The fix was in, apparently

[Guinastasia]

@Clothahump

Did Condi set up an unsecure mail server, then openly lie about keeping secret info on it? I seem to have missed that.

Dude, even Bricker is telling you you’re full of shit. And Bricker is not what I’d call a fan of the Clintons. Time to pack it in. You’re gonna give yourself an ulcer.

[HMS_Irruncible]

You guys can mock, but I hear there’s gonna be an investigation of the investigation of the investigation, and then we’ll see what’s what.

[Projammer]

At least now the director has established the precedent that they will only prosecute if you intended to break they law. So now ignorance of the law really is an excuse.

[HMS_Irruncible]

As far as this “ignorance of the law” trope is concerned, I watched the press conference and this isn’t what was said. In the 3 classified documents, apparently the “classified” watermark was buried way down in the body of the message, not up in the header.

So it was not ignorance of the law, it was overlooking a symbol that was located in an unexpected place.

[running_coach]

@Projammer

At least now the director has established the precedent that they will only prosecute if you intended to break they law. So now ignorance of the law really is an excuse.

He said she mishandled classified information. The lack of criminal intent was the reason for not recommending charges.

And note that only 110(out of over 30,000) emails contained classified materials but * was not marked as such.*

There were three emails that contained classified materials but were not identified in the header, only in the body of the text.

[GIGObuster]

@Projammer

At least now the director has established the precedent that they will only prosecute if you intended to break they law. So now ignorance of the law really is an excuse.

Not really, most of what you are talking about is breaking rules. Even I do think that was not good. But then you are ignoring that the law is not the same thing.

There were basically 2 laws were Clinton could had been indicted with, and the FBI needed to have very good evidence to prosecute with.

Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now...

The Law

Based on what we know today, there are likely two primary laws at the heart of the probe and two or three others that might be considered investigative fallout. Partisans alleging that Clinton may have violated as many as 15 crimes, are either exaggerating or simply seeking to overstate the gravity for effect.

1. The first and most discussed statute has been 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a), and it’s a misdemeanor:

“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 are serious legal hurdles to overcome for those who would seek to file a charge under this law. First, none of the information she possessed and/or presumably “removes” had officially been declared “classified” at that time. That matters. Sure, there is an argument that classified “documents” are not the same as classified “information” and that certain information is “classified at birth” and therefore always officially classified. And there’s no question that some of the information and/or documents were later declared classified. But this isn’t a law school exam where we attempt to figure out how creative one can become in fitting a law into a particular fact pattern. We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today.

2. But those legal requirements of intentional conduct regarding classified information do not exist in the language of 18 U.S.C.A § 793(f), which is a felony:

“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.”

Here, if it is determined that by “gross negligence” she permitted information “relating to the national defense” (as opposed to the more formal “classified” definition) “to be removed from its proper place of custody”, then she could be facing up to 10 years behind bars.

Reading this as a layperson one might think this could be an easier crime to prove. Not so.

Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody? ” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as:

“A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

“Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”

That is another critical point here. This Espionage Law clearly was never intended to address a Secretary of State using — foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy — a personal email server to send and receive emails. Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink. Efforts to compare this situation to other cases that have been prosecuted also fail on the facts.

[El_Kabong]

@HMS_Irruncible

You guys can mock, but I hear there’s gonna be an investigation of the investigation of the investigation, and then we’ll see what’s what.

It’s investigations all the way down!

[Miller]

@Guinastasia

Dude, even Bricker is telling you you’re full of shit. And Bricker is not what I’d call a fan of the Clintons.

Bricker’s in on the fix. Always has been. His persona here was a carefully constructed facade, constructed years in advance, to throw off suspicion.

In reality, he’s Vince Foster.

[Starving_Artist]

@running_coach

He said she mishandled classified information. The lack of criminal intent was the reason for not recommending charges.

There’s always lack of intent when you don’t know you’re breaking the law. So that brings us right back to ignorance of the law is now an excuse.

(But just as an IMHO aside, my guess is she didn’t know whether it was against the law or not and couldn’t have cared less. In typical Clintonian fashion she figured she’d just do what she wants and then she’ll deal with the consequences in her typical slippery, dishonest and endlessly obfuscatory way later on should it become a problem. I mean, what’s anyone gonna do? She’s the Secretary of Friggin’ State, right?)

[running_coach]

@Starving_Artist

There’s always lack of intent when you don’t know you’re breaking the law. So that brings us right back to ignorance of the law is now an excuse.

(But just as an IMHO aside, my guess is she didn’t know whether it was against the law or not and couldn’t have cared less. In typical Clintonian fashion she figured she’d just do what she wants and then she’ll deal with the consequences in her typical slippery, dishonest and endlessly obfuscatory way later on should it become a problem. I mean, what’s anyone gonna do? She’s the Secretary of Friggin’ State, right?)

