danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

. If she is found guilty, does it matter to you that she does not handle classified material properly?

She won't be charged. She won't be found guilty.

She was an idiot to take someones advice and use a private mail server . . .

. . . but then the State department IT department should be more professional at organizing communications systems and ensuring security, and compliance.

Powell used his own email. Chuck Hagel used his own email. Carl Rove used his own email for 95% of business...

This is an indictment of the entire IT security system. Clinton gets a pass.

The only reason its an issue is because its Clinton and she's running for president and the right are desperate to damage her because without damage she appears to be unassailable by the potential opponents.
There isn't enough there there for this to evolve into more despite the wishful thinking of her critics. Same as every other "scandal" that has been pushed by the right and the compliant media. They all deflate for lack of genuine substance.

The threshold question, it seems to me, is whether Hillary Clinton had possession or control of any document relating to the national defense. The documents produced by the State Department have been heavily redacted. Thus, it’s extremely difficult to assess first hand the extent to which they relate to the national defense.

However, the very fact that the material was redacted strongly suggests, and probably proves, that they do so relate. Under the terms of President Obama’s Executive Order 13526, which I cited earlier today, any email that is “originally classified” contains by definition “information. . .the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.” (Executive Order 13526, Part I, Section 1.1(a)(4)) (Emphasis added). And “the unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is “presumed to cause damage to the national security.” (Id. Section 1.1(d)).

If anything that’s a tougher standard than “relating to the national defense.” And some Clinton email emails were originally classified (i.e., “born classified”) because they contained foreign government information. That these documents were “born classified” is clear from the date on which they will become declassified — ten years after they were originated, not ten years after they were formally marked classified.

The next question is whether Clinton removed any such information from its proper place of custody or delivered it to anyone in violation of her trust. I would think that the very act of having information relating to the national defense on a private server constitutes removing it from its proper place of custody.

One need not rely on this view, however, because it now looks like Clinton delivered information relating to the national defense to at least one person in violation of her trust. That person is Sidney Blumenthal, who was not authorized to receive classified information and, as it happened, had his email system hacked.

Multiple sources within the intel community tell the Washington Times’ John Solomon that one of the two Top Secret/Compartmented breaches in Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server dealt with critical satellite information about North Korea’s nuclear weapons. This information was one of the reasons that the intel Inspectors General referred the matter to the Department of Justice. If true, this also debunks the defense of Hillary Clinton that the information was unknown to be sensitive when transmitted:

One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.

Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.

First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S.

Second, the North Koreans have assembled a massive cyberhacking army under an elite military spy program known as Bureau 121, which is increasingly aggressive in targeting systems for hacking, especially vulnerable private systems. The North Koreans, for instance, have been blamed by the U.S. for the hack of Sony movie studios.

Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.

freeman3 wrote:But where is the conservative criminal defense lawyer out there saying, yes, they have handled similar cases, are familiar with the issues involved, and that in their view Hillary is criminally culpable? I looked yesterday for an opinion from someone like that and couldn't find it. I presume DF has been looking for it. In this article I found the closest thing to that in an opinion by a conservative lawyer (Nathan Scales) but even he can't say that Hillary could be prosecuted (at least not yet).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... lgate.html

But instead of listening to actual experts who know what evidence is needed to prove a criminal violation, let's listen to armchair conservatives--lawyers or not, they clearly don't handle these kinds of cases.

Paul Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. He is a 1971 graduate of Dartmouth College and a 1974 graduate of Stanford Law School. He has two daughters and lives with his family in Bethesda, Maryland.

New emails released from Hillary Clinton’s email server reveal that while she was secretary of state, Clinton did a favor for a for-profit education company that later paid her husband more than $16 million.

