Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails

[leveymg]

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:49 PM - Edit history (4)

Previously undisclosed FBI documents obtained from Court filings reveal that the government has long been aware that David Petraeus allegedly revealed Top Secret information to The Washington Post in March, 2011 while he was awaiting appointment as CIA Director. The conversation with reporters was recorded. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B0AP5ctL (FBI document linked as .pdf at article page)

Petraeus was never charged with this leakage, but was convicted instead of revealing secrets to his biographer after failing to return documents when the General officially retired from the military in August of that year.

The taped conversation with a pair of Post reporters allegedly occurred while Petraeus was under consideration for nomination as CIA Director. The reported topic of two recorded conversations was military developments in Afghanistan, in which Petraeus requests to be identified only as an anonymous senior military official. His appointment to head the CIA was publicly announced on April 28, 2011. Until that time, he was still officially serving as a four-star Army General and top Commander of the International Security Assistance Force.

According to the FBI affidavit, the alleged disclosure of secrets to reporters occurred well before Petraeus improperly shared classified information with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The same FBI affidavit details email communications from later in the summer in which the two discussed which classified documents he might share.

The text of these emails in the FBI document does not show that any specific classified information was revealed on-line with Broadwell. There was no allegation made in the warrant request that secrets had actually been disclosed, except to Broadwell and the two reporters. According to the affidavit, Broadwell and Petraeus exchanged messages in an email account. The FBI affidavit quotes the CIA Director and Broadwell discussing her access to documents that covered a period of Petraeus' command in Afghanistan and Iraq up to 2005. An audio recording found on Broadwell's computer also shows that in August of that year Broadwell stated she intended to travel to meet Petraeus to review materials stored in the attic of his Arlington, VA house.

***

The release of this FBI document dated April 4, 2013 raises several questions - why did Petraeus tape his own off-the-record conversations with reporters, and why would he retain recordings of himself knowingly revealing Top Secret information? In fact, he was not charged with this disclosure to reporters of what is characterized as Top Secret information, and that is not reflected in previously released court records. The delayed release of these court records comes as we await the release of the FBI report on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's violation of classified information laws. Petraeus resigned as CIA Director two days into the second Obama Administration, with Clinton leaving several weeks later. Unauthorized release of classified information is a common thread that tarnishes the reputations of both.

When we compare the two cases, it becomes clear that the scale of Petraeus' unauthorized release of classified materials was smaller and less potentially damaging than the disclosure to unauthorized persons in the Clinton email case. As the Search Warrant Application makes clear at page 5, Paula Broadwell, a US Army Captain, held an active security clearance at the time classified materials were shared with her. In addition to the three persons implicated in the FBI warrant application, there are no other persons known to have been given access by Petraeus to classified information.

The affidavit at p. 8 describes email between Petraeus and Broadwell in which the two made reference to a classified document, but their messages do not contain specific information about the documents contents. At page 9 of the application, the FBI narrative recounts an instance of release of classified military information from another officer to Broadwell. This document release was openly authorized by Petraeus, and the transfer was carried out by another officer over the SIPR, the secure email system, which is intended for exchange of documents classified up to the Secret level.

Broadwell was interviewed by the FBI, the document states, after a complaint of cyberstalking in late Spring 2012 led the Bureau to examine her email exchanges with Petraeus. She was subsequently interviewed by the FBI who searched her laptops:

Para. 16. On September 24, 2012 as part of the FBI Tampa investigation,
consented to a search of two laptops and two external hard drives belonging to her. A
review of the digital media contained.on these devices revealed over 100 items which
were identified by Charlotte Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) Forensic
Examiners as potentially containing classified information, up to the Secret level.

According to the application at p. 8, subsequent search of Broadwell's home revealed further classified materials in her unauthorized possession:

A review of the seized materials has identified to date
hundreds of potentially classified documents, including more than 300 marked Secret, on
digital images maintained on various pieces of electronic media.

In the most damning email exchange described, Petraeus seems to agree that he might share classified documents related to events that occurred eight or nine years earlier at the time that he transitioned from two-star commander of the 101st Airborne division to commander Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I) (Petraeus commanded forces in Iraq from June 2004-June 2005): (page 12)

"My files at home only go up to about when I took cmd of the 101st, though there may be some MNSTC-I and other ones. Somewhere in 2003, I stopped nice filing and just started chunking stuff in boxes
that gradually have gone, or will go, to NDU. Can search them at some point if they're
upstairs, but they're not organized enough at this point ... " PETRAEUS continued,
writing, &quot A)nd I think MNSTC-I files went to NDU (archives at the National Defense University),
though I'm not sure. The key to find there would be the weekly reports that the CIO did with
me. Not.sure if-kept copies. Class'd, but I guess I might share!" (emphasis added).

The timing of this release has the scent of an attempt to draw a distinction between Petraeus and Clinton. However, if one looks closely at the record, it becomes clearer now that the government built its case against Petraeus on Secret documents revealed to Broadwell, who held a security clearance, that were described in the newly-released FBI document as historical in nature. Off the-record discussions with Washington Post reporters was likely recorded by Petraeus, himself, in order to maintain a record of exactly what was said. That discussion was determined by another agency to contain information classified at the Top Secret level.

