Slashdot Mirror

Why did you not scroll down to Title 18, 793(f)?

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

Beyond the basic fact that 793(f) applies only to national defense information, and instead these were state department materials?

Gross negligence is "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil."

Colnaghi, U.S.A., Inc. v. Jewelers Protection Services, 611 N.E.2d 282 (N.Y. 1993) defines gross negligence as "conduct that evinces reckless disregard for the rights of others or 'smacks' of intentional wrongdoing," and "represents an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant must have been aware of it."

That's essentially intent, but eliminates the requirement that there be contemporaneous consciousness of the nature of the action. Combine it with the requirement that it be national defense information and you're still behind the eight ball if you attempt to bring a charge.

Finally, the proposition was "There is no 'intent' test in the statue nor CFR regarding violation of the espionage act." Well, there is. You're merely attempting to move the goalposts, like the others before you.

Again, you and the article make it sound like something was actually deleted. First of all, even in the article it says the tech wasn't asked to delete anything by Clinton, so even if he did it wouldn't be her crime. That said, from the actual FBI report it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong. The report just documents every time e-mail was deleted in the audit logs including temporary and duplicate copies of data.

The quotes in the article are reworded and rearranged from the actual FBI report. I don't know why they don't match exactly. It is also combining different parts of the report to create a different impression. The actual text referenced about the archive deletion is on page 25 of part 3 of the FBI report and other parts of the quotes are from page 103. The actual FBI report just says "However, [] believed he had an "oh shit" moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN's existing and outgoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days." Although if you read the surrounding text you learn that the HRC Archive mailbox was a duplicate copy of old e-mails and they were retained elsewhere. I really don't have an explanation what the tech was doing other than trying to make it seem like the server was configured the way it had supposed to be (maybe to cover himself not having configured it the way he had been asked?). He didn't actually destroy anything that wasn't available elsewhere from what I can tell. The FBI report says the duplicate archive was deleted between March 25, 2015 and March 31, 2015 and the preservation order from the FBI was July 31, 2015 so it occurred before the FBI order. I don't see reference to the House Benghazi Committee preservation order in that section of the FBI report. Even if it was under the House Committee retention, it doesn't look malicious. The FBI report notes quite a number of temporary e-mail files that were deleted and that during a retention order even temporary files should be preserved, but that no data was actually lost when the temporary files were deleted. This indicates more of ignorance on the part of the tech than criminal activity.

In part 4 of the report page 4, it seems like the conclusion reached was that Bleachbit was used to destroy temporary "vehicle" .pst files, "but the e-mail content still existed."

As far as breaking the law, if you read up on 18USC1924 "Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material" you will find that even though the way the law is written for a layman doesn't sound like intent matters (although the word intent is used), existing case law like the supreme court case Gorin v. United States have established that intent is required to prosecute. The supreme court ruled that “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States” is required. Negligent handling of classified information is generally prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act and Clinton was not in the military.

https://warontherocks.com/2016...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...

Intent is required. You have to prove gross negligence. Given that virtually _everyone_ in Washington runs these kind of servers you're going to find that damn near impossible. Hell, if they ever did it would be open season on both parties. Yeah, if you want the world to burn that'd be nice. Some of us don't.

defendant: (n) an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.

I'm not sure where you got your law degree, but I'm pretty certain you never passed the bar if you can't reason out that the "defendant" and "the accused" are identical concepts. There are "defendants" and "plaintiffs" in both civil and criminal cases, counselor.

And Clinton did commit criminal acts with the emails - but the government, oddly enough, refused to apply the law because "they couldn't show intent" - even though intent isn't necessary to secure a conviction.

"Necessary criminal intent" is what they can't show. And it is absolutely required to secure a conviction, based on the precedent set in Gorin v United States (1941). Go read this article, it gives a fantastic summary of the legal reasoning, and shows just why you don't know what you're talking about.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/...

Stop listening to whatever conspiracy news source you have. The Supreme Court cleared this up in 1941 (Gorin v United States). Intent to benefit a foreign power is, in fact, a requirement under that statute. You can read a really simple summay here: http://warontherocks.com/2016/...

The much vaunted #OpParis has not been a success as advertised. The level of false positives has been massive, with many of the so-called IS accounts and websites being pro-Kurdish, pro-Palestinian, or even simply targeted because they happen to be in Arabic. Think about it, does Anonymous really have the depth of knowledge on terror networks, or even enough competent Arabic speakers, to vet thousands of Twitter accounts and websites? Do they know enough about Arab cultures to understand the nuances of whether or not these Twitter accounts are really pro-IS or simply just requoting IS for news or even trolling IS in Arabic?