In 2009, just a few months after Hillary took over at the Department of State, she was involved in planning a private dinner on education policy that featured herself, several State Department staff, and about a dozen individuals involved with higher education…

A second email shows that Clinton’s wish was carried out, as Laureate Senior Vice President Joseph Duffey was one of 20 guests at the Aug. 17 dinner. Laureate wasn’t the only school to be invited due to Clinton. Methodist-run Africa University had a representative at the dinner after Clinton proposed it (Clinton is a United Methodist)…

Just a few months later, in spring 2010, Bill Clinton was named as Laureate’s honorary chancellor, a post he held until stepping down in April 2015. His pay at the time wasn’t disclosed, but in July, Hillary’s publication of her tax returns revealed that Bill was paid over $16.5 million by Laureate from 2010 through 2015.

Landing a position as an “honorary chancellor” doesn’t generally entail a lot of back breaking work or even showing up for the most part. Institutions such as that love having big, high profile names on their roster and are willing to lay out some big bucks to get those names on their letterhead. Nothing illegal about that. And there really doesn’t seem to be anything technically illegal about Hillary “suggesting” that the organization be invited to a private dinner. Of course, when you pair the two together it certainly has the odor of some quid pro quo going on. And let’s also remember that this wasn’t an arrangement which was driving donations to the Clinton Foundation’s charitable causes… this was a paycheck going right into Bill and Hillary’s personal bank account.

There’s an added element of hypocrisy to this story, though. You’ll notice that the group in question is a for profit educational institute. Doing favors for them and cashing in to the tune of millions of dollars seems to be a bit out of sync with her rhetoric on the campaign trail where she promised to crack down on just such companies. (Washington Times, from earlier this year)

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton said if elected president she would get tough on federal aid that flows to those kinds of for-profit institutions, strengthening the “gainful employer rules” that requires schools to adequately prepare students for the workforce.

“There are students who take out loans to pay for an expensive degree from a for-profit institution — only to find little support once they actually enroll, or they graduate and discover that, when it comes to finding a job, their degree isn’t worth what they thought,” Mrs. Clinton said in a message posted on Medium.com.

Someone (whose name will not be mentioned) said there's no quid pro quo in Hillary's arrangements

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton said if elected president she would get tough on federal aid that flows to those kinds of for-profit institutions, strengthening the “gainful employer rules” that requires schools to adequately prepare students for the workforce.

“There are students who take out loans to pay for an expensive degree from a for-profit institution — only to find little support once they actually enroll, or they graduate and discover that, when it comes to finding a job, their degree isn’t worth what they thought,” Mrs. Clinton said in a message posted on Medium.com

freeman3 wrote:So Laureate paid Bill 16.5 million for a dinner at the State Department. Oh yeah , there are the completely unproven implied allegations that Hillary had something to do with a 1.9 million loan to Laureate's non-profit wing by the State Department and Laureate becoming part of the State Department Global

16.5 million for a dinner, a 1.9 million loan and becoming part of the State Department Global Partnership. (The last two completely unproven with regard to Hillary's involvement). Seems awfully expensive...maybe , just maybe that 16.5 million to Bill was because Laureate thought he could help the prestige of the school overseas so that students would want to go to those schools...

freeman3 wrote:The gap between the evidence you have on Hillary and a hypothetical Hillary confession is wide enough for a successful presidential run--with plenty of room to spare. Keep trying...

freeman3 wrote:But where is the conservative criminal defense lawyer out there saying, yes, they have handled similar cases, are familiar with the issues involved, and that in their view Hillary is criminally culpable?.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

Prove that was the case.

Prove an "if" question? Puhleeze.

If she did violate the law, should she be President?

Oh, and the FBI is not investigating for their health.

No, but they do have to investigate allegations. But the fact they are investigating is less strong than if any actual charges are laid and neither is proof that she is guilty.

Not so long ago, you were telling us that a difference between Republicans and Democrats was that the former would wait for all the evidence before rushing to judgement...

"All" is a pretty big word.

As I have said, I prefer Sanders. But I have no illusions that whoever the Dem frontrunner was, the right wing hysteria machine would not be spreading smears and you would not be repeating them as Gospel.

Nah, the facts will do. I'm just shocked that someone everyone knows to be deceptive is leading. It's not even a debate whether she's honest or not.