Altogether, the FBI affidavit states that David Petraeus transferred approximately 400 classified documents. Meanwhile, Clinton's uncertified server accumulated over 2,200 classified messages with 104 emails sent by the Secretary. The State Department determined that 55 to be classified as Secret, and 22 messages and attachments (many confirmed to have originated with other agencies) at the highest TS-SAP level, documents that could only be taken off the most classified gov't information system before being sent over the Secretary's unsecure private email. These documents placed on her server were shared with numerous others, some without security clearances to view them, describing classified U.S. actions and intelligence sources around the world in or near real-time.

Clinton was advised on several instances by Sid Blumenthal that the information he was sending her was confidential and originated with government sources in several countries, including US allies. While it is a felony to fail to report possession of classified information by those not authorized, as well as to mishandle secrets oneself, the record shows the Secretary's own responses were only encouraging, "Great stuff", "keep 'em coming."

[SFnomad]

1. Only 5 days left ... then enough of this nonsense n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I wanted to be first

[bobthedrummer]

121. It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening.

Cheney Watch/War Criminal
http://cheneywatch.org

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump.

It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening.

You Like apples?


It is because people didn't take Hitler seriously enough that six million of my co-religionists were liquidated and four continents were thrown into war.

You and your cohorts can attack Hillary Clinton... I will focus on doing everything I can within the law to stop the incipient fascism as represented by Donald Trump from gaining a foot in the White House.


How do you like them apples?



Have a day.

[leveymg]

5. How do you know it's nonsense? You responded one minute after the OP went up.

Ignore, if you want. But, read before you post.

[SFnomad]

14. Nonsense ... as it continuing to throw crap up against the wall OP after OP

and seeing if anything sticks

[Octafish]

69. Like a smear artist saying the same thing over and over again.

Just to see what sticks.

[upaloopa]

28. No body gives a shit let alone read all that bull

[Octafish]

109. People interested in learning will read it.

And those who don't, won't learn what it says.

For too many these days, learning something new is a scary thought.

[Gothmog]

59. I love it when laypersons try to talk about legal concepts

Again, thank you for the laughs

[panader0]

19. Will the FBI investigation be done in five days?

If you can refer to an active FBI investigation as nonsense--well, it makes me wonder what
other issues you can turn a blind eye to.

[SFnomad]

20. Maybe you should read post #14 n/t

[panader0]

25. I am sure that the investigation will continue to be REAL NEWS for a while,

past the five day DU deadline. As such, it will be allowed to be discussed here.

[SFnomad]

30. To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article

and the sky is falling, OP after OP ... that's not going to be allowed.

This place is about electing Democrats, not continuing to bring our Presumptive Nominee down.

[pinebox]

32. Legit criticism will be allowed

And this is as legit as it gets.

[Gothmog]

66. No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts

The OP was really funny if you understand the legal concepts. I was planning on posting the Politico article when time permitted because it really supports the concept that Clinton will not be indicted because there is no proof of intent to violate the law. Petraeus knew he was violating the law and took steps to conceal such violations (a great proof of intent) and even with that type of evidence, was given a slap on the risk.

As noted earlier, the FBI has found no intent by Clinton to violate the law and without strong evidence of such intent there will be no indictment. In the Petraeus case, the FBI had clear and convincing evidence of intent to violate the law and even then there was only a slap on the wrist.

Laypersons are amusing when they attempt to discuss legal concepts

[Separation]

135. Who exactly is a layperson?

Just curious, you, me, the OP? How do you know exactly which makes a person unqualified on this topic.

layperson - a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.

I am not a layperson in this matter. I have handled classified information over 20 years. I have personally seen many members lose their clearance, jobs, over much less.

President Obama has endorsed Clinton, if she is on the ballot come November, I will vote for her.


This is a quote from 2015

"Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing…. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system."

CNN Interview

When it comes to having unsecured classified information in an unsecured state, intent, ignorance, my bad dawgs, is not a defense.

[Gothmog]

136. A non lawyer

The context was pretty clear but the OP is not a lawyer and is trying to assert legal conclusions that are really funny if you understand the legal concepts. Laypersons are amusing when they attempt to understand legal concept

[Separation]

140. No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you.

lay·per·son
ˈlāˌpərs(ə n/
noun
a nonordained member of a church.
synonyms: unordained person, member of the congregation, layman, laywoman, member of the laity
"a prayer book for laypeople"

a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.
synonyms: layman, nonexpert, nonprofessional, amateur, nonspecialist, dilettante
"engineering sounds highly specialized to the layperson"

Ok so you are saying that the OP was really funny because they have no understanding of legal concepts. Which implies that you do. So I am curious to your experience to either having a law degree or direct experience handling classified materials, or even better prosecuting or defending clients in a case that involved the mishandling of classified documents?

One person told me that their BIL had such experience. I asked them to ask their BIL what would happen to a person that used their personal email to handle their classified work for convenience. There was obviously no criminal intent, they just did it for the "convenience" . They either put me on ignore, or just ignored my question.

[panader0]

157. Intent will be, or has already, been proved.

[Gothmog]

163. No evidence of intent has been found so far

Here are some facts for you to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

The latest news on the Hillary Clinton email controversy reinforces everything we’ve heard so far on this subject:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

So far no one has found evidence of intent.

