quote:

In her case, I predict H's defense will be that since the position of Secretary of State has Original Classifying Authority (OCA), she simply did not determine anything was classified, especially if anything coming to her wasn't marked classified to begin with. Anyone with a smidgen of training and moral character will know this defense is bullshit, but legally it might not be. Perhaps that is why she continues to spew "I never sent anything marked classified." The emails didn't arrive in her inbox appropriately marked, and since she has OCA her defense could be that she "didn't recognize anything as classified" when sending the emails. (I'm not defending her lack of competency or her non-existent moral character, but simply predicting her defense of the accusations.)

Doesn't matter; there were items found in her emails that were classified by agencies outside of the State Department. The State Department has since classified other emails because of their content.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
...
Just one example is the non-issue of whether the material is marked or not. Another issue is the use of private email. Another is the significance of 2200 classified documents. And another is the fact that indeed people w/o clearances had access & control of classified material.

This. It's part of her job to recognize classified info, and ignorance is NOT an excuse under the law concerning such. She's playing word games "wasn't marked classified", etc. She's just trying to write the narrative for the MSM and the idiots that don't care and believe her no matter what the evidence shows. And on top of all that was listed, she deleted 30,000 emails that were not hers to delete, that's a violation of FOIA and other laws.

She's as dirty and guilty as any politician ever was in the history of this country. It's so sad that there are so many people out there that just don't seem to care how filthy she is, that would be happy with a president with no ethics and no concern for the law, that will sell favors to fatten her pocket, that doesn't care who gets hurt as long as the dirt doesn't stick to her, that will lie repeatedly, and change the content of her lies from day to day.

I don't think the country will end if she gets elected, but the fact that she's even in consideration shows the rate of decline rather well.

I agree wholeheartedly with every word you posted. I feel dirty seeing her.

In addition, I never dreamed a commie could reach the heights Sanders achieved.

I'm way past pissed off with what is going on.

quote:

Originally posted by domcintoshoesn't matter; there were items found in her emails that were classified by agencies outside of the State Department. The State Department has since classified other emails because of their content.

<Devil's Advocate hat on>

1. Outside Agencies: How can she legally be held responsible for unmarked information of programs into which she was not briefed?
2. State Department: She was THE Original Classifying Authority for that agency. So what if someone came in afterwards (to clean up her mess) and marked the material correctly?
3. State Department IT security personnel were certainly familiar with how previous Secretaries of State handled their classified business. Shouldn't it have been a red flag when the amount of classified emails from the new Secretary of State plummeted to zero?

<Devil's Advocate hat off>

Deny, obfuscate, counter-accuse. We'll see how well this strategy works out for her.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

It is almost impossible to be fired from a federal job. Mere incompetence won't do it. Lying and cheating sometimes doesn't work. Mouthing off about something like this, criticizing the big bosses, showing them to be crooked buffoons or worse, almost surely will, and what happens if you do and then the Attorney General comes out and says, "ain't no big deal!"

Mishandling Top Secret (ESPECIALLY Special Access) materials is a VERY effective way to quickly end one's federal service.

The ONLY reason that this woman isn't is jail right now is because of who she is. Any 'normal' person would have been hammered months ago.

quote:

1. Outside Agencies: How can she legally be held responsible for unmarked information of programs into which she was not briefed?

The data was marked. Even though the Original Classification Authority (OCA) was outside the State Dept, it would STILL be marked appropriately (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret). I saw data all the time that was classified; only by digging into the weeds would I be able to tell who the OCA was. Most of the time, we didn't care WHO OCA was because it wasn't relevant to anything we needed to do. The only time you really need to know who OCA was when you wanted permission to declassify something (this doesn't happen often).

quote:

2. State Department: She was THE Original Classifying Authority for that agency. So what if someone came in afterwards (to clean up her mess) and marked the material correctly?

Doesn't matter what they did after the fact. AT THE TIME she mis-handled it, it was classified. Only liberals think that de-classifying data AFTER she mis-handled it makes everything ok.

quote:

3. State Department IT security personnel were certainly familiar with how previous Secretaries of State handled their classified business. Shouldn't it have been a red flag when the amount of classified emails from the new Secretary of State plummeted to zero?

