New Clinton Email lawsuit

a reply to: Indrasweb

It came from Judicial Watch's court paper filings:

www.judicialwatch.org...


"On or about September 14, 2016, ODNI announced that no Intelligence Community-wide damage assessment into Secretary Clinton’s email practices would be conducted and that no individual Intelligence Community member would conduct such an assessment.”

The actual court filing can be read here:

www.judicialwatch.org...

The source appears here:

freebeacon.com...

"ODNI is not leading an [intelligence community]-wide damage assessment and is not aware of any individual IC element conducting such formal assessments," Joel D. Melstad, a spokesman for the of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said.

So this is not based on an anonymous source, or un-named government official...

It came from Joel D. Melstad, a spokesman for the of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Should be easily verifiable since they directly quoted the source.

EDIT: It doesn't actually say any IC element was forbidden....just that they are not aware of any. I wanted to clarify that point specifically.

Personally, I believe the lead agency would be the Department of State since it happened while she was SoS. I don't really trust the Dept. of State, they have not been trust worthy to conduct that type of assessment...too many coverups were going on to trust them.

The IG of the Dept. of State should initiate the assessment, if they have not already begun so. There is no evidence that I can find to suggest that the Dept. of State has done this assessment, hence the lawsuit from Judicial Watch which names the Dept. of State as a litigant, along with several other federal agencies.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

O

No ms. maple syrupz, we're not talking about YOUR brain damage, rather, the investigation into the Clinton email scheme.

I would tell you to think critically, but I don't want you to hurt yourself.

Hey trumptard, work harder on your trolling ways, there weak at best.

Hey, let's not resort to ad hominem attacks.

Second, please learn and master the use of "their", "they're', and "there". It would go a long way in supporting your assertions if you were not consistently using those incorrectly. Yes, that is focusing on semantics. Guess what? Words, and the way we use them, matter.

At the same time, Clinton and her emails absolutely need to continually be investigated.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Just an fyi, this is the same group that claims they would go after bush jr and cheney for war crimes, i dont know why people keep on using them to push there agenda.

This is just click bait, nothing will come out of this.

Yup. Nothing will happen. These people are obsessed. I'm not pro hillary by any stretch of the imagination, but christ you people need to move on. There are far more significant concerns to focus on than your weird obsession with this woman.

Here's the actual text of ICD 732. (The link will download a pdf to your browser.)

The effective date is June 27, 2014.


Clinton's final day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.

There's nothing in ICD 732 that makes it retroactive.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Here's the actual text of ICD 732. (The link will download a pdf to your browser.)

The effective date is June 27, 2014.


Clinton's final day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.

There's nothing in ICD 732 that makes it retroactive.

And you are sure that this is not an update to a previous directive issued under previous administrations?

It is. This is not some thing new that just popped up.....it is covered under previous EO's by prior presidents. It is the most current one to date.

a reply to: RickinVa

But the Judicial Watch lawsuit you're discussing is suing based on ICD 732, not previous EOs ...

Right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

But the Judicial Watch lawsuit you're discussing is suing based on ICD 732, not previous EOs ...

Right?

All new directives covered under the 1947 act are updates. Yes I am sure.

You are trying to say that there was no requirements prior to to June 27, 2014 to assess whether leaked classified information was damaging to national security.

That is an incorrect statement.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

But the Judicial Watch lawsuit you're discussing is suing based on ICD 732, not previous EOs ...

Right?

All new directives covered under the 1947 act are updates. Yes I am sure.

You are trying to say that there was no requirements prior to to June 27, 2014 to assess whether leaked classified information. That is an incorrect statement.

No, I'm not trying to say anything of the sort. Try reading.

I said, clearly that your subject, Judicial Watch, is suing under the provisions of ICD 732, which went into effect on June 27, 2014, and Clinton left the State Department Febuary 1, 2013, and that there is no retroactive provision in ICD 732.

Now, whatever that does to your head is your own issue.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: introvert

Hi again,

Well, it would appear that Hilary Clinton shared classified information with her lawyers who did not have the required clearance.

www.nationalreview.com...

Good point.

I wonder though...We learned that many of the emails that were classified were innocuous and did not actually contain classified government information. For example, one email was classified because it contained a news article on drone strikes in the Middle East. While it was still classified for the purposes of the investigation, would something such as that warrant a damage assessment?

The info it contained was publicly available.

There is a lot of context to this issue that makes it much more complicated than it is presented.

I'll be interested to see what comes of this though.

all of these questions u have are exactly why that assessment should take place. it would answer all of them

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

But the Judicial Watch lawsuit you're discussing is suing based on ICD 732, not previous EOs ...