[tex-wyo-dem]

48. I hope you open your eyes and realize that this issue...

has the very real possibility of seriously damaging the entire Democratic Party, not just the front runner.

With that in mind, DUers and all Democrats should be concerned and keeping on top of this. DU needs to remain an open forum for discussion, even if it means very uncomfortable realities.

[merrily]

60. For reasons I cannot fathom, no one seems care about the risk.

[Herman4747]

151. If the presumptive nominee can be persuaded to withdraw...

...in favor of someone far more honest, liberal, and electable, well then, that serves the purpose of electing Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged.

DU rules prohibit me from revealing the poster's name but I will be more than happy to do so in a private message.

I have read all of Skinner's guidelines and in toto they suggest Trump enabling will be verboten.

Proceed at your own risk.

[panader0]

42. It's not a "dead horse" until the investigations are over

and only then if HRC has been completely exonerated. I don't believe she will be completely exonerated.
I believe that the FBI will recommend charges and that the DoJ will not indict. She will get a pass.
But the stain of the charges will do severe damage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. If she is not found guilty of a crime she is "exonerated"

That's how we roll in America...


BTW, all the leaks suggest the FBI has found scant evidence of wrong doing.

[panader0]

46. I guess the nuances are lost on you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Nuance isn't lost on DSB

He just isn't seduced by right wing wet dreams nor bamboozled by their sleight of hand The right wingers are teeing it up so when the DOJ fails to indict they will say they failed to indict not because she broke no laws, but because President Obama's Department of Justice protected her...

Hell, that has been what they and their nominee have been saying all along.

[leveymg]

67. She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The

only question is when the FBI report will confirm what has already been found by the Intelligence Community and State Department IGs, the details of which have been widely reported, but sadly misrepresented by the Clinton Campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Why are you scared to take my wager?

If Hillary is indicted I leave DU. If Hillary isn't indicted you leave DU.It's just a message board. You must have little faith nor conviction in what you write...

Much to the dismay of my nemeses on this board and they are legion I have been right about Hillary vanquishing the Vermont independent in the primary, right about her vanquishing him in all the big contests, and right about Clinton vanquishing the Vermont independent in the Golden State.

How about this?

If she isn't indicted you can just refer me to as Your Most Prescient, lol.

[Separation]

143. I'll take you up on that.

I will call you All Knowing and Most Prescient.

If I am correct, you can just say, "I apologize for the people who berated your opinion."

Even if you don't mean it.

[apcalc]

127. Really? Dozens?

Give me twelve examples....

[leveymg]

134. I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through.

Here's what I jotted down through page 31 of 87:

The State Dept IG report didn't even address classified information violations and it intentionally fudged on how the same acts that violated Departmental regulations also violated federal criminal statutes. As usual, most of the meat is in the footnotes, and most of those are in the Appendices.

The DOS IG report shows HRC violated regulations that implement the Federal Records Act, and cites referenced criminal penalties against destruction of federal records. See page 10, footnotes 40, 41

The report makes further references to Clinton's actions that implicate federal laws:

* Duties to preserve federal records imposed by law upon the head of agency not observed are also cited at p. 12, ftn. 48.

* The Secretary failed to timely notify the National Archives of pending destruction of official records according to law. p. 17, ftn 73.

* See, also, section that covers State Department discussions of efforts to recover emails dating back to 2011. pp. 17-19.

* In particular, Pages 26-27 discuss Clinton and staff's failures to fully comply with Departmental records requests after leaving office. The requirement to return classified materials is also imposed by her signed security agreement under penalty of Sec. 793, and 1924.

* The use of an uncertified server for official communications violated federal laws requiring agencies to create and maintain information security certification requirements for all information systems. p. 27, ftns. 114, 115

* Use of noncertified Blackberrys and cell phones is banned inside State Dept facilities (except in strictly nonclassified areas, eg, cafeterias), and may not be connected to Dept. systems on noncertified systems, per State Dept. regulation on Dec 2, 2009. p. 30, ftns 120, 121

* Forwarding of official communications to non-secure email systems has been forbidden since 2004. p. 31, ftn. 129.

- MORE -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

[notadmblnd]

160. he he he snort. We need a knee slapping emoticon

Cause that was too funny. You didn't think he could do it, did you?

[tex-wyo-dem]

50. Discussing this issue is the antithesis of "Trump enabling"...

It's to protect the Democratic Party from almost certain defeat in Nov if this issue blows up in our face.

I would put money down that the party has a succession plan already in place, and has since at least March.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. We'll see...

"The more he talked about his honor, the faster we counted our spoons". This is about the fact that some people can't wrap their head around the fact their candidate lost...It was nothing to do with a private server.

I have lived in NY, FL, and CA and I couldn't be happier and prouder that all three states I lived in rejected Bernie Sanders and rejected him by double digits.

I would put money down that the party has a succession plan already in place, and has since at least March.

I would put money on the fact she won't be indicted...Hell, I would even promise to perform an intimate act on myself in the event she was indicted but I am neither that limber nor crass, lol.

[tex-wyo-dem]

71. This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party...

Not getting destroyed in Nov.

A succession plan by the party leaders will likely not include Sanders at all. Probably someone like Biden or perhaps Kerry or even Warren. The Dem establishment does not want Sanders.

