Pardon Hillary
This may be the last message you expected from me, but Obama should pardon Hillary. If Obama does not, Trump should.
Look, I am a FOIA absolutist. Long before it came out that Clinton may have had top secret emails on her home server, I wanted to see her punished for her flouting of public accountability laws. Her whole home-brewed email system was a transparent attempt to evade FOIA, and consistent with her history of attempting to duck transparency (going all the way back to her abortive health care initiative she ran as First Lady). In addition, I have had it up to here with bogus non-profits that pretend to do charity work, but are in fact merely lifestyle and influence maintenance devices for their principals. I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated (though market forces may take care of that institution on their own, as it is unlikely donors will be sending much money their way now that the Clintons have no prospect of returning to power).
But the optics, and precedents involved, with a winning candidate's administration criminally prosecuting the election's loser are just terrible. Even if entirely justified, the prosecution smacks of banana republic politics. And even if it were justified, half the country would not see it that way and next time, when the parties are reversed, as sure as the sun rises in the East there will be folks looking to duplicate the prosecution in the other direction.
The rule of law is seldom helped by ignoring wrong-doing, but in this case I will make an exception.
Postscript: By the way, what could be a better political FU than having Trump pardon her? An attempted prosecution could last for years and could lead nowhere. But nothing leaves the impression of "your guilty" like a preemptive pardon (see Richard Nixon). From a political point of view Obama should pardon her just to prevent Trump from doing so and getting credit for being a healer.
Picking up a phone is a way of avoiding a record - though I would note that government has rules on that.
Further there are also reasons why people do, and do not communicate via voice, face to face or via email.
I do not as an example communicate with people I do not trust by voice.
This is speculation, but I think that Clinton wanted a record of her communications.
But she also wanted total control of them.
Further Clinton wanted to be able to demonstrate that she had communicated something - when that was useful to her. But she wanted to be able to deny it when it was not.
There is no means of accomplishing that.
Use the phone and you avoid a record - that might be to your advantage, it also might be to your disadvantage.
Use an email and you have a record - to your advantage or disadvantage.
Again there is no means of controling things so you have both. Though Nixon's tapes were close to that.
Bzzt, wrong.
Please read the actual Gorin decision.
BTW the language is "related to national defense"
Gorin AFFIRMED a conviction.
It did not strike down the law.
In fact it appears on reading it dully that you are misreading Gorin.
It comes close to saying the opposite of what you are arguing.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html
BTW it is also a general principle of legal interpretation that when the court affirms something, that does NOT speak to whether they would affirm a lessor set of facts.
Gorin does NOT define the lower limit of what is prosecutable.
It does not speak to less.
Actually read it.
I provided the link.
It does nto help you.
There is no "ambiguous sensitivety" defense in the law.
If something is classified it is classified. You do not get to second guess that.
Further Clinton's position as Sec. State made it possible for her to ask to have things declassified or their classification lowered - which on occasion she actually did - AGAIN demonstrating understanding of what Classified means and demonstrating intent.
While there are several facts in Comey's statement that have subsequently demonstrated as eroneous - as an example we know - and he KNEW at the time of the statement, that most of Clinton's deleted emails were NOT deleted until I beleive March of 2015 - not 2014 - and that is particularly important as there were several different legal obligations to preserve that existed and were known by those who deleted the emails at the time they were deleted.
Still Comey's statement is particularly damning. We know more now, not less.
The more we know does nto make things any better.
While Comey does not specifically mention text that was copied from secure systems - he does alude to it.
You will have to do your own media searches to find those disclosures.
You are not going to see a smoking gun - because the material is classifed - unless Wikileaks were to release it,
You are not going to be bale to compare two copies.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
With regard to specifics - you will have to do your own media searches.
Please read Comey's statement - he specifically notes Clinton as both SENDING and RECIEVING Classified information.
On further investigation there were Two classified emails found by the IG in Powells communications.
And this has also been addressed before NO there were not "a whole lot more"
Powel used AOL - there ware archives essentially outside his control of knowledge.
