Welcome home, fellow Gator.

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

DOJ told FBI “No” on charging Clinton

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by CaptUSMCNole, Mar 13, 2019.

  1. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,666
    10,331
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Lol... and you have the facts in all of that? And that supposed action hurt you personally too?
     
  2. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    24,437
    1,865
    1,093
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Yes, yes, and yes. Imagine having your income and your retirement ripped from you because ticks like this don't have enough points on their scoreboard.

    [​IMG]

    Maybe he and king donnie were separated at birth.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,666
    10,331
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007

    And who is that a pic of? He looks shady...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    24,437
    1,865
    1,093
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    3,986
    464
    323
    Apr 16, 2007
    He looks spraytanned.

    (It's Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide Financial fame).
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    5,390
    1,440
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    The debate has and continues to be whether the "C" in the e-mails is enough to prosecute HRC; whether that means confidential or classified or information is classified. The OP proclaims himself an expert on classified information.

    That is not my training. My training is in law: what do you need to prove to prove a case. So, here is the inquiry lawyers would have to go through in deciding whether to prosecute Hilary.

    It is not as simple or "fun" as arguing that emails were marked with a "C" or had classified information, so it would be easy to prove a knowing and intentional violation because HRC was SOS. That is sound bite politics.

    For those of you interested in a legal education about the differences between the Espionage Act of 1917 (18 USC sec. 793) and the act addressing classified information (18 USC 798, which became law in 1950), I am linking an 80 page law review article from the Columbia Law Review in 1973. Because of the Pentagon Papers (Daniel Elsberg), this was a hot issue back then.

    As you recall from my posts above, the assertion has been made that HRC should have been charged with gross negligence for the handling of classified information under the Espionage Act of 1911. The statute literally punishes gross negligence in the handling of national defense secrets.

    in Gorin, SCOTUS held that the definition of national defense secrets is found in the Defense Secrecy Act of 1911 and that the Espionage Act is not unconstitutionally vague because a defendant must have specific intent with respect to the mishandling of national defense secrets.

    In Gorin at 312 US at p. 28, the Supreme court defined national defense secrets as follows: The traditional concept of war as a struggle between nations is not changed by the intensity of support given to the armed forces by civilians or the extension of the combat area. "National defense, the Government maintains, 'is a generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness.' We agree that the words 'national defense' in the Espionage Act carry that meaning. Whether a document or report is covered by §§ 1(b) or 2(a) depends upon their relation to the national defense, as so defined, not upon their connection with places specified in § 1(a). The language employed appears sufficiently definite to apprise the public of prohibited activities and is consonant with due process."

    Scotus approved the following instruction on the law that was given to the jury: 312 US at 30-31.


    "You are instructed that the term 'national defense' includes all matters directly and reasonably connected with the defense of our nation against its enemies. . . . As you will note, the statute specifically mentions the places and things connected with or comprising the first line of defense when it mentions vessels, aircraft, works of defense, fort or battery and torpedo stations. You will note, also, that the statute specifically mentions by name certain other places or things relating to what we may call the secondary line of national defense. Thus, some, at least, of the storage of reserves of men and materials is ordinarily done at naval stations, submarine bases, coaling stations, dock yards, arsenals and camps, all of which are specifically designated in the statute. . . . You are instructed, in the first place that, for purposes of prosecution under these statutes, the information, documents, plans, maps, etc., connected with these places or things must directly relate to the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of said places or things as instruments for defending our nation. . . . You are instructed that, in the second place, the information, documents. or notes must relate to those angles or phases of the instrumentality, place, or thing which relate to the defense of our nation; thus, if a place or thing has one use in peacetime and another use in wartime, you are to distinguish between information relating to the one or the other use. . . ."

    "The information, document, or note might also relate to the possession of such information by another nation, and, as such, might also come within the possible scope of this statute. . . . For, from the standpoint of military or naval strategy, it might not only be dangerous to us for a foreign power to know our weaknesses and our limitations, but it might also be dangerous to us when such a foreign power knows that we know that they know of our limitations."

    "You are, then, to remember that the information, documents, or notes which are alleged to have been connected with the national defense may relate or pertain to the usefulness, efficiency, or availability of any of the above places, instrumentalities, or things for the defense of the United States of America. The connection must not be a strained one, nor an arbitrary one. The relationship must be reasonable and direct."

    "Whether or not the information obtained by any defendant in this case concerned, regarded, or was connected with the national defense is a question of fact solely for the determination of this jury under these instructions."

    Here is the link to the Law Review article

    https://fas.org/sgp/library/edgar.pdf

    See pages 931-932, note 25, which addresses what is covered by the Defense Secrecy Act of 1911, which the Supreme Court says are the materials covered under the Espionage Act of 1917.

    Sec. 1. That whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense, to which he is not lawfully entitled, goes upon any vessel, or enters any navy-yard, naval station, fort, battery, torpedo station, arsenal, camp, factory, building, office, or other place connected with the national defense, owned or constructed or in process of construction by the United States, or in the possession or under the control of the United States or any of its authorities or agents, and whether situated within the United States or in any place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof; or whoever, when lawfully or unlawfully upon any vessel, or in or near any such place, without proper authority, obtains, takes, or makes, or attempts to obtain, take, or make, any document, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, plan, model, or knowledge of anything connected with the national defense to which he is not entitled; or whoever, without proper authority, receives or obtains, or undertakes or agrees to receive or obtain, from any person, any such document, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, plan, model, or knowledge, knowing the same to have been so obtained, taken, or made; or whoever, having possession of or control over any such document, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, plan, model, or knowledge, willfully and without proper authority, communicates or attempts to communicate the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or to whom the same ought not, in the interest of the national defense, be communicated at that time; or whoever, being lawfully intrusted with any such document, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, plan, model, or knowledge, willfully and in breach of his trust, so communicates or attempts to communicate the same, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    Sec. 2. That whoever, having committed any offense defined in the preceding section, communicates or attempts to communicate to any foreign government, or to any agent or employee thereof, any document, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, plan, model, or knowledge so obtained, taken, or made, or so intrusted to him, shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.