[MFM008]

102. This one's at the top

Followed hard by Benghazi.
I don't think Obama would have just endorsed A potential felon..................

[pinebox]

31. This isn't nonsense, it's a REAL thing that is HAPPENING

Quit ignoring reality.

[zappaman]

81. Lol!

[RufusTFirefly]

56. Psssst! The FBI isn't subject to DU's Terms of Usage

I'm reminded of little kids who cover their own eyes and exclaim, "You can't see me! You can't see me!"

[brooklynite]

65. Can we compare calendars? I was counting six...

[SFnomad]

85. Yeah, somehow I thought it was Friday already ... long week n/t

[workinclasszero]

82. Its gonna be a looooong 5 days

[apcalc]

126. You got that right!

[avaistheone1]

148. Oopsie.

[Herman4747]

149. And you can hide your head in the sand...

...and pretend that Hillary's incompetence does not exist?

[SFnomad]

159. Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t

[Orsino]

3. No damage has yet been attributed to Clinton's e-mails. n/t

[leveymg]

7. With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging?

The federal gov't assumes unauthorized release of Top Secret information is gravely damaging to the national security. Do you disagree?

[Hoyt]

10. Was that released to unauthorized people who could do us harm? Don't think so.

Personally, I think Clinton's server was probably safer than the government's.

[NWCorona]

12. Actually Bill Clinton's personal aide who had access to the server

doesn't hold a security clearance. Neither did the server farm that Hillary contracted with that promptly put everything on the cloud.

[leveymg]

13. It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them.

Specifically, that failure to report was a violation 18 USC Sec. 793(f)(2) of the Espionage Act. Her response to Sid Blumenthal's emails, some of them containing material classified by NSA and CIA at Top Secret/SAP, was "keep 'em coming."

She also passed some of these messages containing obviously classified information on to others not authorized to read them.

[NWCorona]

17. Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails

And there's zero record of any.

[Hoyt]

18. We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager.

If Clinton is indicted I leave DU. If Clinton isn't indicted he leaves DU.

This is all academic because threads like this will be verboten in seven days and so will the posters who start them.

[leveymg]

29. The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law.

Saying she didn't, over and over again, doesn't reverse the violations.

[grasswire]

35. LOLOL

I guess you have no respect for the rule of law.

[Hoyt]

49. You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true.

[tex-wyo-dem]

54. So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt

[leveymg]

62. Give us specific facts, not another condescending lecture, please. nt

[Hoyt]

111. Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse

Clinton if he expected her to be indicted. Sorry, but your fantasy is over.

[leveymg]

114. I have long expected he would follow the Deutch example.

It's more likely the AG will slow roll any decision to convene a Grand Jury and the President will end up pardoning her.

That was what happened with John Deutch, Bill Clinton's CIA Director, who was found to have hooked up his CIA laptops to his unsecure home internet.

[Hoyt]

115. You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment.

[brush]

72. You're still on the case with this, I see.

You think anybody but you is reading all that stuff?

If there was something don't you think they'd have found something by now, after ALL THESE MONTHS?

And btw, isn't your arm getting tired?

You've been beating this dead horse for a long time.

[leveymg]

88. omg. You don't read the newspapers do you?

If you don't believe me that there's been plenty of evidence of HRC's violations of law and regulation reported, please go to: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

Literally thousands of articles in the mainstream press linked.

[brush]

91. You don't watch TV news do you?

Obama is on right now ENDORSING HILLARY CLINTON.

Keep dreaming but there will be no indictment from Obama's DOJ of the candidate he just endorsed for president.

Not gonna happen.

[leveymg]

93. I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI

will confirm that her actions implicate felony statutes, including Sec. 793. What happens after that is all politics. In the end, Obama will likely pardon Hillary Clinton, just as Bill Clinton did his CIA Director, John Deutch.

[Gothmog]

105. Again, thank you for the laughs

Laypersons are so cute and adorable when they make such major errors in attempting to understand legal concepts

[Gothmog]

104. "Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike

These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW

E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.

Thank you for the laughs

[Orsino]

161. "Defense information" is much broader than classification...

...and is the standard on which a criminal case would be built.

Mere references to drones, though...that is weak.

[Exilednight]

8. Allow me to correct this for you.

No KNOWN DAMAGE..

[Orsino]

11. Yep. If disclosure is found to have occurred, as with Petraeus...

...then we ought to talk about damage.

I buy the referenced story insofar as it mentions "potentially damaging."

[leveymg]

16. Known to the intelligence agencies that originally classified the information.

Last July, the Inspector Generals of the Intelligence Community and State Department issued a joint statement that said the materials were already classified, not "retroactively classified", and should never have been placed on an unsecure system.

[Herman4747]

153. Except damage to Clinton's electability. n/t

[randome]

4. Show some respect for the dead, will you?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. And one should show respect for dead horses as well

[MFM008]

103. Lol

[DCBob]

9. The difference..

Petraeus knowingly and willingly provided marked classified information to his lover who was not specifically authorized to view that information.

Hillary on the other hand received information that was retroactively marked classified information.

Huge massive difference.

[leveymg]

23. Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author-

ized to receive some of the information. She wasn't charged. The crime he was convicted of Sec. 1924 was for keeping and retaining classified materials in a nonsecure place and not turning them in when he retired from the Army.