Even Comey notes that had Clinton used gmail they would have recorvered everything.
If Aides to rice were emailing classified information - convict them.
There were 10 classified emails sent to accounts of Rices aides and 2 involving Powel.
None of these messages were marked classified at the time they were sent.
None were more than merely classified. All were later up classified.
Clinton sent more top secret SAP emails that the unmarked classified emails of Powell and rice and their aides all combined.
We are talking many many orders of magnitude difference.
The Clintons play that dirty.
John Say: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl33502.pdf
You provided multiple links, so we decided to follow the first of your links (pg 24).
Your own citation doesn't support your position.
John Say: The "relating to national defence" language is not present in 18cfr793(f) or several other sections of 18cfr793
Huh?
John Say: Of course I can not prove intent to your satisfaction - because you are requiring intent where the law does not, and defining intent contrary to accepted standards.
That is incorrect, as you own examples show.
Sandy Berger,
Peter Van Buren,
John Deutch,
Petreus,
Bryan Nishimura,
Kristian Saucier,
Maj. Jason Brezler,
Jessica Lynn Quintana,
Donald Willis Keyser,
Thomas Drake,
James Smith,
Kenneth W. Ford Jr,
Lyle White,
James Hitselberger.
INCOMPLETE POST, CHECK BACK LATER
John Say: Had I merely refered to knowledge I had gained from classified documents in a single email I would have at the very least been fired on the spot - and that was as a government contractor.
There you go. You say it would have been handled administratively, not criminally.
John Say: There is no "ambiguous sensitivety" defense in the law.
Of course there is. If the government can't even agree on whether a particular document should be classified or , a jury may likely find that there is no crime involved if the documents wasn't marked classified.
John Say: If something is classified it is classified.
Just being classified isn't sufficient for conviction under the Espionage Act. It has to be proven to be "relating to the national security". Otherwise, a president could say the New York Times is classified, and arrest anyone who reads it.
John Say: Please read the actual Gorin decision.
scienter, a legal term that refers to intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.
John Say: Comey determined that there was insufficient intent - for a crime that did not require intent, where sufficient intent was obviously present.
Which, as has been shown, is incorrect.
John Say,
Before the FBI publicly recommended against prosecution, a multitude of lawyers had said there likely wasn't a reasonable case, at least based on publicly available information, because there was no evidence of intent. Then career investigators with the FBI recommended against charges. Propagating the myth otherwise was of a short-term benefit to the political right. There's your answer.
So you are not getting the mouse thing.
So are you the Borg ?
With respect to you points.
They are quite ambiguous.
Even if you got "money" out of politics it would still be corrupt.
As Acton said - power corrupts.
If you eliminate one special interest there will be another.
In fact your entire attack on money in politics is merely that you think your special interest should have greater ability to rent the power of government than those with money.
You label money as evil and thereby make pushing one special interest over another into a moral issue - which in this case it is not.
I advocate for individual liberty - taking from government all power except that little that is necescary.
Freeing each of us to live our own lives much as we please.
That is actually the ONLY moral position. There is a compelling reason for that - morality does nto exist without freedom.
I do not care what politicians spend their time at - so long as it does nto reduce my liberty.
I do not care if they are having orgy's in the capital.
In fact I would prefer that to legislating.
As Samuel Clemens noted "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
The Clintons are in it for the Clintons. Anything they do for anyone else, is because of the benefit for them.
They use the tools of politics for their own benefit.
If you think they are doing something good for you - it is becuase they want something from you.
Most politicains have crossed beyond what is legal.
The Clinton's have crossed far beyond.
The constant attacks are a consequence of two things.
They are far more crooked than most.
They are successful crooks.
Republicans have spent decades chasing the Clinton's
The question is why didn't democrats toss them long ago ?
We have a new president. How bad or good that is remains to be seen. But it is unlikely to be as bad as it could have been had Clinton been elected.
Aparently a Troll is anyone who disagrees with you.
See above.
