doug941 wrote:gcomeau wrote:
As you said, charges can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor, likewise they can also be charged a singles or as a group.
but they absolutely CANNOT simply be multiplied by the number of people information reaches after it is breached. That is crazy.The law says that a single person seeing a single document he/she is not cleared to see is a single crime. Seeing multiple docs is either multiple charges or a single charge.
Yeah? Show me the exact part of the law that says what you just typed. I'll wait.And don't forget how Comey had to play 7 dimensional chess to excuse her handling of classified material. He rewrote Federal law to say what it doesn't say to legally excuse her.
Yeeeeah.... no. No he did not.Possession of classified materials in non-cleared areas is a crime even if the person having it is cleared to have it.
And whether it is prosecuted as a crime is to a large degree a matter of prosecutorial discretion on the severity of the offense, the intent or lack thereof of the person who committed the offense, etc...
This was rather non severe, and there was zero established intent of misconduct. It was simply an act of poor judgement in choice of e-mail infrastructure. So as Comey accurately stated, no prosecutor would reasonably bring charges in this case.General XYZ looking at a classified intel briefing about PRC military strength while sitting in his office is legal if he is cleared for those doc. Him looking at them while sitting in a McDonalds eating a cheeseburger is illegal.
And while you mention 18 US Code 1924, I noticed you DID NOT mention 18 US Code 798.
Because that statute requires *knowing and willful disclosure or publication* of classified materials? Which did not happen here? So it's completely irrelevant?
The number of people seeing classified info is legally moot, it is the fact of them actually seeing the info that is the crime. Nor is the time frame important. The "breaching" of classification does not in any way become a"get-out-of-jail" card. Breached classified materials are still classified until declassified by relevant authorit
Bradley/Chelsea Manning was found guilty of SIX charges of espionage. SIX, not one. To use your version of logic, he/she legally could not be charged with those six. Still waiting?
Comey in his speech used language that appears nowhere in US Code and that completely changes what the espionage laws mean. And the then current FBI General Counsel James Baker has testified in front of the House of Representatives that Hillary was entirely deserving of having charges filed. John Radcliffe, a former Federal Prosecutor asked Baker the following:
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?”
Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.” He was later talked out of standing behind this position.
Lack of intent is not proven here nor can it be. A number of these docs were deliberately and criminally removed from an intelligence intranet. This intranet has NO, repeat, NO connection to the outside world. The only way these docs could have ended up on her server was is they were downloaded to a removable storage device and/or printed and then removed. Both of these are themselves illegal acts.
18 US Code 798 (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
The Colorado IT firm that Hillary hired to run her server would by definition had "Knowingly" access to the system. They could not do their job otherwise and the first several months it was in operation, the system was not encrypted.
The legal team she used to vet the various emails were not cleared to see them. As such, she "knowingly" violated espionage laws when she gave them access to the emails. At least 22 emails contained "Top Secret" or "Top Secret/Code Word" material. Over 2,000 emails contained "Confidential" thru "Top Secret." She could not legally give access to ANYONE outside of government service or non-government persons so cleared. And even if someone is cleared to see materials in areas "A", "B" and "C", allowing them to see material in area "J" is yet another crime.