Legal analysis for why Hillary shouldn't be indicted

[qazplm]

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

I'm sure folks will strenuously object to this analysis, but it's pretty well written by someone with a clear knowledge of both how classification works and the law surrounding this.

 

[SDBoiler1]

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

I'm sure folks will strenuously object to this analysis, but it's pretty well written by someone with a clear knowledge of both how classification works and the law surrounding this.

So a guy who worked in the Obama administration in the DHS from 2008 - 2011 doesn't think HRC is guilty? Wow, what a shock...

 

[qazplm]

So a guy who worked in the Obama administration in the DHS from 2008 - 2011 doesn't think HRC is guilty? Wow, what a shock...

So, I'll put you down for either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

 

[SDBoiler1]

So, I'll put you down for either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

I did read it. Much of it was rationalization of Hillary's poor judgment, careless behavior, and wanton disregard of the law.

 

[Purdue97]

Will read it again later as there was a lot of information in there. That author knows more than most but he either glossed over or ignored some pretty important parts of her ordeal

How does one explain:

-Sidney Blumenthal having access to Top Secret NSA information that was emailed back and forth to Clinton on Clinton's home server. He was not a government employee nor would he have that security clearance. Clinton knew this.

-Her own personal lawyers went through emails and decided what to delete. Wrong answer. So was sending the server to the company in CO that kept it in a bathroom or garage. This was not even touched in article I do not believe.

-It is not known if emails are classified the same as documents or materials? Wow. I know more than a few people that did time in Leavenworth or received dishonorable discharges based on, due to additional mishandling of docs, mishandling emails and their information.

-Clinton could declassify something as head of a Department.

What this author leaves out or glosses over is the original authority part. She has no authority to declassify something other departments or agencies did. That allegedly happened at State during her tenure. One of her original defenses was over classification, and departments bicker of what should or should not be classified. I will say that over classification likely happens. I will also say that departments do not argue, debate over classification, or change other departments/agencies classifications. Simply not their authority. This allegedly happened at State during her time there. Largely due to the example of Apricots shipments the author gave. Could involve human intelligence or other information not related to apricots.

She also could not declassify something for the sake of sending through unsecured channels.

-The idea that people do not know what is or is not classified in some cases is true, but in other is cases is shaky at best and really flat out bogus. He does state that just because a topic is in newspapers or widely known it does not mean it is declassified which is true. But many people, which would include SoS, knows the classification of anything involving HUMINT, Satellite pictures, drones etc. is at a minimum it is Secret.

-It ignores her blackberry issue altogether. NSA declined her request for a blackberry. Clinton declined a secure cell phone on the apriva system. She continued to use her own anyway. Wrong answer.

Look, I am not expecting her to get indicted much less found guilty. That said, yeah, she is guilty and negligent with handling and securing of classified information.

 

[lbodel]

Will read it again later as there was a lot of information in there. That author knows more than most but he either glossed over or ignored some pretty important parts of her ordeal

How does one explain:

-Sidney Blumenthal having access to Top Secret NSA information that was emailed back and forth to Clinton on Clinton's home server. He was not a government employee nor would he have that security clearance. Clinton knew this.

-Her own personal lawyers went through emails and decided what to delete. Wrong answer. So was sending the server to the company in CO that kept it in a bathroom or garage. This was not even touched in article I do not believe.

-It is not known if emails are classified the same as documents or materials? Wow. I know more than a few people that did time in Leavenworth or received dishonorable discharges based on, due to additional mishandling of docs, mishandling emails and their information.

-Clinton could declassify something as head of a Department.

What this author leaves out or glosses over is the original authority part. She has no authority to declassify something other departments or agencies did. That allegedly happened at State during her tenure. One of her original defenses was over classification, and departments bicker of what should or should not be classified. I will say that over classification likely happens. I will also say that departments do not argue, debate over classification, or change other departments/agencies classifications. Simply not their authority. This allegedly happened at State during her time there. Largely due to the example of Apricots shipments the author gave. Could involve human intelligence or other information not related to apricots.

She also could not declassify something for the sake of sending through unsecured channels.

