Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People [View all]Gothmog
(145,256 posts)187. Do you tire of being wrong?
You seem to delight in being wrong and I am really having fun laughing at your posts. First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf
Between in or about August 2011, and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials. ....
Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924
Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924
This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.
Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf
18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....
In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.
The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.
Remember that the Special access material being discussed are e-mails discussing New York Times articles about droned. Material published in the NYT is not classified and no DOJ attorney will be silly enough to bring an indictment based on that claim.
Keep up the good work. Your posts are really funny. Lawyers enjoy it when laypersons make obvious mistakes on legal questions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It's actually unbelievable. Keystone Kops in a way. Secretary of State, FFS.
CentralCoaster
Apr 2016
#27
IdaBroggs, this is a concise explanation! Well done! However, I think you should add...
FourScore
Apr 2016
#69
ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#101
That is not a good analysis. You can get ten years for leaving secret docs on a bar stool.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#139
Here's something I learned . . . there are NO government documents marked "classified"
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#72
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#140
No. Much of the TS classified material was NSA information dealing with events in Libya.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#151
What I see: of 127 Sid emails, only one appears to have been partial redacted by the Comm.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#194
There was one email where a name was redacted unnecessarily. You failed to make your case here.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#196
I am amused that you actually think that you understand the legal concepts being discussed
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#184
Delighted you are amused. But, again you err. Petraeus' binders weren't marked classified, but
leveymg
Apr 2016
#185
Nowhere does that state that his books were marked classifed; Sec 1924 and 793 r different statutes
leveymg
Apr 2016
#188
I thought DiFi was busy lying to the American people about the wretched effects legal weed is having
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2016
#163
This is one of those bait and switch analyses. Doesn't mention Sec. 793 the statute most
leveymg
Apr 2016
#145
I make a living parsing federal and state statutes for things such as intent and mens rea.
leveymg
Apr 2016
#154
There are six separate crimes under 793. (e) and (f) do not require specific intent
leveymg
Apr 2016
#161
When was the last time that you or someone you knew had just one FBI agent investigating personaly
nolabels
Apr 2016
#99
GOP created this story, and did so to try and destroy Hillary Clinton's chances to be president.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#80
They didn't create *the facts* of what she did, which apparently warrant investigation, at a minimum
JudyM
Apr 2016
#84
He brought approx 150 emails when he was subpoenaed by the Benghazi committee.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#88
TRUE: "The mere fact that it exists was a breach of security with potential consequences."
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#29
You can carry the conservative Republican water all you like, won't make this issue more palatable
Tarc
Apr 2016
#68
No, TARC is a liberal, a Democrat who supports the party and is aware
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#81
So you openly have hatred for the Democratic Party, noted. I know why
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#92
That is ludicrous. Which of us will vote to prevent women from dying from self abortions?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#94
That is not the point, is it. Your attitude is carried with you everywhere you go.
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#105
Really, your very negative attitude about Hillary is only expressed here on DU?
Jackie Wilson Said
Apr 2016
#109
Again, categorically false, per the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#133
Sticking to the facts is a great idea-why don't you provide the sourcing for your so-called facts?
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#134
I'm ready for it to wrap up. Surely they have enough of whatever they're looking for. Let's do this!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Apr 2016
#43
She wanted a custom ultra secure BlackBerry like Barak's and they would not give her one.
gordianot
Apr 2016
#56
Thank you and bookmarking :) - Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People nt
slipslidingaway
Apr 2016
#48
I've seen a number of videos on this and this looks like a great job. . . THANKS!
pdsimdars
Apr 2016
#71
The fact that you are not disclosing your sourcing is all anyone needs to reject this sad OP
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#110
I like complicated which which is why I sourced each and every one of my posts
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#135
Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent.
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#130
The fact that you have no sourcing for your silly and false claims is sad but amusing
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#171
Guccifer took screen shots/made copies of Hillary & Sidney Blumenthal's email.
IdaBriggs
Apr 2016
#166
Yes, it helps a lot. What a bizarre twist to an already convoluted
Land of Enchantment
Apr 2016
#182
Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails
Gothmog
Apr 2016
#127