    _____________________________________

    POSTER's Comment: So, those who argue that HRC should be prosecuted under section 793(f) for gross negligence in handling national defense secrets would have to prove that the content of the e-mail satisfies those definitions to pass muster under the Supreme Court's decision in Gorin (which is evaluated and discussed extensively in the law review article).

    While information that meets this definition would be classified, not all classified information meets this definition.

    Gorin also held that specific intent is necessary to satisfy the constitution. So, the next question is: what is the definition of classified information? As you can see, it is broader than national defense secrets.

    _____________________________________________

    See page 1065: Section 798 defines classified info as classified that "which . is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution."

    ________________________________________--

    Posters note: the definitions are different.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2019
  7. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,849
    167
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    What kind of actions make up real estate fraud? Besides selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge. I always thought the skeletons in Trump's closet would be more tax fraud type things.
     
  8. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    24,437
    1,865
    1,093
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Seriously? 30+ years seeing it with my own two eyes? Where do I begin? I stopped counting after 15,000 files. The state of Florida, HUD, Fannie, Freddie, AIG etc and a whole bunch of other players put their money where my mouth was looking for the truth because they knew they screwed up. I'm not the best, but I'd like to think I'm in the top 3 (thank you Jeff Howell) Not bad work if you can get it. There isn't enough bandwith to explain it. That crap was deliberately planned and implemented so some of them could put more points on the scoreboard causing enormous damage. I've been in the war rooms and the courtrooms, so what could I possibly know?

    Keeping people dumb is where they're coming from. And nevermind the finacial bleepstorm just off the coast. Nothing to see here, keep moving.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,849
    167
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    I just never heard it referred to as real estate fraud. It always seemed like the charges would be related to crimes involving real estate would be financial crimes, tax fraud, bribery of local and state officials, that sort of thing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    7,809
    232
    388
    Apr 3, 2007
    One criminal at a time. The DOJ apparently can barely handle one case at a time. Lock Hillary away first, and then you can put Trump on trial.
     
  11. staticgator

    staticgator All American

    364
    61
    208
    Nov 27, 2016
    Cummings demands docs on Kushner's alleged use of encrypted app for official business
    [crickets]
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  12. WarDamnGator

    WarDamnGator GC Hall of Fame

    6,275
    446
    538
    Apr 8, 2007
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    3,631
    958
    618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Conservatives panties wound pretty tight over email procedures. Could care less about abuses in granting clearance. Credibility lost.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,666
    10,331
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Lol... :eek::D
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  15. BigCroc

    BigCroc Premium Member

    703
    109
    218
    Apr 3, 2007
    Maybe she can share a cell with Ivanka, Jared and other White House officials who are apparently using their private email accounts for official government use. :)

    "House Democrats are raising new concerns about what they say is recently revealed information from Jared Kushner’s attorney indicating that the senior White House aide has been relying on encrypted messaging service WhatsApp and his personal email account to conduct official business.

    The revelation came in a Dec. 19 meeting — made public by the House Oversight and Reform Committee for the first time on Thursday — between Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Rep. Trey Gowdy, the former chairman of the oversight panel, and Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell.

    Cummings, who now leads the Oversight Committee, says in a
    new letter to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that Lowell confirmed to the two lawmakers that Kushner “continues to use” WhatsApp to conduct White House business. Cummings also indicated that Lowell told them he was unsure whether Kushner had ever used WhatsApp to transmit classified information."
    Cummings demands docs on Kushner's alleged use of encrypted app for official business
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  16. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    633
    160
    288
    Jun 14, 2014
    Yeah but, Uranium One, Fast and Furious, Seth Rich, 10 trillion in debt, Seth Rich, Clinton Cash, Comey, witch hunt, infantacide, socialism, and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

    What about that?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  17. fredsanford

    fredsanford Premium Member

    9,924
    247
    548
    Dec 1, 2008
    Pure nonsense, all.
     
  18. fortunateson

    fortunateson Junior

    154
    49
    173
    Oct 4, 2015
    As compared to our current Resident of The White House?
     
  19. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,849
    167
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    If Jared and Ivanka have classified information in their emails, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

    The questions is whether or not, these individuals did not intentionally set up email accounts on the classified networks that are used for passing and discussing classified information.

    Hillary Clinton intentionally did not set up accounts on those classified systems as SecState because she did not want those emails to be FIOA'd and then be released after the classified information had been redacted. This almost ensured that there were going to be issues with the proper handling of classified during her time as SecState. The private server for unclassified email as SecState was probably legal but politically stupid. It was the combination of a private server and not having an classified email accounts that ended up with Clinton having classified info on her private, unsecured email server.

    Just remember that the FBI and DOJ have now stated that they have to be able to prove intent and that the law is constitutional vague. So anyone hoping Jared and Ivanka are going to be charged are probably going to be disappointed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    24,437
    1,865
    1,093
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Jared and Ivanka have friends in low places, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.