-The idea that people do not know what is or is not classified in some cases is true, but in other is cases is shaky at best and really flat out bogus. He does state that just because a topic is in newspapers or widely known it does not mean it is declassified which is true. But many people, which would include SoS, knows the classification of anything involving HUMINT, Satellite pictures, drones etc. is at a minimum it is Secret.

-It ignores her blackberry issue altogether. NSA declined her request for a blackberry. Clinton declined a secure cell phone on the apriva system. She continued to use her own anyway. Wrong answer.

Look, I am not expecting her to get indicted much less found guilty. That said, yeah, she is guilty and negligent with handling and securing of classified information.

There's many questions - and like you said, there was certainly some negligence involved. Like you said with her being indicted/found guilty, it's certainly not an excuse, but as others have said...

-The systems that are used are grossly outdated and inconvenient.

-And it doesn't make it ok, but I know people who use the same system and basically it's been common practice for years (since going "internet modern") to skirt around things because it's that outdated.

-If you analyzed every email that every high profile government official sent like they have with Clinton's, you'd probably find much more problematic stuff - no matter who the president, appointees, etc. are. Whether or not a private server was used (and as we know, she's not the first to).

Again, looking back was it smart on her part? Absolutely not. Was she doing anything with bad intentions or covering anything up? Absolutely not.

What I hope happens going forward is that the US Government wakes up and realizes that they have to be able to operate in the 21st century, which it is not.

 

[pboiler18]

Again, looking back was it smart on her part? Absolutely not. Was she doing anything with bad intentions or covering anything up? Absolutely not.

Well, not until the selective email deletion.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I didn't find that terribly objective at all. In fact, I think in some ways that article makes a stronger case against her. For one thing, it highlights the regulations on personal and unauthorized equipment which she pretty clearly violated, and depending on what she did to compel the person to set up her server, could even be viewed as an abuse of power. (*I* wouldn't say that, because I think she contracted independently with someone formerly from State, but that also makes the "authorized person" argument lose water.) For another, it quotes the definition of classified information, which to me is pretty clear in that it does not excuse something as unclassified because one organization views it as such, while another views it as classified. This has long been her defense (essentially, I couldn't know because my department didn't classify it).

I also found the discussion about how someone should know if it's classified or not in spite of markings hokey as we are trained at least annually (and me more often than that) on recognizing spillage on unclassified circuits, but I suppose the section on "different rules for her and the rest of us" is true, even though that may not be a good excuse.

Finally, the last thing I found somewhat irresponsible is the assertion that somehow there's a gray area regarding email classifications. Email is (at least in the Navy) unequivocally considered a "document" in terms of classification, and improper handling of classified email is treated the same as improper handling of classified paper. Now, that often means a slap on the wrist, but still, I found that part of the write-up pretty poor.

I suspect she will not be indicted, but likely because of political ramifications and also the cost relative to the "crime". That is not to say that she didn't willfully and knowingly do something wrong/illegal, because I think she did based on what I've read (on sources other than Fox News, mind you!). I think she was grossly irresponsible, frankly lazy, and it's not conduct I would expect of the Secretary of State or President, but I don't think it'll amount to "criminal".

 

[Purdue85]

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

I'm sure folks will strenuously object to this analysis, but it's pretty well written by someone with a clear knowledge of both how classification works and the law surrounding this.

...because she's a Democrat and should be held to lower standards.

Otherwise, the average Joe would already be making big rocks into smaller rocks.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

...because she's a Democrat and should be held to lower standards.

Otherwise, the average Joe would already be making big rocks into smaller rocks.

Has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. Everything to do with her not being an average Joe.

 

[qazplm]

Has nothing to do with her being a Democrat. Everything to do with her not being an average Joe.

Well, sure, but that's baked into the rules...she had different rules from everyone else.

She's guilty of being over-controlling and of not caring enough about an issue that up until now folks wouldn't care about but now folks care about a great deal.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well, sure, but that's baked into the rules...she had different rules from everyone else.

She's guilty of being over-controlling and of not caring enough about an issue that up until now folks wouldn't care about but now folks care about a great deal.

She is also guilty of mishandling classified information. It's just not this "end of he world felony" that most Republicans think it is.

 

[qazplm]

She is also guilty of mishandling classified information. It's just not this "end of he world felony" that most Republicans think it is.

What law are you citing for that? Because the whole point of the article is that she isn't actually guilty of any laws, just bad decision-making.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Dude. Have a good thread...

