Welcome home, fellow Gator.

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

The Mueller Report Is Coming. Here’s What to Expect.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, Feb 22, 2019.

  1. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    22,614
    1,307
    983
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Just following the path of least resistance like genius businessmen do. It's the art of the deal. Believe me I must tell you. ;)
     
  2. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    Because the Dear Leader is at the top of the chain of command he is legally immune from prosecution for his obvious negligence and abuse of the process of reviewing applicants for security clearances. In other words, he can get away with acts with the potential to jeopardize national security far more serious than anything "Crooked Hillary" has done.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  3. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    A conviction would have been a given. She would have been forced to plea. Your argument as to title vs. body is totally irrelevant. IF she was operating on a USG server, as she was legally required to do, classified data would have been automatically marked very very clearly in the title.

    She really would have had no leg to stand on in defending herself to these charges, and we haven’t even gotten into the deletion of emails and destruction of devices and storage while under subpoena.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  4. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    You evidently have no idea about the facts of the case or the law applied to the Espoinage Act in civilian courts. We had multiple Hilary threads where we discussed this ad infinitum. I don’t know if those threads are still here or were deleted, but since the Hilary email case will not be in the Mueller report, we are going off topic. Did you know that the Espionage Act does not mention the words “classified?” Also, did you know that the vagueness challenge to the Act’s coverage— which was national defense secrets— was upheld because SCOTUS determined that the Act requires specific intent. Which email involved what the statute defines as national defense secrets. So, careless is not enough to constitutionally convict someone, at least in civilian courts. Nor is it clear that the Act applies where the information is passed to people authorized to receive, it albeit by a means different than the internal rules for passing information. But, no matter. That is not satisfactory for the “lock her up” crowd. Find me the provision of the Espoionage Act that prohibits the sending of classified information on a private server to people authorized to receive the information. It might be difficult to find in a WW1 era statute. No worries. Who cares a bout the construction of the statute by SCOTUS to preserve its legality, whether the information passed along was covered by the statute or whether it was illegal to pass the information that way. Just “lock her up.” But, hey, for the “lock her up” crowd, the failure to charge Hilary under these circumstances supports bias by the FBI. Oddly, it is the same crowd that blamed her for Benghazi. The only people who think that “a conviction would have been a given” are people who are untrained in law or are paid to offer opinions on right wing or Trump TV who would never have to prosecute a case like this. But, enough digression.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 2
  5. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    Don’t take my word for it, what do I know. I’ve just been working with high level clearances for over 35 years.

    Look up US Codes 793,798, 1519, and 1924.
     
  6. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    7,409
    439
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    Quickly reviewed them. All four sections seem to require specific intent, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. Proving intent is never a slam dunk and in the case of a defendant like Clinton, especially in a venue like DC (where the Department of State is located) or the SDNY (where Clinton's email server was located) would be even more difficult. Once again, prosecutors only bring cases if there is a reasonable expectation of obtaining a conviction, and the status of the defendant does matter as does the venue where the case would be tried.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    22,614
    1,307
    983
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    I've wondered if the Clintons got their law degrees not so much to uphold the law but rather learn how to get around it for a pub/money grab. I could be wrong, and I am definitely NOT saying all lawyers do that, because I know for certain that is not the case.
     
  8. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    At least we agree that there is a two tier justice system. Unfortunately you’re right about status and locatio of trial impacting outcome. Once it’s in the hands of a jury who knows. The OK Simpson outcome was not about race, it was about $$. But his defense team did a very good job slinging mud everywhere.

    I’m sure that I am being idealistic, but prosecutors should still bring charges. These politicians (of both parties) know the informal rules that you spelled out above and abuse them.
     
  9. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    Well Bill sure didn’t marry Hillary for her looks!!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  10. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    22,614
    1,307
    983
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    At the risk of coming off as a male sexist pig, it seems to me that hook up was merely a business transaction, just like Bill's side pieces. With Hilary, I don't even want to know. :D
     
  11. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    There’s no emoji with a scary enough face to depict that!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,373
    685
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    You ever see a pic of them when they were young and not powerful or wealthy? I don't see either side out punting their coverage. Looks wise they're a pretty good match, and obviously both were smart and ambitious.

    You have to be really rich before you can marry someone who cares nothing about you except your money. You know, someone who will marry you even if you're stupid, old, and obese. The rest of us have to get by on other traits.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    Or physical endowments!!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  14. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    You might want to consider reading the Espionage Act and the Supreme Court decision that upheld it against a vagueness challenge. A cold statute without its construction and the explanation as to why it was upheld against constitutional challenge are relatively worthless. If the Supreme Court upholds a statute only because it requires specific intent where the definition of national defense secret is vague, you better have compelling evidence of specific intent. While you may have worked I’m national security, if you can’t assess the specific language of the statute and case law, you can’t opine that “a conviction under a statute is a “given.” Improper handling of classified information is not the same as a provable crime. In particular, there was never proof of specific intent on the part of HRC. The argument has always been that her carelessness satisfies the subsection that permits prosecution for less than specific intent. Which directly implicated the constitutional vagueness problem that the Supreme Court was able to avoid by ruling that the statute retires specific intent. That is how prosecutors would evaluate whether to prosecute someone and how the Midyear Exam prosecutors and FBI reviewed the Clinton case. The real problems with that investigation are: a) Lynch should have recused hearself; b) a special counsel should have been appointed; and c) Comey should have stuck to DOJ protocol and dumped the decision on the DOJ.

