It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.
Having a private server was not illegal.
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.
...
Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.
...
These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.
Having a private server was not illegal.
It is when you store classified information on it.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements report (direct .pdf link)
Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.
...
Although this report does not address the safety or security of her system, DS and IRM reported to OIG that Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements specified by FISMA and the FAM.
...
These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff. These officials also stated that they were unaware of the scope or extent of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account, though many of them sent emails to the Secretary on this account.
She was not authorized and would not have received authorization to use a private, unsecured server.
But you know all of this.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert
Yep, she just did so accidentally.
Either she didn't know better and thus was inept and unfit for the position, or she did know better and was unfit for the position.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.
Having a private server was not illegal.
It is when you store classified information on it.
Exactly. Apparently they could not find that she intended to store classified info on the server.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Then nail them too, damn it. I don't care what letter they put by their name in regards to political affiliation. This, "but the other guys do it too," BS has got to stop.
Having a private server was not illegal.
It is when you store classified information on it.
Exactly. Apparently they could not find that she intended to store classified info on the server.
Or she never sent the particular emails that contained portion markings and cannot be held accountable for what another person did, down the list of replies in an email chain.
And if a previous Clinton family scandal hinged on what the definition of “is” is, the scandal around the emails appears to hinge on how you view that little (c) on the email about President Banda—as well as the 192 other classified emails identified by the FBI that together represent 0.48 percent of the some 40,000 emails Hillary Clinton sent and received over more than four years as the nation’s top diplomat, all running through a jerry-rigged computer server that let her stay comfortably on the BlackBerry she liked.
If you believe that, when then you are just plain ignorant.
The State Departments own guidebook for employees states that the majority of the information they deal with is classified.
You claim that she is so utterly and completely stupid that she didn't know what classified information was, and yet you think she would have been a great president.
Tells me all I need to know about your logic and reasoning.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert
Or she never sent the particular emails that contained portion markings and cannot be held accountable for what another person did, down the list of replies in an email chain.
You do know that it does not matter whether or not the information was marked, she should have known better.
And if a previous Clinton family scandal hinged on what the definition of “is” is, the scandal around the emails appears to hinge on how you view that little (c) on the email about President Banda—as well as the 192 other classified emails identified by the FBI that together represent 0.48 percent of the some 40,000 emails Hillary Clinton sent and received over more than four years as the nation’s top diplomat, all running through a jerry-rigged computer server that let her stay comfortably on the BlackBerry she liked.
Politico
Also, regardless of who sent or received the emails, she was responsible for actions undertaken by those to whom she had authority.
(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: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert
Any REASONABLE person would have been aware that a significant amount of their daily work and correspondence would be classified as Secretary of State.
Anybody.
She set up her server to handle her correspondence as SoS.
She is either utterly completely stupid, or she just didn't care.
You can believe what you want.
Intent is not a requirement to violate 18 USC 793F. One would think you would learn this by now instead of repeating democratic talking points that have been debunked many times now.
Even more so showing the coordinated collusion at the top of the FBI to exonerate the criminal Hillary Clinton.
Now pay attention cause its only like the 100th time this base been explained to you.
You cant have it both ways that she was the most qualified candidate to be President while arguing she was to stupid to know the law given her history.
originally posted by: introvert
As you were shown before, only one other person was charged under this statue and it was later dropped.
Comey explained mens rea and why intent is important.
originally posted by: introvert
By following precedence and understanding of the law?
originally posted by: introvert
Show me any other case where this statute was used to try someone without intent.
Please.
In McGuinness, the U.S. Court of Military Appeals rejected the defendant’s claim, and it did so in a way that is instructive for our purposes. The judges explained that in Section 793 (part of the codification of the Espionage Act of 1917), Congress sought to establish a sliding scale of violations involving the mishandling of classified information. The first subsection – Sec. 793(a) – requires proof of “intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Subsequent subsections – Sec. 793(d) and (e) – “require only that the accused act ‘willfully’” (i.e., in violation of a known legal duty, but not necessarily with intent to harm the U.S.). Finally, the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: “Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the judges matter-of-factly endorse Congress’s framework: There is no hint of a problem with the concept of employing the criminal law to punish a related series of national security offenses from the most serious, involving intent to harm the United States, down to the least serious, involving gross negligence. Within that framework, the court rejects the claim that the less serious offenses require proof of the higher criminal intent called for in the more serious offenses.
Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...
originally posted by: introvert
Just one case, please.