The FBI affidavit is linked at the Politico article, if you want to read it.

[DCBob]

27. I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not)

greatly contributed to the decision to indict.

[grasswire]

38. just wrong.

Have you not been paying any attention at all? Or do you just reflexively react without understand the facts?

[DCBob]

41. The fact is she is not going to be indicted.

Get over it.

[grasswire]

45. say it three times...

You have zero influence over the matter and must take what comes.

[DCBob]

47. Same goes for you and the others praying for the indictment fairy .

[yourpaljoey]

15. How can she avoid indictment?

I cannot see a way out of this trap she has set for herself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. LMFAO

I have a lot more skin in the game. If Hillary is indicted I leave DU. If she isn't you leave DU.

[jonno99]

52. It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are:

What will Hillary do if she is indicted? What will the dem establishment do?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. What will happen if a piano falls on my head?

Occam's Razor

Would President Obama endorse and campaign for his potential successor who is about to be inducted by his Department of Justice?


Plus, I have to throw in the obligatory "she broke no laws".

[amandabeech]

96. His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her.

The whole Clinton issue, including e-mails, server, and the various allegations regarding pay to play with Bill, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary should be turned over to a special prosecutor.

The Obama administration looks like it is protecting Hillary and maybe itself.

What if Obama himself sent top secret e-mails to Clinton at her home brew server address; i.e. to a .com or .org address rather than a .gov address? The President would not want that to come out.

At this point, the FBI and certain DOJ types may start leaking, but a full investigation will only be done by a Republican house, perhaps as a prelude to impeachment. That is if a Dem wins the Presidency.

This whole thing just makes me ill.

[leveymg]

100. I agree in part.

I actually believe that the template for this is the CIA Director John Deutch matter. After it was discovered he hooked up his two CIA laptops to his home internet, the CIA IG referred the matter to the Attorney General who slow walked it without convening a Grand Jury until Bill's pardon on his last day in office.

What I can't quite wrap my head around yet is the suggestion that Obama is somehow covering up some sort of illegality of his own in this matter. I just don't see any grounds for that.

[amandabeech]

107. I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment.

Since both those situations are within the sole purview of his own justice dept., it's hard to imagine.

That Obama may have sent e-mail to her private server is now a rumor, so I put it in a hypothetical. But really, is it so hard to believe that none of Obama nor his immediate advisers never sent an e-mail directly to Clinton? She had no other e-mail address. Perhaps they sent e-mail only to her aides, or hand delivered any written communication. Then there are texts from the Presidents much loved Blackberry. Clinton never carried a secure Blackberry.

The only methods any governmental persons, including the President, the Veep, DOD, etc., to contact Clinton directly and securely would be land line, hand delivery of documents by a secure individual (probably military) or face to face meeting. Her Blackberry and her server were secure as far as we know. The highest level information was probably above the security clearances of Hillary's top aides. The only other thing I can think of would be an ultra secure fax that only Hillary could access. The lack of secure communication seems to put Hillary out of the loop or required POTUS, the Veep and others to risk nonsecure communication. It is really a nasty problem.

[leveymg]

112. The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue

including himself, at any time for all offenses against the United States.

As for the Secretary's ability to communicate, she The SOS had a State Dept smart phone on the Department system offered to her at the time she became Secretary on January 22, 2009 (the same day she signed her Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), but refused demanding the NSA to issue half a dozen clones of Obama's phone.

Her attorney, Cynthia Mills met with NSA during the last week in January, but was rebuffed, with a warning from a top NSA security manager that Clinton's Blackberry was unsecure, and that she should stop using it. Mills and Clinton discussed her private email server. Clinton continued using her own Blackberry that had email through an AT&T account. On or about the end of January, the Blackberry was hooked up to the Clintonemail.com server in her New York house.

That server, which had originally been set up by the Secret Service immediately after Bill Clinton left the White House was soon swapped out after it was determined that it lacked sufficient capacity to run the Clintonemail network. A new server was installed and set up by a long-time aide to Bill who had no security certification or knowledge. For the first four months, it was misconfigured so that it lacked an encryption certificate and was completely exposed to even the most primative hackers. There were several hacking attempts detected during this early period, and the system had to be repeatedly shut down for temporary periods.

[amandabeech]

124. Thank you for the nice summary. I' ve been off line for months.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to case law or legal publications on the pardon issue, so I'll have to take your word that a pardon may be issued absent an indictment or other formal charge.

I seem to recall that agencies that normally brief presidential candidates do not want to brief either The Donald or Hillary--one has a big mouth and the other can't be bothered to take security precautions.

I wish I had relatives in New Zealand who could put me up for four years.

[leveymg]

155. Paul was in NZ for a while

after he published the original 9/11 Timeline. The paranoia of those times was real, but we still managed to get a lot of good research done here. DU seemed a refuge from a hostile America. Now it seems to be overrun by a bunch of wannabe bureaucrats from the Ministry of Truth. Perhaps paranoia is coming back into fashion.

Maybe Aukland next year.

[amandabeech]

168. Perhaps many DUers will come to visit! n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. I don't want to make another enemy. They are legion by now.

You can litigate it with my friend, Gothmog:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2165637

[brush]

141. None of that's going to happen. The news of the enquiry being concluded . . .

with no recommendation will come out quietly in a Friday afternoon news dump when everyone has left Washington for the weekend, which is how a story is handled when no media attention is wanted.

