particular interest to those governments, and to others.

BTW, you can just paste their URL into Google and do a search on it. The first hit will be the article and you can directly link to it.

Thanks.

The first turns on criminal intent, that is, did whoever was responsible know the material in question was classified at the time, or later.

The rest turns on whether records were indeed destroyed with criminal intent. There may be copies, so nothing destroyed; there may be questions as to who was/is entitled to receive what records when. The thing is not open and shut without a lot more details. I defer to the jury if there ever is one.

But failures of crossing some line trying for privacy and some possible lack of due diligence in record handling still don't strike me as high crimes.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Thanks.

The first turns on criminal intent, that is, did whoever was responsible know the material in question was classified at the time, or later.

The rest turns on whether records were indeed destroyed with criminal intent. There may be copies, so nothing destroyed; there may be questions as to who was/is entitled to receive what records when. The thing is not open and shut without a lot more details. I defer to the jury if there ever is one.

But failures of crossing some line trying for privacy and some possible lack of due diligence in record handling still don't strike me as high crimes.

There are no expectations of privacy on government email systems, particularly ones handling classified material. She would have been fine if she had done all her State business on the State email system and maintained a private one for the foundation and yet another for Amazon purchases. But mixing all such records was a conscious and deliberate action (and one she explicitly instructed other lower-level State employees not to do).

Due diligence implies that she wanted to do the right thing, but slipped up. Her actions were deliberate, from keeping the insecure server to erasing files. If you tolerate being fed a line of shit just because someone has a "D" behind their name, more power to you.