Why Electing Hillary in ’16 Is More Important Than Electing Obama in ’08

Real issues, or right-wing slur campaign?

Honesty and trustworthiness are real issues for me.

LTC (Join to see) - There, there. We understand. I won't waste my time repeating the litany of issues that accompany Hillary. You've heard them and simply chose to ignore them and we understand why. "Right-wing slur campaign" is nothing more than a delusion to help you cope with the discomfort of the dissonance created by the abyss between your beliefs and reality.

COL Ted Mc - OK, you are right, that is one way to look at it. My take is that Lady Justice has lost her blindfold. You or I would already be in prison. The presence or absence of markings do not matter...C, or S, or TS SCI are only aggravating circumstances. Read what you signed when you got your clearance. Ignorance is sometimes a legal defense, but is not allowed for this law: USC 18 SS798 and Executive Order 13526. There is no way she did not violate the Law, yet I predict there will be no indictment. That is how the American people lose confidence in their justice system.

Col Joseph Lenertz - Colonel; I agree with you that there are not likely to be any indictments.

One of the things that civilian prosecutors have to consider is "likelihood of obtaining a conviction". Another thing is "What will it do to my political career if I end up looking like an ass over a prosecution that get laughed out of court?".

Civilian courts operate on the requirement that a case be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" to ALL members of the "triers of fact" - in military courts the requirement can go as low as 2/3rds of the members of the "triers of fact" (UCMJ Article 52)

8 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information starts out "(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 prosecution is going to have a great deal of difficulty with "knowingly and willfully" "makes available", "unauthorized person" "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States" and "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States". 8 U.S. Code § 798 DOES NOT provide for a conviction for something which MIGHT have been any of those things and requires the state to PROVE those essential elements of the offense.

Executive Order 13526 states "(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. ..." and all Ms. Clinton need establish is that SHE (as the original classifying authority) had "significant doubt about the need to classify".

Ms. Clinton may well have done something that "the law" was supposed to stop, but she can't really be blamed for crappy legislative drafting and/or for the members of the Legislative Branch simply not bothering to actually take the time to understand what the laws they pass do (and do not) do.

COL Ted Mc - Yes, very true on the other considerations. I cannot see a prosecutor or jury believing that Ms Clinton thought US satellite imagery of N Korean nuclear facilities was unclassified. Because, having just taken my classification marking training again, I know the jury will be instructed on how an Original Classification Authority (OCA) like Ms Clinton was trained. That instruction will demonstrate that this item alone should have been classified TS twice over...once under the criteria for satellite imagery, and again under the criteria for foreign WMD technology development. However, all that said, I'm sure her lawyers will seek to walk the razor's edge of "knowingly" to attempt to portray her as competent in her role as SECSTATE and OCA, and at the same time "unknowing" that it was classified, markings or not.

Col Joseph Lenertz - Colonel; All true, but the crux of the matter is the "Knowing and willingly makes available" criterion.

Although "Gosh I didn't know that ... ." might not wash (note the "might") "I had no intention of ... ." almost certainly will.

Walt it's official there is someone nuttier than you on Rally point!
All in good taste!

I am nuttier than I am? I could buy that.

Walt