The president's DOJ will not be bringing charges against the person he just endorsed to be the nest president of the United States/

Just not going to happen.

[grasswire]

40. good point, my pal joey.

She set the trap for herself, through narcissistic recklessness...or just plain arrogant belief that the law does not apply to her.

[Lord Magus]

22. Cited article doesn't match your OP at all.

Not even close.

[leveymg]

24. Share with us how they differ?

[emulatorloo]

39. 1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article.

The actual headline is

FBI claimed Petraeus shared ‘top secret’ info with reporters

There is a subheadine that says "Newly unsealed affidavit sheds light on a probe sometimes compared to that of Clinton emails."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B6QWk56L


The Article is 95% about Petraeus

There are a couple three or so paragraphs that give a description what unnamed "critics of Clinton" say.

[leveymg]

73. This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything.

I also stuck with the reported facts, and even read the FBI document linked by Politico and quoted from it. It's my own take on the news. It's accurate, even if you don't agree with the conclusions.

Only someone with reading comprehension issues would so badly misread this as an attempt to "fake" the Politico piece, which by the way has its own spin. Please go back, read it again, and then we can talk about specifics.

[emulatorloo]

89. Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make

your spin and speculation fact.

1. The FBI is investigating.

2. They aren't leaking.

3. All talk about the FBI's report is speculation, because the FBI is not leaking.

[leveymg]

95. We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have

confirmed that their secret and classified documents were found on Clinton's server. We also know quite a lot about who put them there, and facts about Clinton's complicity in trading classified information with persons, such as Sid Bluementhal, who wasn't authorized to have and transmit classified materials. Those facts alone are enough to convict Hillary of multiple felonies many times.

So, tell me what's speculation and what we still need to learn?

[sharp_stick]

61. The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting.

[leveymg]

75. You seem to have the same reading issue as the guy above you.

Please go back and re-read. This is not LBN. It's an analysis of the contents of the FBI document with reference to the Politico piece.

[sharp_stick]

76. It's pathetic, that's all

pretty much par for the course though.

[leveymg]

83. Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error?

If I got something wrong, tell me. But, don't just heap on the innuendo and scorn because you don't like the conclusions.

[emulatorloo]

101. honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you.

Most all of your output on this subject involves you misreading articles, misreading snippets of law ,and misreading speculative op-Eds as fact.

[leveymg]

108. As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling

Just because you don't like my conclusions is no basis to attack me on this subject. Just once, I wish someone who defends her would add something of some substance to the subject. But, you guys never do, because neither the facts nor the law are on your side, it's all just attack the messenger stuff. The responses on this thread confirms that general rule.

[emulatorloo]

110. Others in the threads are correcting you on the facts. You just deflect

[leveymg]

116. Give me one example.

[emulatorloo]

119. Gothmog's got some good stuff for you. Which you deal with by deflecting.

Look leveymg I know you are a great person, but to paraphrase Grasswire:

You and I have zero influence over the matter and must take what comes.

I've got some things to do so not going to post in your thread anymore.

Have a great night.

[leveymg]

130. Gothmog's full of empty bluster and ad hominem attacks. See #123, 129 below

There is no need to deflect smoke and transparent lies. His legal arguments are contrary to what the Inspectors General actual decide on these issues.

[Gothmog]

68. Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state

I was planning on posting this article because this article really makes your posts on mens rea look even more silly

[DCBob]

34. Once this is all over with and the FBI clears her of any illegal activity..

are you going to do a massive mea culpa for all the crap you have posted on this?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Do they have abstinence booths at adult film conventions?

[DCBob]

37. Ha!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Do they serve liquor at temperance meetings?

[MariaThinks]

51. Are you kidding. Anyone who is posting these lies and innuendos

and hoping that she gets indicted is not doing anything remotely like apologizing. I'd be happy if they just got a grip on their hatred. There will be some future 'birther' conspiracy the right will cook up about the Clinton's to get these folks on another bandwagon.

[leveymg]

98. Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal

activity." It may or may not make a recommendation regarding indictment, but the facts that indicate her violation of law will be devastating to many of those not really familiar with them from major news accounts and background reading.

[DCBob]

99. Hanging on to the bitter end.

[Gothmog]

53. Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required

Your are consistent in that your analysis is always wrong. The Politico article clear debunks your amusing layperson claim that no mens rea is required to bring an indictment under the applicable laws. The Politico article clearly outlines the fact that showed that Petraeus intended to violated the law including using covert means to deliver additional top secret information to his mistress http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B0AP5ctL

Wehner's affidavit also says both Broadwell and Petraeus acknowledged during the cyberstalking investigation that "they used covert methods" to keep in touch, including a variety of email accounts and "pre-paid cellular telephones," commonly called "burner" phones.

The FBI also said they were not confident they had located all the email accounts because both the general and his biographer said "they could not recall all the account names which they created and used to communicate."

The affidavit could also revive questions about whether Petraeus and other senior officials are treated too leniently in investigations about mishandling classified information. The FBI submission says investigators were pursuing potential felony violations of the Espionage Act provision barring unlawful communication of national defense information and retaining classified information without permission.

