2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPreview of the FBI report.
It will be a huge detailed report but here is a summary of critical findings as it pertains to Hillary Clinton:
-- Former SOS Clinton's personal email server was not appropriately secured for classified communications.
-- We found no direct evidence the server was compromised or broken into or hacked.
-- Use of a private server for her SOS communications wouldn't have been approved had she requested guidance.
-- There were numerous emails that contained classified information.
-- All of the emails that contained classified information were not marked as classified at the time.
-- There were messages the SOS should have known contained classified information even though not marked.
-- We found no evidence the SOS deliberately or knowingly sent or requested classified messages.
-- The SOS was negligent and broke rules and procedures regarding proper handling of classified information.
-- However we found no evidence there was gross negligence or that she did this knowingly or willingly.
-- Therefore we do not recommend any legal action against former SOS Clinton.
My take... not official.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)As Petraeus's lawyer, he knows the facts and evidence of both cases;
he knows the laws applicable to both cases;
he knows the facts surrounding ALL previously prosecuted cases and cases not prosecuted regarding unlawful disclosures and unlawful removal of classified materials ;
he knows that Comey knows what he knows.
There will not be an indictment.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)As I said, not half bad.
Petraeus was charged under felony 18 USC Sec 793(e), pled down to Sec 1924.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)Hillary's use of a server. Also, I know many here don't seem to care, but I will keep saying it, because I know it's true. The originator of a classified document is responsible for ensuring that the document is properly marked, not the receiver. Only fool would accept responsibility for a document not properly marked for which they were not the author/originator of. I know I wouldn't.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512164516
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)difficult and crappy the equipment could be to use. This doesn't mean that one can just ignore policies and procedures; it just means that there may be extinuating circumstances. Also, someone else posted some regulations here previously including one that said that the head of an agency can change the policy. If HRC as the SoS was not the head of the State Dept, than she has to be pretty darn close to being it. There is likely to be lots of things about this case that you and I don't know about. I'm just not willing to rush to judgement like many here are because I know that there is always more to the story than meets the eye.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)What Petraeus did was way worse and he was lucky to escape jail...Hillary thing has no intent is right wing crap...state has the worst email...was hacked multiple time...the irony is the info was safer with Hillary.
still_one
(92,117 posts)Obviously they are getting paid by the hour, and not by the job.
The last sentence is sarcasm on my part
DCBob
(24,689 posts)still_one
(92,117 posts)is right on
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is a super high profile case and he doesnt want to be seen as being influenced by politics at all. The longer he drags this on the more it appears he is being careful and complete. He has no incentive to get it done fast... however, at some point it gets ridiculous and I think we are near that point.
ashtonelijah
(340 posts)He's dragging it out to keep the question mark dangling over Hillary's head.
At least, it could begin to appear that way.
still_one
(92,117 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I've accepted that Hillary will be the nominee but I am concerned about the cloud of an FBI investigation hanging over her. Even if she is ultimately exonerated, the longer the GOP gets to tell people she is under investigation the worse it is.
ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)kcjohn1
(751 posts)Clinton talking points.
All of the emails that contained classified information were not marked as classified at the time
This is irrelevant and shows lack of knowledge of classified material. It doesn't become classified on designation but at the source. For example the report about her discussing through email approval of drone strike doesn't need to be designated classified to be top secret, the information itself is secret and everyone who has access to that should know it.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)What I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are theres classified, and then theres classified, Theres stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and theres stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source.
-- President Obama (4/10/16, Fox News)
floriduck
(2,262 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)tandem5
(2,072 posts)they know there's a chance each fulfilled request will have different redactions and what was blacked out on one will be fully revealed on another. I only mention this to provide a perspective on the fluidity of secrecy.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)fwiw.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)that Obama, Biden and Warren would have endorsed Clinton yesterday if they were not certain that there would be no indictment.
