4 ms·

What specifically about the emails should disqualify her in your opinion? That is to say, what law did she break?

lbaskin 11y ago
At the very least, Title 18, Section 1924 of the U.S. Code: "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-intelligence-agencies-ask-for-criminal-investigation-in-the-clinton-email-scandal/ http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-in... Other possible violations here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clinton-emails-transparency-column/70280434/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clin...
- antimagic 11y ago
  And who does the authorizing? Because if it isn't the Secretary of State, it's going to be the President, and he is not going to stick a dagger in Clinton's back at this point, not after her being a most loyal and effective lieutenant.
  - lbaskin 11y ago
    The statute may seem like it's drafted that way, but it's not up to her (or her boss, i.e., the Pres) discretion. There are rules and regulations that determine what is and is not authorized "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material." See, for example, Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintonemail-com-down-hillary-clinton-legally-untouched/ http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintone...).
wisty 11y ago
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material > (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. > (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). > (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. I'm not aware of whether she had stuff that was classified, but as Secretary of State I'd say most of her communications would be somewhat confidential. If not black-letter illegal, it's still extremely dodgy, and dangerous. Remember when Palin got hacked? If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately. Yes, some people do bend the rules, and get away with it, but only if there's nothing they handled that would cause any issues if it were posted on the internet.
- hackinthebochs 11y ago
  There's certainly plenty of wiggle room when it comes to "unauthorized removal" considering her position. It'll be interesting to see how any investigation plays out, but I would bet nothing comes of it. >If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately. Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function.
  - wisty 11y ago
    > Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function. Sounds like the Nixon defense. Though at least Clinton wasn't (apparently) acting out of malice. She might have just been a bit paranoid about security, incompetent (at IT security - and allowed yes-men to get her set up), or somehow needed a level of convenience that she couldn't get from the official system. It's even possible the official system was suspected of being compromised (if it was, we might not know), and she could get a safer system.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago
      It's nothing like the Nixon defense. The law clearly states the criteria of "unauthorized removal". But who authorizes the fucking Secretary of State on her need to use classified information externally? The president? You don't think he would back her in this?
- BrandonMarc 11y ago
  > Remember when Palin got hacked? I remember people of a certain bent celebrating the fact that she got hacked, completely oblivious to the concept that something malicious / illegal had taken place.

At the very least, Title 18, Section 1924 of the U.S. Code: "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-intelligence-agencies-ask-for-criminal-investigation-in-the-clinton-email-scandal/ http://jonathanturley.org/2015/07/24/state-department-and-in... Other possible violations here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clinton-emails-transparency-column/70280434/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/16/hilary-clin...

antimagic 11y ago
And who does the authorizing? Because if it isn't the Secretary of State, it's going to be the President, and he is not going to stick a dagger in Clinton's back at this point, not after her being a most loyal and effective lieutenant.
- lbaskin 11y ago
  The statute may seem like it's drafted that way, but it's not up to her (or her boss, i.e., the Pres) discretion. There are rules and regulations that determine what is and is not authorized "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material." See, for example, Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintonemail-com-down-hillary-clinton-legally-untouched/ http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/03/09/hdr22clintone...).

wisty 11y ago

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material > (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. > (b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a). > (c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security. I'm not aware of whether she had stuff that was classified, but as Secretary of State I'd say most of her communications would be somewhat confidential. If not black-letter illegal, it's still extremely dodgy, and dangerous. Remember when Palin got hacked? If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately. Yes, some people do bend the rules, and get away with it, but only if there's nothing they handled that would cause any issues if it were posted on the internet.

hackinthebochs 11y ago
There's certainly plenty of wiggle room when it comes to "unauthorized removal" considering her position. It'll be interesting to see how any investigation plays out, but I would bet nothing comes of it. >If almost any federal employee (even ones with low-level clearance) was caught doing this, they'd likely have security assist them out of the premises immediately. Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function.
- wisty 11y ago
  > Of course, but then they're not Secretary of State. It's not a stretch to imagine her position should come with some latitude on how they execute their job function. Sounds like the Nixon defense. Though at least Clinton wasn't (apparently) acting out of malice. She might have just been a bit paranoid about security, incompetent (at IT security - and allowed yes-men to get her set up), or somehow needed a level of convenience that she couldn't get from the official system. It's even possible the official system was suspected of being compromised (if it was, we might not know), and she could get a safer system.
  - hackinthebochs 11y ago
    It's nothing like the Nixon defense. The law clearly states the criteria of "unauthorized removal". But who authorizes the fucking Secretary of State on her need to use classified information externally? The president? You don't think he would back her in this?
BrandonMarc 11y ago
> Remember when Palin got hacked? I remember people of a certain bent celebrating the fact that she got hacked, completely oblivious to the concept that something malicious / illegal had taken place.