 

[threeeputtt]

What law are you citing for that? Because the whole point of the article is that she isn't actually guilty of any laws, just bad decision-making.

Sounds like Nixon wasn't guilty of anything either?

 

[kescwi]

Sounds like Nixon wasn't guilty of anything either?

Come on, is this really the Fox crowds view? I don't even follow this but let's see, mishanlding classified information vs obstruction of justice and obuse of power as POTUS. Man the rah rah my team crap is really odd, Nixon's actions were inexcusable, and let's remember, by accepting a pardon, he pretty much admits he committed a crime, no matter what he said or how he tried to spin it later. If he were innocent, fight it, only the guilty are pardoned. Not defending Clinton, but the two are nowhere near the same at this point or probably ever.

 

[threeeputtt]

Come on, is this really the Fox crowds view? I don't even follow this but let's see, mishanlding classified information vs obstruction of justice and obuse of power as POTUS. Man the rah rah my team crap is really odd, Nixon's actions were inexcusable, and let's remember, by accepting a pardon, he pretty much admits he committed a crime, no matter what he said or how he tried to spin it later. If he were innocent, fight it, only the guilty are pardoned. Not defending Clinton, but the two are nowhere near the same at this point or probably ever.

Nixon was never convicted nor impeached, just wanted to sound like Hillary supporters that are BLIND. I dislike him and Hillary. Hey, I am not a fan of Fox nor either party.

 

[kescwi]

Nixon was never convicted nor impeached, just wanted to sound like Hillary supporters that are BLIND. I dislike him and Hillary. Hey, I am not a fan of Fox nor either party.

Know your history, Nixon was informed by attorneys sent by Ford to negotiate the pardon of a Supreme Court ruling that basically said accepting a pardon was a confession.

 

[qazplm]

Sounds like Nixon wasn't guilty of anything either?

No he violated actual laws. Hillary has not been shown to have done so.

 

[buygreekbonds]

Exactly what laws has Nixon been proven of violating?

 

[kescwi]

Exactly what laws has Nixon been proven of violating?

When someone takes a plea agreement what laws has it been "proven" that person violated? I mean other than their admitting they committed a crime, like Nixon when he accepted the pardon.

 

[threeeputtt]

“(a)

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record , proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

 

[SIBoiler2]

Bottom line. If you're the head of your business people under you should never be expected by you to be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself. State Dept employees under HRC should all have personal servers and email any information they choose to without concern for legality. She was OK with it so we shouldn't worry about international security under her watch. Nothing to see here. Move on. Just more of the Clintons being the Clintons.

 

[Bruce1]

She is also guilty of mishandling classified information. It's just not this "end of he world felony" that most Republicans think it is.

Pls explain how the handling of the Petraeus situation was warranted and how she doesn't deserve any penalties for her actions.

 

[qazplm]

Pls explain how the handling of the Petraeus situation was warranted and how she doesn't deserve any penalties for her actions.

One gave secrets to his lover, who didn't have a clearance. To top it off, he lied to federal agents when questioned.

The other set up a private server, never appears to have given secrets to anyone, didn't lie to federal agents. One can make the argument about not properly safeguarding, but that's still far off from intentionally giving secrets that you know are secret to your lover and then lying to fed agents about it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Pls explain how the handling of the Petraeus situation was warranted and how she doesn't deserve any penalties for her actions.

Here:

One gave secrets to his lover, who didn't have a clearance. To top it off, he lied to federal agents when questioned.

The other set up a private server, never appears to have given secrets to anyone, didn't lie to federal agents. One can make the argument about not properly safeguarding, but that's still far off from intentionally giving secrets that you know are secret to your lover and then lying to fed agents about it.

 

[qazplm]

Here:

I'll also note that I had the pleasure of briefing working with him when he was the CG for Fort Leavenworth and I was a defense counsel there. He treated one of my officer clients extremely fairly, graciously, and professionally when he could have easily not done so. So while he did a bonehead thing, I don't think poorly of him at all...it's just a reminder to me that everyone has their weaknesses.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

...it's just a reminder to me that everyone has their weaknesses.

His was a classic case of Bathsheba syndrome, IMO. All too familiar if you watch the cover of Navy Times with any regularity...