REPORT: Legal Experts Side with Hillary Clinton on Use of Private Emails

[Cryptoad]

Central to the email issue, as Hillary has repeatedly explained, is that certain emails which passed through her private server were retroactively classified as top secret. The retroactive classification is crucial, because it means she never knowingly mishandled top secret materials. Further:

The relatively few laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies, leakers and those who illegally retain such information, such as at home. Though the view is not unanimous, several lawyers who specialize in this area said it’s a stretch to apply existing statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides – not a national enemy.

The fact that legal experts have agreed that it is very unlikely that Hillary will be indicted, and that existing law isn’t designed to be (mis)applied to this situation, has largely gone uncovered by the national media.

The most likely explanation for that failure is because they want to continue to doggedly elevate this bureaucratic review into a criminal scandal, in order to take down the woman most likely to be the nation’s first female president.

http://bluenationreview.com/legal-experts-side-with-hillary-clinton-on-use-of-private-emails/

[revbones]

1. Interesting

given that the article is on Blue Nation Review - which is owned by Correct the Record - Hillary's super-PAC run by admitted liar David Brock...

[NWCorona]

3. Yup

I already debunked the source material.

[Mudcat]

34. ah, thanks! I didn't know this nt

[pdsimdars]

16. They are getting more pathetic every day

Looks and sounds like a sinking ship.

Man those lifeboats!!!!

[riversedge]

2. only the RW and some Sanders fan are making an issue of this dead horse

[NWCorona]

7. The FBI hasn't endorsed Bernie and they operate under Obama

[riversedge]

9. Do you have a point?

[NWCorona]

10. Yes

[revbones]

19. BNR or the mishandling of classified info, or the corruption shown in the emails? nt

[Bill USA]

68. got any examples?... not from your imagination, but from reality..LOL!

[revbones]

70. Denial doesn't change reality. nt

[Bill USA]

81. anytime you can come up with an example let us know.

[revbones]

82. Examples of what?

[840high]

52. Old line. Think of

something new.

[haikugal]

4. I've become increasingly skeptical of such 'experts'.....

How does what Clinton did work with FOIA laws and the concept of sunlight? I don't think it does.

[randome]

23. The regulation is that only official communications are subject to FOIA laws.

It's a big loophole that allows any agent of the government to determine whether a document is public or not. But that's how it's been for a long time now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[haikugal]

25. Yeah...things changed after Nixon..they really work it now to avoid us.

We, the people, have to be kept in the dark at all costs.

[randome]

33. The tax code isn't the only area with glaring loopholes.

Closing them all would make the government more streamlined and efficient, something both parties talk about but never do anything about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Adept]

36. Most people skeptical of experts tend to be Republicans

[haikugal]

48. Most people with Clinton's policys definitely are!

[SheenaR]

5. Blue Nation Review lol n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Brock nation review LOL

[cosmicone]

6. Her enemies will use anything to try to cut her down

and we know who sided with the looney Trey Goudy on this site.

Some even "wished" she were indicted so that they can get their free-stuff-frankie elected.

[SheenaR]

17. Who needs enemies

When you have a candidate who answers questions about her honesty and past votes/beliefs like a mix of Dan Quayle and Adml. James Stockdale

[think]

18. "free stuff frankie" Good grief.....

[angrychair]

32. They sound more teapublican everyday

"Free stuff Frankie"???? Never thought I would see comments like that on a Democratic website...crazy times indeed.

[mmonk]

8. Using private emails is not the overall issue.

A system of circumvention is the issue.

[AZ Progressive]

11. From the website owned by Hillary's pitbull, David Brock

You might as well then accept articles posted by Breitbart and Infowars.com.

As well as believe ads like this:

[pdsimdars]

13. Is that like those "climate experts" who side with the oil companies on climate change?

[4139]

14. Who are the legal experts? No names is the story!??? Hillary's defence team lawyers?

[yellowcanine]

21. The report is linked in the story and the experts named in the report.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAIL_LEGAL_EXPERTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-22-12-25-26

[4139]

28. Thanks

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. You have to burrow down a few links, but the original article does name sources.

