Will She, or Won't She?

Go to jail that is.

"It takes a very conscious effort to move a classified e-mail or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail account." - Raymond Fournier, veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent

FBI agents are zeroing in on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff Cheryl Mills or deputy chiefs Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan.

In one e-mail, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader.
“Just e-mail it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified e-mail system, there is no physical way for me to e-mail it.”

In another recently released e-mail, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified e-mail attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

She absolutely should be tried for treason. What she ordered her people to do was explicitly illegal. And knowingly removing classification from information when not authorized is absolutely considered to be treason.

There is just no excuse not knowing that. It is all spelled out in the information security training you have to take every single year. Of course, being Hillary, it will probably be found that she had her staff take that training for her, too.

Should, and going to are two different things.

She is guilty of violating (at a minimum) NISPOM section 8, which is a felony. If she didn't have the balls of Washington leaders in her purse, and possess the keys to bring down dozens of people in Congress, she'd go to jail.

Alas, the only thing that will happen to her is that she'll get to {bleep} over the U.S. completely for 4 to 8 years. I say "to 8" because if the public is stupid enough to elect her, then they're stupid enough to do it twice. Witness the Reign of His Majesty, King Obama.

Wayne

ilwrath said:

She absolutely should be tried for treason. What she ordered her people to do was explicitly illegal. And knowingly removing classification from information when not authorized is absolutely considered to be treason.

Click to expand...

Citation? While it may be a felony, what you describe is not "treason".

If winning six coin tosses on the trot is any indication....

JoBBo said:

Citation? While it may be a felony, what you describe is not "treason".

Click to expand...

Fascinating. You are certainly correct that it is a felony under several sections, including 18 USC 793.

I really could have sworn that the possible punishments included treason when I completed the training on handling classified information. I can't find the text to that training (heck, it, itself may be sensitive) or an actual section in which treason would be an authorized charge, though.

Wayne said:
"if the public is stupid enough to elect her, then they're stupid enough to do it twice."

Well, If this is any indication of the intelligence of Hillary's voters, then we are in serious trouble.

ilwrath said:

I really could have sworn that the possible punishments included treason when I completed the training on handling classified information. I can't find the text to that training (heck, it, itself may be sensitive) or an actual section in which treason would be an authorized charge, though.

Click to expand...

Before I posted here, I did do some basic research on whether the United States somehow had a vastly different concept of "treason" than most other countries but that does not seem to be the case. It is a very specifc charge. First, you must be able to prove that a foreign country unlawfully benefited from receiving access to any classified information due to actions of the accused party. Second, you must be able to prove that the accused party deliberately made the information available to foreign governments.

No matter how much anybody might hate Hillary Clinton, I would hope everyone can agree at least that she is not very likely to have planned to leak information to foreign governments.

Fade said:

Wayne said:
"if the public is stupid enough to elect her, then they're stupid enough to do it twice."

Well, If this is any indication of the intelligence of Hillary's voters, then we are in serious trouble.

Click to expand...

I bet you 100 USD that the result would be identical if you repeated the exact same poll (Karl Marx as Vice President) but replaced Hillary Clinton´s name with a Republican candidate...

JoBBo said:

Before I posted here, I did do some basic research on whether the United States somehow had a vastly different concept of "treason" than most other countries but that does not seem to be the case. It is a very specifc charge. First, you must be able to prove that a foreign country unlawfully benefited from receiving access to any classified information due to actions of the accused party. Second, you must be able to prove that the accused party deliberately made the information available to foreign governments.

No matter how much anybody might hate Hillary Clinton, I would hope everyone can agree at least that she is not very likely to have planned to leak information to foreign governments.

Click to expand...

You're true on that. I doubt she willfully planned to leak the information. But I could have sworn that willfully removing the classification (as she apparently ordered personnel under her to do) is the willful deliberate act in question, according to the government's own information. And that treason was a possible prosecution.

Now, the interesting part is that the training material may, indeed, overstate the possible prosecutions. What I can't find is the text of the training material she would have had to agree to to get her security clearance, to see if I'm mis-remembering, or if the training material deliberately overstates it's own power to prosecute.

In actual practice, Manning and Snowden would be the closest two cases, but both are rather different circumstances, as there was no doubt with either of them that it was a conscious decision to distribute that information.

While several other people who mishandled and accidentally leaked information that still contained the classification were charged with the lesser felonies mentioned above.

And none of the cases I know of involve a decision to illegitimately remove a classification.

JoBBo said:

I bet you 100 USD that the result would be identical if you repeated the exact same poll (Karl Marx as Vice President) but replaced Hillary Clinton´s name with a Republican candidate...

Click to expand...

And, it's not even that they're all that stupid or uninformed. (I'm sure a few are...) But it's been shown time and time again that when you flag down people like that, there will be some who just don't even listen to what is being said and do whatever the polite thing is to end the encounter as quickly and non-confrontationally as possible. In this case, the obvious way out is to slap a chicken scratch signature on a sheet of paper.

It is almost a comedy art form on a lot of Canadian and British TV comedy shows. Try and find the most ridiculous thing someone will agree to to get away.

JoBBo said
"I bet you 100 USD that the result would be identical if you repeated the exact same poll (Karl Marx as Vice President) but replaced Hillary Clinton's name with a Republican candidate."

You have a point to a certain extent. When pressed at an interview by an actual person, results can sometimes be misleading.

But when not pressed for an answer, as in the thread--- Don'tcha just love trick questions?, where a person volunteers to show how stupid they are, Democrats tend to win the contest hands down!

ilwrath said:

You're true on that. I doubt she willfully planned to leak the information. But I could have sworn that willfully removing the classification (as she apparently ordered personnel under her to do) is the willful deliberate act in question, according to the government's own information. And that treason was a possible prosecution.

Now, the interesting part is that the training material may, indeed, overstate the possible prosecutions. What I can't find is the text of the training material she would have had to agree to to get her security clearance, to see if I'm mis-remembering, or if the training material deliberately overstates it's own power to prosecute.

Click to expand...

If you ever find the material, let me know

In actual practice, Manning and Snowden would be the closest two cases, but both are rather different circumstances, as there was no doubt with either of them that it was a conscious decision to distribute that information.

Click to expand...

I do not have an opinion on the matter but if the press reports (and remarks from his lawyer) about Manning´s emotional / psychological state are to be believed, some people might argue that he was of unsound mind at the time. But Snowden is a pretty clear cut case at least.

And, it's not even that they're all that stupid or uninformed. (I'm sure a few are...) But it's been shown time and time again that when you flag down people like that, there will be some who just don't even listen to what is being said and do whatever the polite thing is to end the encounter as quickly and non-confrontationally as possible. In this case, the obvious way out is to slap a chicken scratch signature on a sheet of paper.

Click to expand...

True. We do not even know how many of the people in the video were actual Hillary supporters. We assume they are because the title of the video says so but there is good chance they were merely being polite as you pointed out. As soon as he pushed his luck and started to use words like "communist", the person he talked to just stared at him and refused to sign anything...

Fade said:

Don'tcha just love trick questions?, where a person volunteers to show how stupid they are, Democrats tend to win the contest hands down!

Click to expand...

There are plenty of stupid people in both parties as far as I can tell.

I have to say it is disheartening for me to see how much energy is wasted on "us" versus "them" conflicts that are predominently based on mere party affiliation and not substance in the US. Wouldn´t it be nice if people discussed ideas instead?