Actually it shows quite clearly just the opposite. Anyone who has ever worked with classified information can see the blatant lie in Comey's statements. She committed multiple felonies in her mishandling of classified information. That the classified information was ever entered into an unclassified system let alone sent via email on the internet is a crime. Classified information does not touch the Unclassified realm.
No he did not. He used a personal account, not a private server. But that's not even the issue. He did put classified information onto the internet. The FBI just stated they found 110 emails with verified Classified information that was classified at the time she sent it. At most a review of Powell's emails found two emails that contained calendar information that the State Dept classified after he had sent it. It was not classified when he transmitted it, thus there was no wrong doing on his part.
Hillary sent 110 emails containing classified information 8 instances of which had TOP SECRET information. All this classified information has been verified with the owning agency as being classified at the time the emails were created. She broke the law. She put classified data on the internet. Classified information does not touch the internet. We have physically separate networks for that data. Colin Powell doesn't come anywhere close to what she did.
The law (18 793(f)) says that to simply move classified data from an authorized storage facility to an unauthorized location is Gross Negligence. It's not up to Comey to define it. The definition is in the law. Her actions were clearly in violation of the law and thus gross negligence.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
No these types of situations are usually handled with criminal charges and convictions. This was not accidental. You don't accidently transfer TS level information to an unclassified system.
Powell did not transmit classified data on his personal account. And all emails were turned over as soon as he left office, not years later after trying to ignore the law until hit with congressional subpoena's. Very different situations. The private server isn't the issue. It's the classified information on the server.
He lied about no precedent. There is ample precedent for prosecuting such. He lied about there being no crime because there was no intent. Intent is not required, mishandling classified information is a crime. Careless is not an excuse, it is grounds to prosecute.
In short, the fix was in. He lied, and Lynch just carried the lie home to validate the fix.
18 USC 793(f) for one. And that is a count for each email containing classified information. That information was removed from authorized storage and placed in an unauthorized location. That's a felony. No actual access by unauthorized individuals is required, no intent is needed. The Classified information was copied from the appropriate secure networks (which have no contact with the internet they are kept physically separated) and placed on an unclassified system on the Internet. The criminal act is clearly established. Other aspects of this situation also fall under other aspects of the Espionage act of which 793 is just one part.
Anyone who claims they can't see the crime is either foolishly ignorant or is intentionally refusing to see the crime because of who would be accused.
Actually Special access is a subset for specific projects, and there are Special Access Programs for all three levels of classification though TS are most common.
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not. It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall (highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified. There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked. That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefor we have Gross negligence.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information. The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
They don't need to be delivered. The fact that the classified information was put on the unclassified network is the crime. Regardless of whether anyone ever saw it.
The only thing that needs to be proven is that classified information was put onto her email account on her server. And that was done/
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you promise to not be careless with it.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence. When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Nope, obvious to anyone following the news anywhere. The FBI director clearly described her criminal actions. 110 emails containing classified information. That is 110 felonies. You don't get to be careless with classified information. You don't put classified information on unclassified networks. It's not an easy mistake to make, all classified information is clearly marked on every page and every paragraph.
He described a clear set of violations of the Espionage Act (title 18 793(f) for one crime she made 110 times) but then has the audacity to say she didn't commit a crime?
It is the duty of the people to demand she be indicted. An indictment is not a declaration of guilt. She would still get to defend herself in court with full due process. It is the job of the Justice dept. to indict if there is a possibility that guilt exists. That possibility is more than clear, they need to indict and let the courts settle her guilt.
No he did not do the same thing. He used a personal email account. Not a private server. He turned his entire email logs over immediately after departing office, not two years later having tried to hide their very existence then having her attorneys cull them (illegal as all emails are required to be turned over for outside historians to determine if they are related to the job not her lawyers). He had a grand total of two emails on his logs that at the time of review (after he left office) that contained calendar information that State Dept said was classified sometime after he sent the information. Which is not a crime. It is not a crime to send unclassified information over an unclassified network that someone later decides to classify.
There is nothing similar in his actions to her actions. CNN carried this story back in February and it was clear that there was no wrong doing by Powell.
Putting classified information on an unclassified network is a real crime. Doing it 110 times is 110 crimes, each of which is a felony worth up to 10 years in prison.
Putting information in an email that someone decides well after the fact should be classified (what Powell did twice, and Rice did about a dozen times) is not a crime..
