‘No!’: Anchor Chris Wallace Fiercely Pushes Back Against Democrat’s Clinton Email Cla

Mitigated does not imply made guiltless, especially in the presence of the word 'somewhat'. By the way mitigating only means you do less time...

 

I never said it did. It could mean less time if we were talking about a criminal act which we are not. What it means is that her failure to abide by the Records Act is mitigated by the fact that she turned over 30,000+ emails. You can put what meaning you want to that and so can I as to what degree it is mitigating. To me considering she is the only one that did provide records that may be in question and the conclusion of the OIG report is that this was systemic failure within the State Department pretty absolves her of any wrong-doing. I am sure you interpret it differently but that does not make your interpretation any more or less valid than mine.

 

Since no one but her saw those emails we don't know if theywere private or not. we have only her word that theyw ere and that isn't good enough.

 

and one that was addressed between Powell's and Clinton's administration. They establish a mitigating circumstance and generally a mitigating circumstance only means you don't get the maximum sentence.

- - - Updated - - -

Negligence is a criminal act in this case...

 

Not good enough for you maybe. I find it perfectly acceptable.

 

We don't disagree. She couldn't turn over all the emails, because she didn't have them. That is the violation. NARA archives all of them and missing one would be a violation. That she turned over the all the other emails is the mitigating factor for the violation, therefore lessening the violation.

 

What are you talking about? The systemic failures inside the State Department were not addressed until SOS John Kerry implemented every one of the OIG's recommendation.

Also there is NO CRIMINAL penalty for a violation of the records act and their is NO PENALTY at all as is clearly spelled out in the OIG report. There is NO MENTION of ANY CRIMINAL acts in the OIG Report.

 

Your quote mentions DEFENSE. Clinton was Secretary of STATE… diplomacy, not defense. If she had emailed defense secrets to someone not qualified, they would have ALREADY charged her, but they haven't.

 

OK. The degree it lessens the violation is left up to interpretation. I view as an almost complete absolvement of any wrong-doing simply because...and again...the OIG report clearly concludes that the issues were systemic to the State Department and the Office of Secretary of State not to on Secretary in particular.

 

And where is the link proving that DEFENSE secrets ran through her server on her email? You can't provide one, because there isn't proof that DEFENSE secrets were mishandled in her emails.

That you don't know the difference between defense and diplomacy has something to do with your depth of knowledge on this situation. I won't claim expertise, but I have read a good bit about this subject and stand by my post. It's up to you to disprove it with credible evidence, not your opinion.

 

Not good enough as in not in compliance with the law... Oh and I wouldn't take any politicians word on that sort of thing, I simply don't trust people for whom, as a class, lying is a way of life.

 

Again your opinion and not fact. Even if sure turned over every email that was ever sent to her or sent by her it would still not be in accordance with the record act so that part has no bearing on it.

I am sorry you have such a low opinion of politicians. If you have such a low opinion of all politicians why are you politically active then? Sounds like self flagellation to me.

 

Have you been asleep the last six months, Rip? And it isn't strictly military secrets it is all classified documents.

 

There is actually no 3rd party passage requirement for 18 USC 793(f)1 or 2. It simply has to be removed from its proper place of custody through gross negligence (see a and b for intentional and d and e for willful) or lost, abstracted, destroyed etc. It doesn't have to be marked classified, just nat def info. Hint: Those 22 TS/SCI level bits of intel in 7 email chains that they wouldn't released at all? Yeah those? Nat def info, per se.
Proper place of custody for those is only in an SCIF (secure compartmented information facility ) not on her server at home and certainly not if the server is hooked up to the civilian internet.

As to being STATE v DEFENSE: Sec State handles foreign policy. If you don't think there is copious nat def info a sec state deals with, both originating and receiving, as part and parcel to doing the job, then I can't help you.

 

Didn't Jake Sullivan do that just that under the direction of Hillary Clinton, who told him to remove the "Classidied" designation from the document she wanted?

 

Except we don't have any evidence of what sullivan did after that email. Did he take a document with markings, make a copy and white out the markings then make a clean copy and send that in an email or over unsecure fax? Maybe. IIRC they're claiming the secure fax started working and they used that though. Or alternatively they claim that the words "turn it into non paper" means "remove all classified information and send me everything else" instead of "take off the markings and send it to me".

 

1st the OIG does not speak to criminal negligence in the handling of classified documents, that's the FBI's bailiwick and what the FBI is currently investigating. In fact it is widely expected that Director comey will recommend an indictment this fall. Exactly how the Obama justice department will respond will almost certainly be a function of how the polling looks ay that time.

 

So, still no credible link for you to disprove what I said? I didnt think so. If you can't prove what you're saying, then stop responding to my posts. I don't care what your opinion is, especially because it is wrong. I'm going to bookmark this post though, and when the FBI report comes out, I'm going to remind you about it.

- - - Updated - - -

So, do you have a credible link that disproves what I said or proves what you're saying? I'll understand when you don't.

 

Do I have a credible link to the no 3rd party passage requirement? Yes, United States v Dedeyan.