No idea, but she has a reputation of being a bloody tyrant. Maybe if anybody noticed, they pretended they didn't see anything.

quote:

Deny, obfuscate, counter-accuse. We'll see how well this strategy works out for her.

Worked for both of them ever since 1993, unfortunately.

This Fox News story raises a very good point

"Since Fox News reported on Guccifer’s claims Wednesday, anonymous sources have reported that a review of the Clinton hard drives does not appear to indicate a breach.

However, Wright and other experts warned that Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano was the server's administrator and not principally a cybersecurity specialist – and may not have installed an adequate detection system for a Cabinet secretary’s email."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...h-fbi-at-length.html

The story also implies the FBI has not spent considerable time yet w Guccifer.

Somewhere way back in this thread I commented about Bryan Pagliano. When his name first surfaced, I did an internet search for info on him. Couldn't find any indication that Pagliano was trained or skilled in internet/email security to safeguard classified info. Maybe he was, but I hope we eventually find out just how much of a cybersecurity expert Pagliano is.

quote:

3. State Department IT security personnel were certainly familiar with how previous Secretaries of State handled their classified business. Shouldn't it have been a red flag when the amount of classified emails from the new Secretary of State plummeted to zero?

You can be absolutely certain that Hillary's use of a private server was known to many in State, that is many besides her assistants/criminal accomplices. I would not be surprised if many in other departments also knew.
Complaints or warnings in State would pass up the chain of command to top where the buck stops at the Secretary. Unless someone was willing to go over her head to the Boss, the buck would stop at Hillary. Other department heads face the same problem---you would have to take this up with BHO, who knows, someone may have done so....


As jallen remarks, a sure and certain way to be separated from the service or to end up in Sitka is to point out corruption on the part of the boss. We know of course that BHO has indeed said that this ain't no big deal.

quote:

It is almost impossible to be fired from a federal job. Mere incompetence won't do it. Lying and cheating sometimes doesn't work. Mouthing off about something like this, criticizing the big bosses, showing them to be crooked buffoons or worse, almost surely will, and what happens if you do and then the Attorney General comes out and says, "ain't no big deal!"

quote:

just put barbwire around the entire beltway and call it another supermax.

No you're talkin'. Talk about an effective strategy. Imagine the positive difference...

Here's a bit more on the legalese and whether or not willful intent matters.



Fox News has confirmed that the FBI has interviewed Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton, as part of its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email and whether classified information was willfully transmitted on her unsecured network. The FBI may also have interviewed other current and former Clinton staffers. This suggests the case may be approaching a conclusion. Clinton, herself, could be interviewed very soon.

Abedin Is a Key Witness
Abedin is a valued source of information because she apparently used an email on Clinton’s private system. She may have voiced concerns about whether the server was violating the law or, equally important, discussed how the law could be circumvented.

She and other staffers were surely questioned about the 2,200 classified communications contained on the server, including the 22 documents that were “top secret”. How did they end up on the unauthorized system? Did the aides have clearance to read them? Didn’t they know they were classified? Were classified markings erased? Who decided to delete thousands of emails which were government property? Who ordered the server to be “wiped clean”? Depending on the answers to these crucial questions, the aides could find themselves in legal jeopardy. So could Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s Intent Is Irrelevant
Unnamed sources close to the investigation are reported to have said that the FBI has found no evidence to prove Clinton intended to violate the law. That sounds important, but it is not. The operative legal issue is not whether she intended to break the law, but whether she knowingly and intentionally stored classified information on her unauthorized server. Here is the specific law:

“Whoever… knowingly removes (classified) documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 1924)

The statute says nothing about an intent to violate the law. It is an important distinction. Clearly, Clinton intended to create a private server for use as her exclusive means of conducting official business as Secretary of State. She also knew it was not authorized because she never sought authorization from the relevant agencies. At the same time, she knew her unauthorized server would collect, retain and transmit classified documents during her four year term and intended it to do so.

