Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

AG Barr says spying on Trump campaign 'did occur,' but provides no evidence

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Apr 10, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Senior

    289
    63
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Let me see if I understand correctly the classified emails that showed up on Mrs Clinton's server were not intentionally put there. Mrs Clinton knew for a fact her server was not in compliance or within security protocols yet she never intended to put classified material on it even though classified material was exchanged between her and others using that server. Perhaps now you understand why people are confused?
     
  2. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Then how did the emails with the portion markings end up on the unclassified network? Emails with portion markings on them don't just randomly show up on unclassified networks, someone had to put it there. To use your analogy, we have a dead body with two gunshot wounds to the head, so suicide isn't all that likely and it's not natural causes.

    And please don't try and say "Well, the person who put the portion markings on the email may not have known what they mean." If a person has access to materials with portion markings on them, then they have signed an NDA and stating they understand what classified information is and they are legally responsible to protect it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    I recommend reading this article:
    Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

    It will answer your questions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Senior

    289
    63
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Been through and heard Mr Comey's explanation. Yet I would bet my last dollar had it been anyone else that did what Mrs Clinton did they would be locked up in jail even if they pleaded there was no malicious intent on their part concerning the storage of classified documents and emails on their personal server.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    1,573
    241
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,965
    592
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    A one sentence bio of the writer of the article.
    John Ford is a former military prosecutor and a current reserve U.S. Army Judge Advocate. He now practices law in California.


    My guess is that his credentials make him much more credible than the Trump acolytes chanting "lock her up!". By the way same applies to James Comey who is frequently savaged by the Dear Leader and his sheep-like followers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    What were your thoughts again on the presumption of innocence and due process? :emoji_joy:

    Respectfully, you're not a lawyer, you didn't investigate this issue, and you don't have the facts needed to make the assumptions you are. This "issue" was silly two years ago. It's even sillier that some of y'all still bring it up constantly. A prosecutor who ignores the law for partisan pursuits has no business serving in that role.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Senior

    289
    63
    273
    Dec 31, 2016
    Obviously you missed the point about people being confused. I may have my personal opinion about the situation but I have to accept Mr Comey's assessment as that is what was determined. I am not the one asking for a redo concerning the findings.

    As for your statement concerning a prosecutor who ignores the law for partisan pursuits has no business serving in that role I couldn't agree with you more.

    You are also correct in that I am not a lawyer by trade not do I ever intend to become one. What I do know is lawyers will look for every reason to protect their client and that is what they get paid to do. Keep in mind the client concerning Mr Comey's and Mr Barr's assessment is the public not an individual.
     
  9. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    I understand why people are "confused." They wanted a certain outcome and didn't get it. Thus, due to their not knowing the legal issues in play here, they assume that something nefarious happened. This is the most important part of the article:
    "Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required 'intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.' Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny . . . In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Still doesn’t answer the question on the person that sent emails with portion markings on them. Clear intent. Once again, it’s a dead body with two gun shots to the head. It’s didn’t happen by accident.

    I’m not arguing that Clinton should have been charged here (I think she should have) but that not one single person was charged even though the FBI had several people that could have easily been charged.

    Also go back and see what the DOJ did in the NSA whistleblower case. They specifically stated they did not have to prove intent after charging one individual.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
  11. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    It answers that question. And I don't care what the DOJ said in a separate case (of which you provide no details). The law is the law.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Not it doesn’t as there was clear intent to violate lawful classification restrictions. You have an individual either scan a classified document onto an unclassified network or hand jam it on to an unclassified network. It doesn’t get much more clear than that when it comes to intent to violate the law.

    I’ll go back and dig up the NSA whistleblower information later tonight.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    I'll go with the actual lawyers who had the actual evidence. Your speculation isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Showing that emails including classified documents were sent is not even close to enough. You have an axe to grind, but that doesn't make a case.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    You have to understand that the person sending the emails with portion markings had to have a very deliberate process to remove the classified information off a classified system and onto an unclassified system. This is completely different than HRC, who was just the recipient of the email and was not involved in moving the classified information. What the sender did is something that the system is specifically designed to prevent. It is very hard to argue that intent could not be proven when a deliberate process had to be set up to go around the safeguards that the government set up to prevent this exact thing from happening.
     
  15. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    Which statute do you allege that violated?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Here is the NSA case where the defendant was charged with willful retention:

    Government arguments
    The prosecution also contended that it had no legal obligation to prove Drake's intent to harm national security, saying that it "does not have to prove that defendant intended to harm the country" under the specific part of the Espionage Act that Drake was charged with; 18 U.S.C. § 793(e)

    Thomas A. Drake - Wikipedia

    These cases are extremely similar and no one was charged in the Clinton case, while Drake was charged. If the DOJ could charge Drake with a crime, the same DOJ could charge who ever sent the emails with portion markings on them as well.
     
  17. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    I (well, the author in my article) already explained why that statute does not work for what you're alleging:
    You also conveniently overlooked the DOJ dropping the charges under that statute and pleading him out to a single misdemeanor charge. They could have "charged" Hillary. But you don't charge people if you don't believe you can get a conviction. Doing so on partisan grounds is an abuse of the office. Considering Hillary's profile, DOJ isn't going to charge her unless they can get a conviction.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Again, I am not talking about HIllary, I am talking about the person who sent the emails to her with portion markings on them. There was clear intent there and the Obama DOJ has already stated they did not even need to prove that. So why wasn’t that person charged with a crime?

    This is just part of the reasoning behind those on the right pointing out that Clinton’s entire staff/team received special treatment for her case when it is compared to others.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    6,384
    1,631
    718
    Oct 30, 2017
    Again, the author of the article clearly explained it and cited to a SCOTUS case. You can choose to ignore the law, but I'm not going to go around in circles with you in such a scenario. Any alleged case against the person who sent the emails would be far weaker than the case against Drake (that got pled down to nothing) and would come off as a politically motivated prosecution. It also would not result in a conviction, nor could it.

    You can keep pushing this boulder up the hill, but you need to familiarize yourself with the law if that is your aim. You are miles off the mark and doing yourself no favors when you ignore anything that doesn't support your desired conclusion.

    Also, while we're on the topic of you not having the law straight here, Thomas Drake was NOT charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(f). He was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which is a completely different provision. You could not charge Hillary or the person who sent the email with a 793(e) violation. Thus, Drake's case is not analogous. Here's the indictment from the Drake case:
    https://fas.org/sgp/news/2010/04/drake-indict.pdf

    You're an intelligent guy, my Nole friend. Let whatever this is go. Comey and the DOJ made the right call.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  20. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,766
    154
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Instead of continuing to go around and around on this, lets agree that article you provided is one of which a lot of respected lawyers on the left believe is accurate, while there are a lot of respected lawyers on the right that firmly disagree. Also, if there was a military member that was the sender and/or receiver of any of the classified emails, they could be charged with a violation of the UCMJ regardless of intent.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.