Do I have a credible link to the gross negligence portion? Yes, please see 18 USC 793(f) plain language thereof.

The 22 TS/SCI bits in 7 chains? Google should help you with that. Should help you figure out that something classified above top secret is nat def info as a matter of law too. Hint: the fact that they won't release even the headers of the emails and instead released pages and pages of black line redaction only should serve as a cluebat that that info is nat def info.

 

I've seen them all. I've also read the entire threads where you argued Dedeyan.

The point is if she had violated the Espionage Act with military/defense information, she would have already been charged and she hasn't.

Everything else in the Espionage Act requires intent, and it has been published in several places that there is no evidence indicating intent.

Now, what I was asking is if you have a credible link that says she emailed military or defense classified information. I know you don't have a link for that, because there is no evidence that she did so. There is no evidence that any of her emails contained material that was classified at the time it was sent. The 22 emails that you refer to were all classified AFTER the fact, as were 1300 emails. The only difference between the 1300 and the 22 is in the level of classification given AFTER the fact. If they weren't classified at the time they were sent to her, then there is no intent to mishandle that information.

My position in this entire email situation is that she shouldn't have set up the server, but she did, and that she may have mishandled information and violated NARA regulations, but it will result in no charges. Until the FBI releases their report, neither you or I can be proven right or wrong. However, the information already released indicates that the likelihood of her being charged on anything having to do with the server or the emails is exceedingly small.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-emails-300-screened-121438 There's probably acouple of thousand more going all the way back to 2013 and from virtually every ajor news Outlet if you haven't seen them you haven't bothered to look.

 

Everything else does because everything else is either willful or intentional by plain language of the statute, but not 793 f. f is gross negligence.

What makes you think she'd already have been charged? When was the last time we had the sec state have an unapproved server, unsecured (under the definition of the act if its not the gov approved and set up security, its not secure), hooked up to the internet (doesn't matter who put what on it, if its hooked to civilian net its not secure), and filled with more than 2000 pieces of classified intel, at her home and then at a facility in new jersey and then backed up to Connecticut? 22 of those pieces being TS/SCI info that should never be outside of an SCIF period? O we haven't had that before? Ok then.

What makes you think that even though she has violated this statute that she WILL be charged at all? You said you read the other 2 threads. What did I say in the other 2 threads would be the reason clinton was never charged over this? Was it.... political considerations? Well?


You claim you read those threads. Go back and refresh yourself. What's illegal to mishandle is nat def information. That does not HAVE to have a marking on it to BE nat def info. Certain types of information one given a security clearance is TRAINED to RECOGNIZE as potential nat def info and to ERR on the side of CAUTION over. << Mrs. Clinton had that training not once but twice (she was a senator remember?) and signed affidavits swearing that she KNEW the penalties for violating the duty she had taken on. 793f being part of that.
It didn't NEED to be MARKED at the start. Its the info not the marking that triggers the statute.

Again: f does not require an intent to misuse, f involves GROSS NEGLIGENCE which is the lack of care that even a careless person might use. Hillary clinton is such a person, unless you're saying she WILLFULLY held all that (*)(*)(*)(*) and set it up etc... is that what you're saying?
Because it DID happen. The only thing remaining to be answered is "on purpose or an oopsie". At that level EITHER will (*)(*)(*)(*) you. Or rather they WOULD if the law was followed, which it will not be for political reasons.

 

That disproves absolutely nothing I've said. Perhaps you should re-read my post, since you obviously don't understand what I am asking you to disprove. If you have a link that PROVES she intentionally sent military or defense secrets to someone that shouldn't have had them and that she knew they were top secret or otherwise classified AT THE TIME, then link it. You won't find one, because none of her emails contained information that she KNEW was secret at the time and it wasn't even classified as secret until after the emails were released.

Until you have a link that shows those things, don't bother replying to my post. I don't give two hoots what Chuck Grassley has to say.

 

If she sent an email with classified military or defense secrets to someone unqualified to get them, that were marked that way when she received or sent them, that is slam dunk Espionage. No other proof is necessary. It's binary. She either did or she didn't. Since the emails were in the purview of a Congressional hearing, had there been a slam dunk case of espionage, she would have been charged and it would have been all over the news&#8230; but that didn't happen, hasn't happened, and isn't going to happen.

I don't think she will be charged with anything over the emails, the server, or the Congressional hearings. There isn't a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, and most importantly, mishandling classified information happens all the time, but has only been litigated when intent was present.

What she has violated is NARA, by not having the first couple of months of her emails archived. There is no legal punishment for violation of that regulation, and the OIG and NARA agree that the other emails mitigate the violation. According to the "scathing" report by the OIG, she also should have asked her subordinates for permission to set up a server in her home, but she didn't. That also has no legal implications.

Are there political considerations? There most certainly are. Any lawyer that took this case to court better have every duck in a row, a preponderance evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or he/she is committing professional suicide trying to bring down a presumed Presidential nominee before the election.

 

Like I said the OIG report does not list Criminal anything. So I am glad you agree with me on that.

As to your claim that the FBI Director will recommend charges this fall please list your source for this little nugget of heretofore unknown quality.