We have been through pretty much everything that is known to the public.
Your argument get weaker as you go on.
Even the case you claim helps actually makes things worse - Gorin concludes intent merely from mishandling classified documents.
Further there are myriads of other cases. Thus far the only instances I can find where someone was NOT convicted is when they were NOT a government official and had not received a security clearance.
This administration has tried to prosecute even journalists under these sections.
That appears to be where the court draws the line - first because they are unwilling to imply intent where someone did not have a security clearance, and second because some of these cases involve publication of classified evidence of government misconduct and in those instances there are conflicts with the first amendment. Thus far to my knowledge the government has never successfully prosecuted a journalist.
But it has successfully prosecuted their government sources.
Thus far to my knowledge government has never successfully prosecuted a person - even with a security clearance who was not employed by governmnent - employees of defense contractors have thus far avoided prosecution.
Should snowden return the the US we might test that limit.
What is clear is that you do not actually know the facts, you do not know the law, and that you do not wish to.
That you have your head in the sand.
I have little doubt that if the tables were turned and this were a republican that you would be arguing for their head. Worse still you would unlikely be arguing for a pardon, because frankly those on the left have no compassion. When you dehumanize those who disagree with you, it is no surprise that you do not treat them or anyone else as humans.
actually prosecuting Clinton is fruitless. It would be long drawn out expensive and painful for all of us.
Further Clinton is tenacious wealthy and well lawyered, and whether true or not prosecution would be viewed as political. Unlike the myriads of other defendents she is not honorable enough to grasp that she has actually done anything wrong, and knows that if she drags things out long enough that people will tire of them.
You say Republicans have been out to get her for a long time - what is true is that she has engaged in criminal misconduct for a long time. She has learned that fighting long and hard and dragging things out causes the public - and even her enemies to lose interests. That is far from innocence, and far from operating in the gray areas.
I hope that one of Obama or Trump will be wise enough to pardon her and her crew, and we will never here from any of them again.
John Say: Gorin concludes intent merely from mishandling classified documents.
Mishandling? Gorin bought documents that he knew were classified — bought them *because* they were classified. He didn't accidentally find them or lose them. The court explicitly stated that the defendant must have "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."
John Say: Thus far the only instances I can find where someone was NOT convicted is when they were NOT a government official and had not received a security clearance.
We addressed your examples. They all showed intent, were prosecuted under the Military Code of Conduct, or were not charged.
John Say: This administration has tried to prosecute even journalists under these sections.
James Risen was ordered to testify by the courts, and faced contempt, not a charge of espionage, but Attorney General Eric Holder said “no reporter’s going to jail as long as I’m attorney general.”
John Say: I have little doubt that if the tables were turned and this were a republican that you would be arguing for their head.
If a Republican were careless with classified information, we would take the same position. It takes evidence of intent to make it a crime under the Espionage Act.
John Say: Worse still you would unlikely be arguing for a pardon, because frankly those on the left have no compassion.
As we have stated, Clinton should not be pardoned. If she committed a crime, she should be brought to justice. However, making stuff up doesn't constitute evidence.
Can you PLEASE actual read the decisions you are citing.
You are confusing the facts of the case with the holdings of the case.
You really do not seem to understand how to read court opinions.
First the DECISIONS of courts are binding.
The assorted statements are guidance.
An affirmation does not set a lower bar.
It merely says the evidence and law presented to us are sufficient.
Courts rarely rule on what they are not asked.
The quote you keep citing is from the 1917 espionage act NOT the courts decision.
To the extent the court quoted it - that would be because it was an element of the crime Gorin was accused of.
Clinton has NOT been accused of providing classified information to a foreign power - either negligently or deliberately.
There are myriads of convictions where classified information never left the possession of the person convicted.
In Clinton's case the classified information actually did come into the posession of third parties.
But not to our certain knowledge of foreign powers - though it is generally accepted in the intelligence community that anything on Clinton's server is now in the possession of numerous foreign powers both friendly and otherwise.