Comey very specifically said criminal intent. Such as giving the classified material to an enemy agent.
From his statement.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

[Reyemile]

@Starving_Artist

There’s always lack of intent when you don’t know you’re breaking the law.

No, that’s not true.

If you don’t know that jaywalking is a crime, you did not intend to break the law, but you did intend to jaywalk–ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you know that jaywalking is a crime but don’t know that the crosswalk you’re in was spray-painted by teens as a joke, you didn’t intend to jaywalk–you did not intend to commit the underlying act that was criminal, regardless of whether you intended to follow the law or not.

[elucidator]

@running_coach

…And note that only 110(out of over 30,000) emails contained classified materials but * was not marked as such.*…

Further: the heading is the most salient and definitive feature. The “mark” signifying a classified portion of the document is just a “(c)”. And I recall him saying that a reasonable and responsible person could fairly assume that, in the absence of that heading, she was not handling “classified” information. Most especially, if she did not read the entire document.

(If the document has already been summarized by an aide assigned to read all that dreck, why would she? She might never have even seen the little (c) note.)

And, of course, we cannot know if the item in question was truly a matter of national security, aroooga! aroooga!, or just the standard business of diplomacy.

[Starving_Artist]

@running_coach

Comey very specifically said criminal intent. Such as giving the classified material to an enemy agent.
From his statement.

Fair enough. While I feel Hillary Clinton deliberately took actions intended to keep information out of the hands of the press (and/or future duly appointed investigators), deliberately lied on numerous occasions about what information her private server contained, and destroyed who knows how much genuinely problematic material (far, far more erasing than Nixon ever did, btw) I can see that without substantive proof of such intentions it would be difficult to bring charges.

@Reyemile

No, that’s not true.

If you don’t know that jaywalking is a crime, you did not intend to break the law, but you did intend to jaywalk–ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you know that jaywalking is a crime but don’t know that the crosswalk you’re in was spray-painted by teens as a joke, you didn’t intend to jaywalk–you did not intend to commit the underlying act that was criminal, regardless of whether you intended to follow the law or not.

I see your point, so ‘Fair enough’ to you as well. Thanks for coming up with an example that illustrates the difference. I appreciate it.

[elucidator]

OK, who are you and what have you done with…on second thought, welcome to the Boards!

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Starving_Artist

There’s always lack of intent when you don’t know you’re breaking the law. So that brings us right back to ignorance of the law is now an excuse.

How many times do we have to go through this. There’s a difference between "I wasn’t aware XYZ was illegal, and “I wasn’t aware I was doing XYZ.” If you watched the press conference, the FBI director fairly well laid out the case for the latter.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Starving_Artist

There’s always lack of intent when you don’t know you’re breaking the law. So that brings us right back to ignorance of the law is now an excuse.

(But just as an IMHO aside, my guess is she didn’t know whether it was against the law or not and couldn’t have cared less. In typical Clintonian fashion she figured she’d just do what she wants and then she’ll deal with the consequences in her typical slippery, dishonest and endlessly obfuscatory way later on should it become a problem. I mean, what’s anyone gonna do? She’s the Secretary of Friggin’ State, right?)

Did you watch the video of Comey’s testimony before Congress that I just posted? Comey said that it has always been the FBI’s policy of not recommending indictment in such cases. But you’d rather criticize than actually enlighten yourself.

[Kyrie_Eleison]

@Reyemile

If you don’t know that jaywalking is a crime, you did not intend to break the law, but you did intend to jaywalk–ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If you know that jaywalking is a crime but don’t know that the crosswalk you’re in was spray-painted by teens as a joke, you didn’t intend to jaywalk–you did not intend to commit the underlying act that was criminal, regardless of whether you intended to follow the law or not.

Aha! But jaywalking is a strict liability offense. We’ll have none of your criminal coddling excuses, you jaywalker-loving hippy!

[Starving_Artist]

Uh, guys? May I refer you to post 113? Might save you a lot of ire.

[bump]

@Voyager

My work has lots of sensitive data also, and people read it on their non-work phones all the time. (Private phones.) Our information protection class has guidelines but they do not include never reading your sensitive mail on a mobile device.
There are levels of security - there are some levels where this could get you into trouble. But the equivalent of classified is not one. And it is not a firing offense.

The reason I brought HIPAA up in this context is that it allows for institutional fines, personal fines, AND criminal charges.

I kind of get the impression that if someone played as fast and loose with HIPAA information and got caught, they’d be looking at personal and company fines out the wazoo, and likely the loss of their job as well.

[Clothahump]

@iiandyiiii

That didn’t happen.

That is exactly what happened. From the Director’s own announcement (emphasis mine):

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.** Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.**

There it is, in black and white. She committed felonies. She’s gonna skate on them. But hey, in her own words, what does it matter? After all, she’s the Goddess Hillary and it’s just business as usual in Washington.