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network. Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime. It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified. And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required. Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to.
The information in the emails has been identified by the originating classifiers as clearly classified before it ever got to Hillary. That means the documents they were pulling the data from were clearly marked with classification markings.
Such markings are marked at the top and bottom of every page and at the beginning of every paragraph. The mistake you are suggesting is not easily made with classified information. The information was pulled from marked up documents and transcribed to the unclassified system before being sent by Hillary and her aids. That is the crime. That data should have never been discussed over unclassified emails. There are classified email accounts on every classified network for such discussions.
That info should never have touched her unclassified email. She and or her aids pulled that info from the classified networks and deliberately discussed it over the classified networks, and in such detail that the original source material was identifiable so as to have the owning agencies verify when it was classified.
There are very clear and established rules for dealing with classified information, both physical copies and as data over networks. They have been around since before Her Husband was president. One does not accidently make the "mistakes" she and or her aids made.
The Mistress was his biographer, the classified notes were to be used as references while working on the biography. She also holds a clearance. But he was indicted and plead guilty.
He was prosecuted for mishandling the information. Not for having a biographer with a security clearance whom he became involved with. Nishimura was prosecuted for possession of classified information outside of authorized storage and handling facilities.
In both cases they plead out because they were guilty and a prosecutor will take a quick plea to a lessor charge every time. A plea is a guaranteed win on his record, going to trial leaves the outcome of even the most rock solid case up to the whims of the Jury.
Legally very true as the term usage is coming directly from the relevant statute. Specifically 18 USC. 798(f). When you obtain a clearance you sign a legally binding agreement that you will proactively protect the information you are entrusted with. 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.
Even if the transfer of the classified information, including 8 instances of TOP SECRET information from their respective classified networks to Hillary's private email account located on the Unclassified internet was entirely accidental (which it is not. You do not move classified information to unclassified networks, or to networks of a lower classification than the information holds.) it would still be negligence to not recognize that such information does not belong on that network and needs to be removed and the storage media turned in for destruction or classification and storage.
Extremely Careless does in fact equal Gross Negligence.
And he was convicted, though he did plead down. Also the person he distributed has a clearance too and the information was never put onto an unclassified network.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it shows quite clearly just the opposite. Anyone who has ever worked with classified information can see the blatant lie in Comey's statements. She committed multiple felonies in her mishandling of classified information. That the classified information was ever entered into an unclassified system let alone sent via email on the internet is a crime. Classified information does not touch the Unclassified realm.
No he did not. He used a personal account, not a private server. But that's not even the issue. He did put classified information onto the internet. The FBI just stated they found 110 emails with verified Classified information that was classified at the time she sent it. At most a review of Powell's emails found two emails that contained calendar information that the State Dept classified after he had sent it. It was not classified when he transmitted it, thus there was no wrong doing on his part.
Hillary sent 110 emails containing classified information 8 instances of which had TOP SECRET information. All this classified information has been verified with the owning agency as being classified at the time the emails were created. She broke the law. She put classified data on the internet. Classified information does not touch the internet. We have physically separate networks for that data. Colin Powell doesn't come anywhere close to what she did.
The law (18 793(f)) says that to simply move classified data from an authorized storage facility to an unauthorized location is Gross Negligence. It's not up to Comey to define it. The definition is in the law. Her actions were clearly in violation of the law and thus gross negligence.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
No these types of situations are usually handled with criminal charges and convictions. This was not accidental. You don't accidently transfer TS level information to an unclassified system.
Powell did not transmit classified data on his personal account. And all emails were turned over as soon as he left office, not years later after trying to ignore the law until hit with congressional subpoena's. Very different situations. The private server isn't the issue. It's the classified information on the server.
He lied about no precedent. There is ample precedent for prosecuting such. He lied about there being no crime because there was no intent. Intent is not required, mishandling classified information is a crime. Careless is not an excuse, it is grounds to prosecute.
In short, the fix was in. He lied, and Lynch just carried the lie home to validate the fix.
18 USC 793(f) for one. And that is a count for each email containing classified information. That information was removed from authorized storage and placed in an unauthorized location. That's a felony. No actual access by unauthorized individuals is required, no intent is needed. The Classified information was copied from the appropriate secure networks (which have no contact with the internet they are kept physically separated) and placed on an unclassified system on the Internet. The criminal act is clearly established. Other aspects of this situation also fall under other aspects of the Espionage act of which 793 is just one part.