This article has them...if buried a bit deep down the page.

[4139]

27. Thanks

[AgerolanAmerican]

15. So it's OK?

Does this mean she could potentially do the same thing as President?

[DCBob]

24. Yes, it was ok.

She wont need to have personal email server when she is President. She will have a fancy BlackBerry like President Obama!

[AgerolanAmerican]

53. She didn't need her own personal server as SoS either

Now, if she chooses for her own convenience to run the Office of the President from a private email server, would that be OK also?

[DCBob]

56. True, but it also wasn't forbidden at the time.

I think that practice is now not allowed.

[AgerolanAmerican]

58. As President she could determine the policy

I don't recall any new laws that have been passed, so it would be her decision.

If she wanted a private server for her official email as President she could have one, and that would be OK yes?

[DCBob]

62. Not sure what you are getting at?

She's not going to have a private server as President. That's absurd.

[AgerolanAmerican]

69. Why not?

It was equally absurd to have one as SoS, which is the second-highest ranking position in the executive and fourth in the line of succession.

If that turns out to have been lawful, what's to stop her from doing the same as President?

[DCBob]

71. You are confused.

A personal server would never be permitted for a President.

[AgerolanAmerican]

72. What's the difference?

Why is a personal server OK for a Secretary of State and not for a President?

[DCBob]

73. It was permitted back then as SOS.

[AgerolanAmerican]

74. As President she'd have the authority to give herself that permission

There's no higher authority in the Executive branch - she could set the policy as she pleases, until and unless a law is passed to forbid it (which she could, as President, veto).

So, if she does so choose to set such a policy and use a personal server as President just as she did as SoS - and, mind you, the offices are not that different as SoS is the #2 in the Executive branch while President is #1 - would you have any objection to it?

[DCBob]

75. There would be no need.

She would have the most secure and stable email system on earth.

[AgerolanAmerican]

76. There was no "need" at State either

It's not a question of need - by her own words, she set up the server she had for reasons of "convenience", a long way from "need".

So, if she chooses to set up a private server as President for her own convenience, would you object to that?

[DCBob]

77. That was the need plus the fact the State Dept email servers were unreliable.

That's why others before her used third party email systems.

Its a rather illogical argument you are making since as President it simply wouldn't be allowed. Much too risky and no need anyway.

[AgerolanAmerican]

78. Not allowed by WHOM?

What she did wasn't allowed in the first place, and is not comparable to any way with what others did before her.

Can you name one other person in any US government position who used a private email server to conduct their official duties? I'm sure you cannot. I cannot either, because it's completely unprecedented.

I can see at this point that you have no intention of giving a straightforward answer to the straightforward question I have posed to you multiple times now.

One can only assume that, having had the opportunity to object to the scenario several times and declined to do so, that you would not in fact have a problem with her running the office of the President off a private email server.

[DCBob]

79. The State Dept did not have any regulation forbidding use of a private email server.

That is not in question at all. The main issue the FBI is looking into is whether any confidential data was compromised and if security procedures were not followed correctly.

I think you and I would both be better off waiting for the FBI report to come out since clearly you have an agenda here and I am tired of playing your game.

Ciao and good night!

[IdaBriggs]

20. I will defer to the FBI and the NSA on this issue.

Also Obama as he had banned Blumenthal from participating in State Department business. Oh, and those folks suing because, since the business emails weren't on government servers, turns out Freedom of Information Act requests were coming up "blank" which is NOT a precedent I am comfortable with having any government official establishing.

[DCBob]

26. Yes, the FBI report will be the final say.

I will eat my hat if they charge her with anything illegal because if they do it will open up a huge can of worms because she is not the only one in the federal government who has done things like this.

[Politicalboi]

30. None of them are running for president

And Bush and Cheney are still free. We know they're guilty, just like Hillary is. I bet Condi NEVER went behind Cheney's back. At least she is LOYAL.

