It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And exactly what past cases of a Secretary of State having over 2200 classified emails on an unclassified server in her house are you using as a past guideline??
Oh you aren't... you are just making crap up as you go along.
(f) 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 officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
So the FBI only spoke to her for three and a half hours. That's not the grueling interrogation some said would happen.
What can we make of that?
I can read... there is no need for willful intent..... how can you have willful intent and gross negligence? Willful intent means you intended to do it... gross negligence means exactly what it means
we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring 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.
As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal: “Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”
originally posted by: Willtell
Alan Dershowitz: Clinton 'in the Clear' With Private Email Use
Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday that the Justice Department's disclosure that Hillary Clinton broke no laws in using a private email account proved that "legally, she was always in the clear."
"The law requires that you have to know that what you're doing is illegal, there has to have been classification notifications," he said. "She was right when she said that there was nothing illegal about what she did at the time she did it and nothing that she had on her email was marked classified.
Wrong. First paragraph of the NDA. Marked or Unmarked, DOES NOT MATTER. She signed it. When asked about it she stated she does not recall signing it. Again, DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because there is also a witness who co-signs it. Not even sure why nobody called her out on it on day one. FBI can prove they were stripping pertinent info and pasting it. Some of it is word for word from secret information. Also impossible for her to see this information without someone stripping it and sending it to her. That is the only way she could have received the information.
"That doesn't mean it was good judgment," Dershowitz cautioned. "She's now acknowledged that she wished she hadn't done it. But the case is over as a legal case for all intents and purposes.
"She was never the target of any investigation. What she did was entirely legal," he added. "Now, the public has the right to judge her on whether what she did was right or wrong as a matter of judgment, whether she'd done enough to apologize.
Sorry folks Hillary is going to skate on this
"To indict, you have to show that it was marked 'classified,' not that later on it became classified," he told "Newsmax Prime" host John Bachman. "I think everybody agrees that, as far as we know, there have been no emails that have been marked classified."
FBI is going to burn her with a Flame Thrower.
How many anti Hillary lawyers do you need me to quote to counter your pro Hillary lawyers? 1,2,3,4, 5??
“I want to read to you Section 793 of the Penal Code, Subsection (f), because this is what Hillary Clinton – among other things, but this in particular – is what Hillary Clinton has to worry about.
“Here’s the law: ‘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 …”
"By the way, this is part of what’s called the Espionage Act.
“Subset one: ‘... 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 ...’
“Got that? I’ll get to the next section later. I’m hearing on TV: ‘It depends on her intent, it depends on her intent.’ No it doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).
Or two, “… 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 or abstracted…” and so forth.
“So here’s her problem. Subsection one: “… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody …’
“The entire server was not supposed to be – it turns out it’s in her barn. She has a barn on her property. So any classified information, including top-secret information, which is the highest of the classified information, Code Black top-secret information.
“I was read into these programs. I was trained. I can’t remember everything, I don’t have them now and by the way, it’s a lifetime requirement that you keep this information secret. It’s not like you leave the administration and you go blabbing about it. No. You can’t. You can never talk about it unless it’s been declassified.
“But let me underscore this again. It really is in plain English. Section 793, you can Google it yourself, of the Penal Code, Subsection (f): 'Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book…' and so forth and so on.
“… 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.”
“And I want to stop there because my point is when you set up an unsecured server in your barn adjacent to your home in Chappaqua, New York, you have intentionally – forget about negligence – you have intentionally bypassed the security process for that server.
“Now, that’s a higher standard. Let’s move it to the lower standard, which is still a crime.
"Let’s say you didn’t think or didn’t know that you were intentionally bypassing the process that is used to secure that server and that information, which seems absurd to me, but let’s play along.
“Okay, if you do it through gross negligence, you permit the same to be removed from its proper place. So I would argue to you, when that server was removed and information was flowing through it, including classified and especially top-secret information, boom. You did it.
“And every time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, that’s considered a count. You don’t aggregate at all. Every time that happened, that’s considered a violation of the statute.
“Now what’s the penalty if you’re found guilty? ‘Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.’ I didn’t check the fine, but I’m sure it’s substantial. Ten or 20 grand a violation.
“Now this is why typically the Justice Department, through the Public Integrity Section or the U.S. attorney’s office, would direct the FBI to get involved because of the potential criminality of what took place regardless of who the person is.”
originally posted by: angeldoll
CNN is reporting that according to their 'sources', following the investigation, and the interview with Sec. Clinton this morning, there will be NO CHARGES levied against her.
Now everybody can make up some other # and continue to waste millions in tax payer dollars searching for frivolous charges.