    Edit:

    Since we are discussing the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC sec. 798, here it is. Subsection f addresses gross negligence, but again, because of vagueness concerns, other subsections were upheld by SCOTUS only because specific intent was required. The material covered under subsection F is material that relates to "national defense," which is not defined in subsection F. It is defined in subsection a, and it is narrower than "classified" information. Subsection a defines national defense as "information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States." So, the range of Clinton e-mails covered by this act would have to fit within this more narrow class of information.

    §793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

    (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

    (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

    (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

    (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

    (h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

    (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

    (3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—

    (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

    (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

    (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,


    if not inconsistent with this subsection.

    (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.


    June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, §18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, §1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

    Historical and Revision Notes
    Based on sections 31 and 36 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, §§1, 6, 40 Stat. 217, 219; Mar. 28, 1940, ch. 72, §1, 54 Stat. 79).

    Section consolidated sections 31 and 36 of title 50, U.S.C., 1940 ed., War and National Defense.

    Words "departments or agencies" were inserted twice in conformity with definitive section 6 of this title to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section.

    The words "or induces or aids another" were omitted wherever occurring as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.

    Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

    Minor changes were made in phraseology.

    Amendments
    1996—Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 104–294 inserted at end "For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'State' includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States."

    1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000" in undesignated par. after subsec. (f).

    Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 103–359 substituted "(p)" for "(o)" in two places.

    1986—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 99–399 added subsec. (h).

    1950—Act Sept. 23, 1950, divided section into subdivisions, inserted laboratories and stations, and places where material or instruments for use in time of war are the subject of research or development to the list of facilities and places to which subsection (a) applies, made subsection (d) applicable only in cases in which possession, access, or control is lawful, added subsection (e) to take care of cases in which possession, access, or control, is unlawful, made subsection (f) applicable to instruments and appliances, as well as to documents, records, etc., and provided by subsection (g) a separate penalty for conspiracy to violate any provisions of this section.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    Here is 18 USC sec 798, which addresses classified information. It does not punish someone who provides classified information so someone authorized to receive it either, even if outside proper channels for transmission.

    §798. Disclosure of classified information


    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
    (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

    The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

    The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

    The term "foreign government" includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

    The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

    The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.

    (5) As used in this subsection, the term "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
     
  16. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,071
    1,052
    553
    Nov 25, 2017
    And, here is a link to the Gorin decision

    An examination of the words of the statute satisfies us that the meaning of national defense in §§ 1(b) and 2(a) cannot be limited to the places and things specified in § 1(a). Certainly there is no such express limitation in the later §s. Section 1(a) lays down the test of purpose and intent, and then defines the crime as going upon or otherwise obtaining information as to named things and places connected with the national defense. Section 1(b) adopts the same purpose and intent of 1(a), and then defines the crime as copying, taking or picturing certain articles such as models, appliances, documents, and so forth of anything connected with the national defense. None of the articles specified in 1(b) is the same as the things specified in 1(a). Apparently the draftsmen of the act first set out the places to be protected, and included in that connotation ships and planes, and then, in 1(b), covered much of the contents of such places in the nature of plans and documents. Section 2(a), it will be observed, covers in much the same way the delivery of these movable articles or information to a foreign nation or its agent.

    This Court has frequently held criminal laws deemed to violate these tests invalid. United States v. Cohen Grocery Company, [Footnote 9] urged as a precedent by petitioners, points out that the statute there under consideration forbade no specific act, [Footnote 10] that it really punished acts "detrimental to the public interest when unjust and unreasonable" in a jury's view. In Lanzetta v. New Jersey, [Footnote 11] the statute was equally vague.

    But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign

    Footnote 14] Where there is no occasion for secrecy, as with reports relating to national defense, published by authority of Congress or the military departments, there can, of course, in all likelihood, be no reasonable intent to give an advantage to a foreign government. Finally, we are of the view that the use of the words "national defense" has given them, as here employed, a well understood connotation. They were used in the Defense Secrets Act of 1911. [Footnote 15] 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.





    Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941)
     
  17. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    7,373
    685
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    You mean like really good hair?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  18. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    1,162
    181
    293
    Apr 24, 2007
    Yeah, something like that
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    I disagree that the chances of obtaining a guilty verdict would have been small. There was a significant number of emails all at a high level that were in her email. I also think it would have been possible that if the investigation took place outside of the election, it would have been likely that several people could have been charged with process crimes, like lying to the FBI. I think the FBI used kid gloves during the investigation because if anyone had been charged in the case, it would have had huge consequences in the race.

    Additionally Hillary, as SecState, was the OCA at State. That means she was ultimately responsible of all classification decisions while SecState. It would be very hard for her to claim she wasn’t aware that something wasn’t classified.
     
  20. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole GC Hall of Fame

    2,540
    111
    253
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    On a separate note, there was a story at the Spectator this weekend that claimed Mueller and Barr had a meeting last week over the results of Mueller’s report. Supposedly Mueller wants to charge the Trump kids and Kushner with obstruction and Trump himself but there would be no charges of conspiring with the Russians.