[DCBob]

39. Not just them..

Apparently the mishandling of classified information is rampant in the Federal government. If they charge her with anything they would have to go after hundreds perhaps thousands of others who have done similar things.. they simply wont go there.

[IdaBriggs]

35. Speculation from sources better informed than I suggest members of her staff

will be thrown under the bus. I was initially under the impression she wasn't doing anything "uncommon" but it turns out she was/did. It will be interesting to find out what the hacker who was extradited here has - apparently the "missing" half of her correspondence was hacked from Blumenthal's computer, and the hacker has it. Oops! NSA wants to know how Sidney had access to four different Too Secret/Classified reports that he sent to HER hours after they were released for internal use only - heads are going to roll.

And as for Hillary, we go back to "another completely unnecessary scandal" because ... She really liked her Blackberry and didn't want to work from her SECURE desktop?

[angrychair]

37. The "other people did it" excuse is strange to me

That never worked when I was a kid. Never worked for my kids...actually I raised my kids to take responsibility for their actions, regardless of the actions of others.

I guess I was wrong. We should just let our kids it's ok to kill, rape and steal all they want as long as they have the "somebody else did it and got away with it" excuse ready.

We use to laugh at teapublicans when they used lame excuses like that.

[DCBob]

41. Its not an excuse.. its simply an explanation of the reality of the situation.

The mishandling of classified information is rampant in the Federal government. If they charge her with anything they would have to go after hundreds perhaps thousands of others who have done similar things.. they simply wont go there.

[angrychair]

42. Have you ever got a speeding ticket???

Did you use that excuse with the cop? The "why am I the only one getting a ticket" excuse. How did that go over?

Not to mention, she was a member of the president's cabinet, a department head. If the people that worked for her see the rules don't apply to their manager, why should it it apply to them? That is a very slippery slope you are walking on.

[DCBob]

45. Not the same situation at all.

Many federal officials deal with sensitive classified information on a daily basis often in urgent crisis situations. Sometimes mistakes are made in following the standard procedures. That is not a crime.

[angrychair]

47. On that we differ a little

While I agree that:
"many federal officials deal with sensitive classified information on a daily basis often in urgent crisis situations."
It does not absolve them of responsibility on how it is handled or stored.
When it comes to mishandling classified data, mistakes are crimes. Those "mistakes" can get people killed or compromise operations with hundreds of man hours and millions of dollars invested.
Yes, I agree, that investigators can choose not to prosecute or file lesser charges but the mishandling of classified data is nothing to take so lightly.

[DCBob]

49. They have to prove she did it willfully and knowingly or gross negligence to be a crime.

If it was mistake or accidental or there was a legitimate explanation like a crisis at the time, then its a violation of the procedures but not a crime. That's my understanding. I think we just need to wait for the FBI report to know for sure how they are going to assess this. I would bet the farm they dont charge her with anything that would involve indictment.

[angrychair]

55. Again, we have reached a partial accord

I am more than willing to live with the findings of the Justice Department and the State Dept IG.
If we like that outcome or not, they will have the final say in all this. Despite what you might think, I would take no pleasure in an indictment. My only goal is to ensure that rules and laws apply to everyone the same, regardless of position.

[dchill]

40. "..who has done things like this."

Who has done things like this?

[Human101948]

31. Well, there was precedent....during the Bush administration...

Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media YawnsOn

April 12, 2007, Rove’s operation admitted that it had deleted at least 5 million emails from the server. In December 2009, technicians who had examined the server reported that the number of emails that had been deleted was far greater — 22 million.

What was in the emails? No one will ever know. It’s likely as not that there was incriminating evidence in the correspondence that tied Rove and others to the treasonous exposure of Agent Plame (which, at a minimum, was a violation of government security), the U.S. attorneys’ purge and perhaps other scandals, including the inquiry into charges that Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff had used his entre with others in the GOP to bribe government officials. Abramoff was in prison serving the first year of his sentence when the email scandal broke.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2015/03/18/flashback-rove-erases-22-million-white-house-emails-on-private-server-at-height-of-u-s-attorney-scandal-media-yawns/

[IdaBriggs]

38. I have issues when my team justifies bad behavior because Rove.

Treasonous bastards!