The misdemeanor plea deal reached with Petraeus after intense negotiations left some in the FBI and some prosecutors angry that the former general had gotten off too easy, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B6R2Kg1R
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Even with the clear and convincing evidence of intentional violations of the law and steps to hide such violations, Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. Petraus knew that he was breaking the law by the use of these burner phones and secret e-mail accounts and yet got off easy.

I am always amused when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. The article cited in the OP does not support the OP's silly theories and in fact guts the OP's rather silly theory that culpable mental state or mens rea is not relevant. Again, the FBI found no intent and so there will be no indictment. The analysis in the OP nearly cost me a keyboard that I was laughing so hard at this OP that it hurt.

I was planning on posting this article when time permitted because this article does such a great job of documenting why intent to violate the law was so clearly documented in this case.

Again, thanks for the laughs. The indictment fairy is not going to bail out Sanders

[leveymg]

77. Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793

a different statute that only requires "gross negligence," but plead down to 1924 which is a misdemeanor. Parts of Sec. 793 are like DUI - you don't have to intend to break the law to be convicted, just the fact of violation of the law is sufficient.

[Gothmog]

86. Petraeus signed over a dozen NDA or confidentiality agreements

If your rather sad but funny theory had any basis in reality, the FBI would not have wasted all of the time proving intent.

Thank you for the laughs. This article is great in that it shows how silly your amusing theory about the need for evidence of mens rea is so wrong.

Layperson are really amusing when they attempt to understand legal concepts. I will miss your amusing article after June 16

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ...

The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department agrees with you:

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/libertarian-vp-candidate-blows-republicans

[Gothmog]

87. This is basic criminal law that is covered in the first your crim law class

The analysis from Weld is really basic and is correct.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world....

When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world looks like an indictment.

BTW, the seminal poster is trying to come in through the back door by alleging a violation of the Espionage Act. As a layperson I would appreciate your views on that.

[Gothmog]

97. The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming

I am trying to juggle work and getting ready for the Texas state Democratic Party Convention next week but I did find the OP to be really funny.

There is no evidence of the required specific intent and so there will be no indictment. The FBI spent time and significant resources documenting specific intent on the part of Petraeus and his mistress to violate the law including the use of burner cell phones and yet with all of that evidence there were no charges against the mistress and a slap on the wrist on Petraeus.

I have been following this issue for a long time including reading the charging document for Petraeus. Petraeus signed a dozen or so NDA and so if no intent was needed, then the FBI wasted a ton of time in this case. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

Between in or about August 2011, and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials. ....

Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924

This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.

Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....

In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.

The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.

[leveymg]

123. That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies

You're comparing apples to potato chips. In the 2000 report about the violations of law by former Director John Deutch, the CIA Inspector General found that both statutes applied. Note the statement about the "gross negligence" standard applies under Sec. 793 (f), and how that differs from the explicit "intent to retain" requirement written into Sec. 1924: 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.

[Gothmog]

125. Laypersons are so amusing when they try to make legal arguments

Keep on amusing me. I am enjoying laughing at your amusing attempts. Gross negligence also requires something called evidence and is even more difficult to prove. In the Petraeus case, the fact that Petraeus and mistress used burner phones is great evidence of intent. In the Deutch case, the computers were unsecured at his home which was not protected. The Clinton server was under the protection of the Secret Service at all times. Even in the Deutch case, it was another slap on the wrist and since this incident Deutch has served on other panels http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/dni.appointment/index.html?eref=rss_us

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has appointed controversial former CIA Director John Deutch to serve on an advisory panel reviewing the intelligence community's technical capabilities.

Finally none of the e-mails on the Clinton system were marked classified and retroactive re-classification does not change this fact Here is a good explanation of the issue that even some laypersons should be able to understand http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?

Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.

The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."

But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The e-mails were not marked classified when received and so later reclassification is meaningless For example many of the e-mails that you keep claiming are bad involve Clinton aides discussing articles published in the NYT about drones. Your silly but sad theory is that it is illegal to read and talk about article published in the NYT.

Thank you for the amusement

[leveymg]

129. Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert"

The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRC's violations of classified information laws before the FBI issues its final report, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution. Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf.

(If pdf does not come up, go to statement posted at office of the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails )

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and it will be devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.

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.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. LOL

That is all.

[Gothmog]

164. Have someone read that material posted and explain it to you

There will be no separate Intelligence/DNI investigation or report. The material you posted does not support your sad but funny claims

Thank you for the laughs. Your posts are really weak and fun to laugh at

[artyteacher]

55. im so tired of propaganda in a dem forum. eom

[sharp_stick]

58. You do realize that the stuff under the *** is not in the politico story

nor is it linked to anything else.

If it were anybody else I'd think that may have been done intentionally and pathetically to try to make the post look less like bullshit but I'm sure that's not the case here...right?

I mean that would be a pretty scummy thing to do.

[leveymg]

79. I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document

referenced and linked in a Politico piece. That article has its own spin. I draw my own conclusions. Draw your own conclusions about the facts presented but don't accuse me of "faking" anything. Simple as that.

[Sunlei]

63. so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa

was found in HER house. (when FBI searched) Who planted the original loose woman(author, lol) in Petraeus's bed?

[Demsrule86]

80. June 16th

This is BS...he revealed classified info to his mistress...came out yesterday....hit piece.