Right?

All new directives covered under the 1947 act are updates. Yes I am sure.

You are trying to say that there was no requirements prior to to June 27, 2014 to assess whether leaked classified information. That is an incorrect statement.

No, I'm not trying to say anything of the sort. Try reading.

I said, clearly that your subject, Judicial Watch, is suing under the provisions of ICD 732, which went into effect on June 27, 2014, and Clinton left the State Department Febuary 1, 2013, and that there is no retroactive provision in ICD 732.

Now, whatever that does to your head is your own issue.

Doesn't do anything to my head at all. As I stated previously, I believe that it is up to the IG of the State Dept. to conduct/order a damage assessment review which is covered under US Code 32, which is why they are named as a litigant in the suit.

See you in a few years whenever, if ever the case gets resolved.

a reply to: RickinVa

Sure, we'll see.

a reply to: Arnie123

It was Prolly. You said Prolly not Polly.

Sooooooo. We will just pretend that you didn't mean the word probably .

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

Sure, we'll see.

Based on the FBI's Directors statements in 2016 that their were indeed classified emails being passed around unclassified email systems, the ODNI should have followed it's own directive. It was given solid proof at that time.

a reply to: RickinVa

Perhaps the fact that the emails were composed and sent before ICD 732 was in place affected the decision.

Perhaps the DNI trusted the extensive investigation and conclusions that the FBI came to.

Perhaps the DNI wasn't interested in participating in Congresses poltiical theatre.

Perhaps State handled the matter internally as ICD 732 dictates.


Judicial Watch will apparently have its day in court; we'll know at that time.

Anything at this point is mere speculation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

From the original OP:

Judicial Watch has made repeated requests for information concerning any intelligence investigation of Clinton’s email practices:

On September 16, 2016, Judicial Watch sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to ODNI seeking access to records about the decision not to conduct the required assessment.

When ODNI failed to respond to the request within the time required by FOIA, Judicial Watchfiled suit. As of the date of this complaint, ODNI still has not produced any responsive records.

On January 10, 2017, Judicial Watchsent a letter to then-Director Clapper, National Counterintelligence Executive Evanina, and then-Secretary John Kerry formally requesting that “the damage assessment required by ICD 732 be commenced without further delay.”

We have received no response to our January request for a damage assessment, and we’re not aware of any report or announcement indicating that the assessment and resulting report required by ICD 732 has been conducted or prepared. Judicial Watch is therefore asking the court to:

[O]rder Defendants to conduct the required damage assessment and prepare a report in accordance with ICD 732 …

a reply to: RickinVa

Thanks for the re-recapitulation.

Judicial Watch will apparently have its day in court; we'll know at that time. Anything at this point is mere speculation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Here's the actual text of ICD 732. (The link will download a pdf to your browser.)

The effective date is June 27, 2014.


Clinton's final day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.

There's nothing in ICD 732 that makes it retroactive.

From an informative standpoint, do you (or anyone else) know if that is the latest revision of the directive?

Doesn't provision A cover your retroactive stance?

a reply to: JinMI

I'm not a law-enforcement agent or attorney, nor do I play one on ATS.

That said, The statement in Part A of ICD 732 establishes the legal authority of the Director of National Intelligence to put these regulations/policies/procedures into place for the American Intelligence Community (i.e the authority of that Office to set policy stems from the 1947 Act.)

ICD 732 very clearly went into effect on a certain date which was after all activity of Sec Clinton regarding email, classified or otherwise, had ceased.

A suit brought under ICD 732 is controlled and limited by the provisions of same.

As I understand it.

To me, this seems like JW just can't let the Clinton email scandal go. I find it unlikely that, given that ICD 732 calls for an internal investigation, which was conducted EXTENSIVELY by the FBI, that any court is going to give much weight to a citizen watchdog group that seems to be acting from obsession over a mostly "settled" matter.

Who knows why they're wasting their resources on this. Perhaps contributions have dropped off?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I get what your saying. If they are going to use the directive, they are bound by the provisions within it which would include when it went into effect.

My query is that given in the provisions are the AIC policy from 1947 and the EO from 2002 would cover anything before. Also, that is why I ask if this is the latest revision for the same purpose.

Honestly, it's just mud slinging at this point. The best evidence the FBI found and chose to use all mounted to an opinion that we all watched live.

I found it curious if JW is cherry picking from where it wants to draw its statutes from is all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a thought:

Let's say it does apply, but the IC/FBI or whomever is in the middle of doing their assessment.

Would they be in a position to not comment on an ongoing "investigation" and the FOIA request could be ignored until such time as the assessment is complete?