The only people talking indictment are the ones who want it to happen so that:
1. It helps Republicans
or
2. It helps Bernie Sanders
DCBob
(24,689 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,402 posts)I would think (or hope anyway) that Hillary would've dropped out long ago (or possibly not even have run) if she knew that she had done something wrong and was likely going to face charges. Also, I would imagine that superdelegates would have been dumping her like a hot rock throughout the primary if they believed that there is a serious chance of her being indicted. Neither she, nor any of the other people referenced are too stupid/naive to endorse her if they believed that she was under serious threat of indictment.
senz
(11,945 posts)TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)Gothmog
(145,086 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)one way or the other.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I doubt this is finished before October. Just putting the report together will take a month with all the reviews it will go through ensuring every word is grammatically correct and spelled right.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Which they very well might.
PJMcK
(22,026 posts)If the FBI report exonerates Hillary Clinton or if she isn't indicted, Republicans will say that the investigation was a whitewash. And if she is indicted, they'll scream for her head.
That's what Republicans always do.
Vote a straight Democratic ticket in November. Let's get rid of these treasonous bastards!
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)That is where the corruption -- the size, the sheer scale of it -- becomes visible.
This country cannot have that.
And certainly not in the White House.
Horrible mistake.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)MineralMan
(146,284 posts)No indictment recommendation. No recommendation for criminal prosecution. Game over.
tandem5
(2,072 posts)Her private email served as an alternative to the government system which was also not suitable for classified information. You can make the case that perhaps it was not secure enough for non classified, but sensitive material, but that's a far more ambiguous topic.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)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
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its really not very complicated.
Stallion
(6,474 posts)thanks
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)oasis
(49,370 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)oasis
(49,370 posts)and with that, ImWithHer.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)And if that isn't grossly negligent what in the hell is?
And since when did the penalty for not following security procedures depend on whether or not they could find evidence of hacking? On it's face that sounds downright stupid.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence
============
What Hillary did is nowhere near gross negligence.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)of national security it makes NO sense that the only way you would be held accountable is if they could find evidence of hacking. With such an important of national security that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
She did not intend to use the server for classified information. It was for personal use and non-classified departmental use. The fact some classified information may have passed through it by mistake or accidentally is not a felony.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)by a ranking NSA security officer not to continue using her Blackberry, and instead she hooked it up to her uncer
NSA told her not to use her Blackberry, and when they refused to clone an Obama phone for her, she talked to to her lawyer and okayed the switchover from an ATT email to Clintonemail.com. That became manifestly illegal the moment the first classified message traversed the server, and that outcome was foreseeable by any reasonable person.
She even encouraged Blumenthal to "keep 'em coming" when he sent her information he identified as foreign government sourced, and forwarded them to others. Some of these messages were NSA and CIA sourced information illegally taken directly off the most highly classified Interagency System.
She was trained to recognize classified information, and knew she was supposed to report its mishandling or unauthorized transmission by others, but continued to continence repeated and systematic security breaches by others on her network. Sorry, that is a violation of felony law, 18 USC Sec. 793(f), to be precise.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)its going to be forbidden soon.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)You're probably right.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Vinca
(50,258 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I doubt it'll even go that far.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Thanks for your analysis. If you see anything interesting from here on, please post.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Link, show DCBob here the big prize he just won!
P.S. - Bob, you need to add that Secretary Clinton had an affirmative duty under 793(f)(2) to report unauthorized possession and transmission of classified information by Blumenthal, but the Secretary failed in that duty. That was felony 2.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)so we can put this nonsense to rest.
TwilightZone
(25,456 posts)Hint: this isn't it.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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.
Here's what the Deutch CIA IG Report found in 2000. (The forthcoming Clinton Intelligence Community IG Report will likely contain very similar findings): https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html
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.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Petraeus was providing classified information to his mistress and purposely trying to hide his actions using fake email addresses and hidden folders. This indicates he knew what he was doing was wrong.. thus knowingly and willingly... which is illegal. Hillary did nothing like that.
Deutch was repeatedly reckless with government classified equipment that he knew contained marked classified information. That is gross negligence which is a felony. Hillary did nothing like that.