Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Isn’t Getting Indicted. Here’s Why.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officerShall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase relating to the national defense to require intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. Thats a high bar theres no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States.
...........................................................................................................
Setting aside the bare language of the law, theres also a very important practical reason why officials in Clintons position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Posts David Ignatius, its common that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information. Its inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables. People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldnt, but they do.
Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.
Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase relating to the national defense to require intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. Thats a high bar theres no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States.
...........................................................................................................
Setting aside the bare language of the law, theres also a very important practical reason why officials in Clintons position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Posts David Ignatius, its common that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information. Its inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables. People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldnt, but they do.
Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1045 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton Isn’t Getting Indicted. Here’s Why. (Original Post)
ehrnst
Jul 2016
OP
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)1. In other words, the laws and set precedence do matter.
PJMcK
(21,988 posts)2. In other words, our government's communications systems are a problem
There have been stories for years about how different governmental agencies have old equipment using antiquated hardware and incompatible software. Even the FBI had ancient machines until recent upgrades.
If the systems are too cumbersome and time consuming, they should be upgraded. Oh, I forgot. The Republicans won't spend any money on the US unless it's for the military.
brush
(53,737 posts)3. Sounds like they're describing Edward Snowden.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)4. There was never any good evidence of intent or gross negligence provided
Blanks
(4,835 posts)5. Classified systems are often cumbersome...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)6. I know that this crushed so many dreams.(nt)