The act has been revised and extended since then 18cfr793 is a completely new section.
The language you are citing may or may not be present in other sections - but as you quoted it, it is NOT found in 18cfr793f
You are engaged in the most circular logic.
Whether you (or I) like it or not, Mens Rea (intent) is no longer a requirement of any federal law that does not explicitly require it. That change occured AFTER Gorin.
Republicans have been trying to add a defult Mens Rea requirement - Democrats have opposed.
Many laws have explicit Mens Rea requirements.
Many laws - Such as 18cfr793f have EXPLICIT recklessness or negligence standards.
Long before Gorin courts have recognized crimes of neglegince and recklessness as exempt from Mens Rea requirments. Essentially any law that has negligence or recklessness as an element DOES NOT require intent.
PERIOD, end of story. Solid case law for more than a century. Not even slightly controversial.
Within the scope of Federal Law, the only question - one that has been decided, is whether intent is necescary where the law does not specifiy a recklessness or negligence standard or some other criteria (such as statutory rape) that removes the general requirement for intent.
With respect to Federal law the current state of the law is that intent is only an element of a crime when it is cited as such in the law. I beleive that is wrong, but it is the current law.
Further as 187cfr793f uses a recklessness/negligence standard there is no intent requirement.
But that is not the ONLY flaw in you argument.
The very court you cite specifies that intent can be established from merely improper possession and handling of classified documents. The Gorin case aquited Gorins wife - because she had no duty to know the materials she was dealing with were classified. ALL government employees do.
One of the reasons journalists have not been convicted - aside from the First amendment issues, is that they are not government employees and have no duty with regard to Classified documents.
The more relaxed standard you are trying to apply ONLY holds for people without that duty.
So we have the very case you are relying on says that improper possession or handling by someone with a duty to protect is sufficient for intent without any other explicit evidence of intent.
Making Clinton's actions a more serious violation 18cfr793(e) rather than f.
We also have the fact that intent rarely has to be specific - i.e. you do not need to intent to kill the guard at the bank to be convicted of felony murder - all you need is to have participated in a robbery where someone is killed.
Nor is is the requisite intent so narrow as the intent to do something illegal.
It is sufficient to intend to do something you know that you ought not, legal or otherwise, and subsequently having commited an act that with intent would be a crime.
Clinton admittedly subverted FOIA requests. That is sufficient to meet an intent standard for any other act that she committed that was otherwise criminal.
"We addressed your examples. They all showed intent, were prosecuted under the Military Code of Conduct, or were not charged."
For the most part they show exactly the same "intent" as clinton.
As an example Kristian Saucier "intended" to take a picture, and he intended to send it to others.
Just as Clinton intended to send emails and store them on her server.
Saucier did NOT intend to transmit and store classified information - while he had a duty to know that the pictures he took - which were not marked classified at the time, were classified - just as Clinton had a duty to know that the emails that she sent and received some of which were marked classified at the time.
Further Saucier's duty was LOWER. Saucier is not a classified source. Taking a picker of his work place and sharing it with his friends is just about the only way he could create a classified document.
While much of what Clinton said and did - whether marked at the time was inherently classified and she knew it.
Anytime Clinton discussed Drone Targets as an example - whether verbally, in an email, or in any other way that communication was Classified and she was duty bound to know that.
If it was outside her ability to live up to that duty - she was obligated to resign as Sec State.
No actually the prosecutions were NOT under the military code of conduct.
Nearly all of these were investigated by the FBI, and prosecuted by the DOJ not the Military, and convicted in federal courts, all using federal law.
"Kristian Saucier, 29, of Arlington, Vermont, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the District of Connecticut to one count of unauthorized possession and retention of national defense information."
That is NOT a military tribunal, and NOT the military code of conduct.
Again you are unfamiliar with the facts - Risen was investigated by the FBI, Subpeona's for wiretaps, communications and records were issued secretly and the justification was violations of the espionage act.
Risen may never have been charged with such violations, but he was activiely investigated for violations of the espionage act and threatened with prosecution.