This would appear to violate the language of the statute. She can hardly claim she did not recognize classified material… because that would be arguing her own incompetence.

Ignorance of the Law
Is it possible for Clinton to argue that she did not know she was breaking the law? She can try, but in a court of law it is no defense. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Otherwise, everyone accused of a crime would play dumb. “Gee, I didn’t know my actions were a crime!”

Moreover, Clinton knew the law because she was specifically instructed on the law when she took office. She received a “national security indoctrination” –a tutorial on the law of classified materials. Thereafter, she signed a sworn “non-disclosure agreement” promising never to convey classified material to an unauthorized person or place.

In that same agreement, Clinton was also warned that classified material can be either marked or unmarked. The content dictates its classification, not the markings. So, her previous claims that nothing was marked classified is not a defense. This is especially true since Clinton reportedly authored 104 of the classified emails herself. Surely, she knew what she was writing.

Gross Negligence
President Obama recently called Clinton’s handling of the classified emails “careless”, but not intentional, as if that makes it okay. However, carelessness is sufficient to be convicted of a crime. The following statute specifically addresses this issue:

“Whoever… through gross negligence permits (classified information) to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)

In plain language, gross negligence is the standard, not intent. Carelessness or recklessness are synonymous with gross negligence. Thus, by implying that Clinton did nothing illegal because she was merely “careless”, President Obama is either legally mistaken or deliberately communicating a falsehood.

If the president, a trained lawyer, thought he was exculpating Clinton… he was, in truth, implicating her in a violation of the law.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...deo&intcmp=obnetwork

Aren't carelessness, recklessness and gross negligence on a continuum, not synonymous?

I have noticed that Huma et;al have been MARKEDLY absent over the past 6-8 weeks...as in maybe theyre on Uranus or something. It seems when these people disappear from view there is something afoot.

A reminder that the lawyer Beth Wilkinson has been hired to represent Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Heather Samuelson, and Philip Reines.

Wilkinson is the wife of David Gregory (former host of Meet the Press)

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last November asked Wilkinson, Clinton’s attorney David Kendall as well as lawyers for Bryan Pagliano — Clinton’s top IT staffer — and Huma Abedin if there was a third-party fee arrangement and joint defense coordination agreement that allowed them to share information.

They declined to answer.

One thing for sure, a few lawyers are making a lot of money representing Clinton and her team.

quote:

just put barbwire around the entire beltway and call it another supermax.

Problem is, barbed wire won't hold water when you try to fill it.

Funny how they all are connected no??

quote:

I haven't seen any statements that claim the contents of one of her emails were classified at the time, yet; so far everything has been classified now.

I can assure you that information has been released which says that TS Defense Department Information was found in Hillary's emails which had the headers removed. This info was transmitted to State and then someone removed the identifiers and sent it Hillary through her unsecured server.

We should also keep in mind that as far as we know, all of the information released covers emails that Hillary's accomplices did not delete. We do not know what was in the other 30,000 deleted emails. Given that the people involved are inveterate liars, my assumption is that the TS emails we do know about consist only of those which Hillary's people missed in their hurried deletions.

We do know from information received that at least 12 emails are missing from the Benghazi attack time period.

Remember the jokes about Hillary and Bill and their industrial strength document shredder? Well, it wasn't a joke.

State Dept reports it has no emails to/from Bryan Pagliano in the time period 2009 to 2013.

A State Department official said it possesses emails from Pagliano during the period after Clinton's term had ended, when he continued to work as a technology contractor.

Agency spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said the department searched for Pagliano's email file but "has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton's tenure."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2016-05-09-13-45-09

Pagliano was a GS15 at State Dept

Guess he was just a man of few words?

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Guess he was just a man of few words?

Or all his EMails are on the Clinton server, and deleted.

quote:

Or all his EMails are on the Clinton server, and deleted.

That is the more likely scenario. The Clintons are masters at hiding evidence.

It is a possibility that some of those 30,000 deleted emails were Pagliano's.