[Politicalboi]

29. Legal experts side with bank robbers

It's okay if you want to steal a little money, like $50,000, but anything after that you will get a ticket, and a stern letter from the bank president.

[VulgarPoet]

43. Great,

so I can store TS//SAP and/or SCI information on a computer at home and have a justifiable precedent to fall back on when the MPs come for me. What kind of fool do you take me for?

[berni_mccoy]

44. Propaganda source run by RWer David Brock. No thanks. Hillary must be scared for Brock to be

Sending this out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. I've been wondering ...

how much of this whole issue is driven by a bureaucratic, inter-agency pissing match ... the ("we remember Petraius(sp?)" CIA (and NSA) versus the State Department? i.e., you got one of ours, we're coming after one of yours.

[Tarc]

50. Some people are going to be very unhappy if the Indictment Fairy doesn't visit them

Oh well...

[onecaliberal]

51. It was the cutting and pasting of CLASSIFIED informtion that was illegal.

[Segami]

54. BLUENATIONREVIEW = DAVID BROCK = HILLARY CLINTON PROPAGANDA

Carry on.......

[Vinca]

57. If it's so cut and dried, why hasn't she been formally cleared by the FBI?

Why was one person given immunity? Just wishing won't make it go away.

[frylock]

60. Brock Nation Review's team of legal experts weighs in

[Segami]

61. Bwhahahaha.....

I guess his firm operates off the legal grid.....

[frylock]

63. Bill Clinton was an attorney, wasn't he?

What's his unbiased take?

[AtomicKitten]

64. +1

[obamneycare]

65. The Clinton/Brock defense seems to boil down to ignorance and precedent

The Clinton/Brock case seems to have two prongs:


1. Ignorance: I didn't know I wasn't supposed to set up a private E-Mail server! I didn't know the E-Mails I was sending/receiving on that server contained classified information!


2. Precedent: Besides, Colin Powell did the same thing, and he didn't get in trouble...


...

Prong #2 is easily shot down: First, Powell didn't do the same thing as Clinton -- he had a private E-Mail account, like many federal officials, but he didn't use a private server the way Clinton did. Powell didn't get in trouble because the 2009 Federal Records Act and the 2009 Executive Order permitting retroactive classification were not yet law when Powell was Sec of State.


Prong #1 begs a simple question: How could you possibly not know the very basic IT Security rules (Work E-Mail belongs on a work E-Mail account; what kinds of information are going to be deemed "classified&quot that are taught as part of the Mandatory Cyber Security Training course that every State employee or intern has to take? The answer to which, appears to be, because she and her top aides simply ignored that required training -- which, itself, is a violation of federal law.


Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

§ 3544. Federal agency responsibilities
[img][/img]

...

[img][/img]

...

[img][/img]

[Motown_Johnny]

66. Unnamed experts from a questionable web site.

BRILLIANT!

[Bill USA]

67. you forgot to offer your apologies to the Sanders supporters for posting this.. you fiend!!!

[noretreatnosurrender]

80. Actually the AP Piece Doesn't Sound Good

While the title of the AP piece sounds like good news for Hillary I would encourage everyone to read the whole article.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAIL_LEGAL_EXPERTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-22-12-25-26

And for the purpose of deciding who we want as our nominee there is this at the end of the article.

The Clinton case indicates a "dysfunctional" system of overclassification, Lowell told the AP.

"One of the perpetual problems with the investigation or prosecution of so-called leaks cases about classified information is that the law doesn't recognize as a defense that the material should not have been classified in the first place," he said.

Regardless of the legal question, if Clinton secures the Democratic presidential nomination she's certain to be dogged by the issue through the November election.

"Ultimately, the real risk for the secretary might not be legal as much as it is political," Sales said.