Holder is an abysmally credulous witness.
Here is Holder himself admitting exactly what you say is not true - OOPS!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141029/17394228983/eric-holder-says-he-regrets-lying-to-judge-saying-reporter-was-co-conspirator-law-made-him-do-it.shtml
Still got mice in your pockets or have joined the borg.
Regardless, your credibility on double standards is ludicrous.
George Bush overstated the case that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons relying too strongly on British intelligence that even the British thought was weak and democrat pilloried him for a decade.
You are still calling relying on poor evidence "a lie".
Clinton concocted the "spontaneous response to a youtube video" meme from whole cloth. Then went looking for a video and had to change to a different video when she found no one had ever watched the first one prior to the event (almost no one watched the one she finally settled on either).
She then went on to see that the producer of the film was jailed.
And democrats continue to say "nothing there".
Do you get it - no one beleives you anymore.
Unless Comey's public statement is entirely false, the evidence is already present.
John Say: As an example Kristian Saucier "intended" to take a picture, and he intended to send it to others. Just as Clinton intended to send emails and store them on her server.
Saucier knew the pictures were classified and relating to the national defense. Clinton says she was not aware that the information was classified. The FBI investigated and could not find sufficient evidence of intent to bring charges.
John Say: Can you PLEASE actual read the decisions you are citing.
We have read them, and quoted them extensively, while you simply wave your hands and say "Is not!"
Saucier had LESS knowledge that his photograph was classified or related to national defense than Clinton.
You really think that Saucier - a machinist is more likely to know that a picture he took of the steam plant in a submarine - something you can probably find through google is classified - the lowest level of protected information, than Clinton - the Secretary of State is to know that information classified ABOVE top secret is not to be bandied about on the internet ?
Get a clue! Lets make this simple. Saucier had the lowest possible security clearance - if any. Clinton had the highest. Almost nothing Saucier dealt with was classified. Almost everything Clinton dealt with was highly classified. If Clinton talked to Pres. Obama or the President of Egypt or almost anyone about almost anything it was probably classified at some level.
Quite simply if the secretary of state has no clue what is an is not classified - then she is unqualified for that or any other government job and should have resigned.
Do you understand that in significant portions of her offices cell phones, black berry's, pretty much all electronics except those installed by NSA are not allowed ? They are taken and returned on leaving.
So do you think that if maybe several times a day you have to turn over your cell and other devices that maybe you would get the idea that what was said, or read in those places was classified and probably should not find its way into emails ?
The FBI was not permitted to find intent, otherwise they would have had no trouble. It was starring them - and you in the face.
I guess maybe it is the royal "we" or is it the papal one, or is it the voices in your head ?
Thus far you have not actually quoted the decision. You have misquoted, quotes of a law that has subsequently been substantially rewritten that are quoted in the decision.
Quotes from an old version of the law are NOT holdings. They are NOT the conclusion of the court.
SCOTUS affirmed Gorin's conviction and elsewhere wrote that mere improper possession or transmission, or storage of any classified item listed in the law was sufficient to demonstrate intent for someone with a duty to protect.
Just to be perfectly Clear Gorin means EXACTLY the opposite of what you are claiming.
https://goo.gl/PiR2zW&aqjh
https://goo.gl/5d71E5&hogez
https://goo.gl/2Gx4kS&wyljd
https://goo.gl/2pfQ6P&aher
https://goo.gl/mBeMgC&yfyqo
https://goo.gl/hqFGba&awof
https://goo.gl/TFZXHB&sjgu
https://goo.gl/gSBA6q&kilez
https://goo.gl/WJRD6J&utuq
https://goo.gl/wMSFZC&ocedi
https://goo.gl/xbvxJC&iljbi
https://goo.gl/wtaadB&oqamy
https://goo.gl/M5hwVr&atup
https://goo.gl/1ZyU1t&heca
https://goo.gl/43Wvht&ivuse
https://goo.gl/wxSEPD&kubu