[workinclasszero]

84. Bernie is tired of this crap

[840high]

92. FBI isn't tired.

[JoePhilly]

94. The search for the Indictment Fairy continues.

[think]

106. Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy.

It's getting difficult to have an adult conversation about issues and events around here.

[Voice for Peace]

118. I realized last night that the last time Clintons were president

we ended up with 8 years of GWB. Progress?

[bobthedrummer]

120. +1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace

I voted for Bill Clinton twice-then I found out what his very busy last day in the White House entailed.

Bill Clinton pardon controversy (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

[Voice for Peace]

122. yes, that was another score... the first black president indeed

I wasn't paying a lot of attention to politics back in those days, and recall how disappointing it was, for I had imagined he'd be pardoning unjustly imprisoned nonviolent black men and women.

[obamanut2012]

113. lolz you guys

[Voice for Peace]

117. great stuff, keep it coming

[napi21]

128. Exactly WHO or WHAT was damage by Hillary's emails?

I don't want to hear about "might haves. could haves, or what ifs"! WHO OR WHAT was damaged?

AFAIK NOTHING & NOBODY!

[leveymg]

133. No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted.

It's a cruel, draconion law that was drawn up to utterly deter and intimidate anyone who would by negligence or intent might expose classified materials. I agree it's unfair, but it's the law. By the way, only a small percentage of those who are convicted of DUI actually hurt anyone, but the Espionage Act is a lot like DUI in some respects. No intent to violate the law is necessary to conviction. You can be convicted under the DUI laws even if you make it home safe every night you go out drinking.

There's no getting around it. Prosecution of someone as powerful as Mrs. Clinton will send an unmistakable lesson. So will allowing her to skate away.

[napi21]

139. I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence.

However, it's NOY against any law to maintain your own server. It may be against State Dept. rules, but not illegal. AFAIK, no one gained access to any info on her server, so there has not been any exposure, intentional or unintentional, to any of the information on that server. Sooo, I ask again, where's the harm?

[leveymg]

158. It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server.

Period. It doesn't matter a whit if the data is actually compromised. The Espionage Act is a cruel mother. At least for the little people.

Why do you think there was no compromise of Hillary's server? Go to Paul Thompson's timeline. There are dozens of articles on that subject. Just yesterday, AP reported that her server appears to have compromised the identities of intelligence officers:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1a737240cf144c728b45ef64e181f19d/experts-clinton-emails-could-have-compromised-cia-names

WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.

[leveymg]

138. I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours

[Sparkly]

144. Cut, paste, glue together with lots of words

... and make up a scathing headline.

Sorry -- it hasn't worked, and it won't.

[leveymg]

147. Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys,

eye strain and stale coffee. Same as it's ever been. Just lonelier.

Can't say that many here still do it. A lot of rah-rah, imbecilic faerie toons, and snide attacks on anyone who dares question the inevitablility of Hillary. What a sad lot. This place isn't a shadow of what it was. But, even nostalgia isn't what it once was.

Good night.

[jcgoldie]

145. Yeah right!

get it all out! 7 days

[senz]

146. Thanks for a long, thoughtful OP, leveymg.

You put a lot of work into it and it helped make the situation more understandable.

[leveymg]

150. Thanks for that.

I'm just a Ronan - a progressive blogger without a Master. An endangered species these days.

It's good to still have friends.

[gordianot]

152. I like that "Ronan" very apt analogy.

[senz]

154. Well most of us are fed up with all the nasty comments

but I admire anyone who continues to think and share information until official censorship puts an end to it.

You've contributed a lot to this place.

[jzodda]

156. That whole thing is a flat out lie or a misunderstanding of the law

First off the damage done by Petraeus to national security was very low or he would be in jail. The reason he was in far more trouble than HRC was firstly a matter of intent! He intentionally did what he did knowing he was violating the rules with regards to handling of classified material. Clinton never intended to violate anything. In fact most of the emails were classified RETRO ACTIVELY meaning after she already was done with it. The whole affair is a long running dispute between agencies.

Next, if has been suggested by Mother Jones and now the WSJ the emails regarded drone strikes and discussion of these strikes by the New York Times where is the harm to national security? How can you do damage to national security if the info has already been reported on in the public?

So HRC and others talk about an article in the Times and the content of said article and then its later made classified by CIA for what reason?

There will be NO indictment

[pdsimdars]

165. So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server?

Thank God you're not on the FBI.

[jzodda]

167. Yes that's correct...

Source: Wall Street Journal

"At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan."

This itself was reported on months ago in Mother Jones. There is a link to that article around, look at Gothmog's posts.

Also like I have said till blue in the face there must be criminal intent for an indictment of this sort. They investigate these issues because its their job to do so and its routine. This is basic criminal law 101 from my first semester in law school.

[Demsrule86]

162. Five days nt

[pdsimdars]

166. This paragraph sums up Clinton to me

Clinton was advised on several instances by Sid Blumenthal that the information he was sending her was confidential and originated with government sources in several countries, including US allies. While it is a felony to fail to report possession of classified information by those not authorized, as well as to mishandle secrets oneself, the record shows the Secretary's own responses were only encouraging, "Great stuff", "keep 'em coming."

She knew it was wrong, ignored that and kept on doing it. THAT is Hillary Clinton.