Anyone who claims they can't see the crime is either foolishly ignorant or is intentionally refusing to see the crime because of who would be accused.
Actually Special access is a subset for specific projects, and there are Special Access Programs for all three levels of classification though TS are most common.
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not. It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall (highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified. There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked. That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
793 (f) also applies and has a steeper penalty as well.
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefor we have Gross negligence.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
They don't need to be delivered. The fact that the classified information was put on the unclassified network is the crime. Regardless of whether anyone ever saw it.
The only thing that needs to be proven is that classified information was put onto her email account on her server. And that was done/
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you promise to not be careless with it.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence. When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Nope, obvious to anyone following the news anywhere. The FBI director clearly described her criminal actions. 110 emails containing classified information. That is 110 felonies. You don't get to be careless with classified information. You don't put classified information on unclassified networks. It's not an easy mistake to make, all classified information is clearly marked on every page and every paragraph.
He described a clear set of violations of the Espionage Act (title 18 793(f) for one crime she made 110 times) but then has the audacity to say she didn't commit a crime?
It is the duty of the people to demand she be indicted. An indictment is not a declaration of guilt. She would still get to defend herself in court with full due process. It is the job of the Justice dept. to indict if there is a possibility that guilt exists. That possibility is more than clear, they need to indict and let the courts settle her guilt.
No he did not do the same thing. He used a personal email account. Not a private server. He turned his entire email logs over immediately after departing office, not two years later having tried to hide their very existence then having her attorneys cull them (illegal as all emails are required to be turned over for outside historians to determine if they are related to the job not her lawyers). He had a grand total of two emails on his logs that at the time of review (after he left office) that contained calendar information that State Dept said was classified sometime after he sent the information. Which is not a crime. It is not a crime to send unclassified information over an unclassified network that someone later decides to classify.
There is nothing similar in his actions to her actions. CNN carried this story back in February and it was clear that there was no wrong doing by Powell.
Putting classified information on an unclassified network is a real crime. Doing it 110 times is 110 crimes, each of which is a felony worth up to 10 years in prison.
Putting information in an email that someone decides well after the fact should be classified (what Powell did twice, and Rice did about a dozen times) is not a crime..
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network. Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime. It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified. And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required. Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to.
Colin Powell did NOT do the same thing.
The information in the emails has been identified by the originating classifiers as clearly classified before it ever got to Hillary. That means the documents they were pulling the data from were clearly marked with classification markings.
Such markings are marked at the top and bottom of every page and at the beginning of every paragraph. The mistake you are suggesting is not easily made with classified information. The information was pulled from marked up documents and transcribed to the unclassified system before being sent by Hillary and her aids. That is the crime. That data should have never been discussed over unclassified emails. There are classified email accounts on every classified network for such discussions.
That info should never have touched her unclassified email. She and or her aids pulled that info from the classified networks and deliberately discussed it over the classified networks, and in such detail that the original source material was identifiable so as to have the owning agencies verify when it was classified.
There are very clear and established rules for dealing with classified information, both physical copies and as data over networks. They have been around since before Her Husband was president. One does not accidently make the "mistakes" she and or her aids made.
The Mistress was his biographer, the classified notes were to be used as references while working on the biography. She also holds a clearance. But he was indicted and plead guilty.
He was prosecuted for mishandling the information. Not for having a biographer with a security clearance whom he became involved with.
Nishimura was prosecuted for possession of classified information outside of authorized storage and handling facilities.
In both cases they plead out because they were guilty and a prosecutor will take a quick plea to a lessor charge every time. A plea is a guaranteed win on his record, going to trial leaves the outcome of even the most rock solid case up to the whims of the Jury.
Legally very true as the term usage is coming directly from the relevant statute. Specifically 18 USC. 798(f). When you obtain a clearance you sign a legally binding agreement that you will proactively protect the information you are entrusted with. 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.
Even if the transfer of the classified information, including 8 instances of TOP SECRET information from their respective classified networks to Hillary's private email account located on the Unclassified internet was entirely accidental (which it is not. You do not move classified information to unclassified networks, or to networks of a lower classification than the information holds.) it would still be negligence to not recognize that such information does not belong on that network and needs to be removed and the storage media turned in for destruction or classification and storage.
Extremely Careless does in fact equal Gross Negligence.
And he was convicted, though he did plead down. Also the person he distributed has a clearance too and the information was never put onto an unclassified network.