Senate investigators find no evidence China hacked Clinton server

[hindsight]

@zantax

@Munimula1

Repubs would continue to investigate the Clintons without evidence a crime has been committed? And we know where repubs stand on using the power of government to go after their political enemies.

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Then lock her up, what are you guys waiting for?

[adroit]

@hindsight

Then lock her up, what are you guys waiting for?

Well duh, no one is locking her up because they don’t want to be “suicided”!

[Jezcoe]

@adroit

@zantax

No, I am assuming that even if they did that doesn’t mean they left evidence behind so it remains possible that they did.

The funny thing is, this is basically what the Mueller report says re: conspiracy.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Chris]

Well, I am still hearing over the radio today that the investigation into Hillary was rigged.

[Weedhopper]

Wish I was in the room when Obama and Hillary heard that every email they tried to hid from the public was copied to a private email address the IT created.
These people are stupid

[WuWei]

So the Chinese are better at hacking than the Russians. Makes sense.

[party-free]

there’s really no way we can know that.

[mot1man]

Exactly correct.

But here’s what we do know.

If there was no “private” email server, there would be no “private” email server to hack.

[party-free]

We’re going to need an Attorney General/DoJ with the courage and integrity to prosecute Hillary than. Anyone know an AG/DoJ with the courage and integrity to do so? Maybe a president who might put the right people in place?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

There would just be a State Department server to hack.

Which, unlike Clinton’s server, we know for a fact has been hacked, repeatedly.

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

There would just be a State Department server to hack.

Which, unlike Clinton’s server, we know for a fact has been hacked, repeatedly.

Which one of them made any effort to be secure? Hint, not the Hillary one. That’s like saying since banks have been robbed the smart move is to hide money in your mattress.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

That’s like saying since banks have been robbed the smart move is to hide money in your mattress

Well, no. Its not “like” that, because I didn’t say anything close to claiming that Clinton’s server was “a smart move”.

The context of my statement is all here, in this thread.

[H_Arendt]

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Not really. Intent matters.

Not what the relevant statute says

from 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 officer—

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

The documents in question were not classified when first put on server, subsequently reclassified. This fails the gross negligence standard which is why Republicans were so eager to prove the Chinese hack.

FAIL

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Not really. Intent matters.

Not what the relevant statute says

from 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 officer—

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

The documents in question were not classified when first put on server, subsequently reclassified. This fails the gross negligence standard which is why Republicans were so eager to prove the Chinese hack.

FAIL

Well except that isn’t true.

from PolitiFact | FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

It is what the Supreme Court said about that statute.

Gorin v. United States

Gorin v. United States

[H_Arendt]

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Not really. Intent matters.

Not what the relevant statute says

from 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 officer—

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

The documents in question were not classified when first put on server, subsequently reclassified. This fails the gross negligence standard which is why Republicans were so eager to prove the Chinese hack.

FAIL

Well except that isn’t true.

from PolitiFact | FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Actually the article says 2 items were classified at time received and does not give classification level. Your quote is a distortion.

[zantax]

Not the same law, it has been amended several times.

[zantax]

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Not really. Intent matters.

Not what the relevant statute says

from 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 officer—

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

The documents in question were not classified when first put on server, subsequently reclassified. This fails the gross negligence standard which is why Republicans were so eager to prove the Chinese hack.

FAIL

Well except that isn’t true.

from PolitiFact | FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Actually the article says 2 items were classified at time received and does not give classification level. Your quote is a distortion.

No it says marked classified, material doesn’t have to be marked classified to be classified and as secretary of state she should have known classified data when she saw it whether it had been previously marked classified or not.

[H_Arendt]

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@H_Arendt

@zantax

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Whether or not the Chinese hacked her server it was illegal for there to be classified data on it.

Not really. Intent matters.

Not what the relevant statute says

from 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(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 officer—

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

The documents in question were not classified when first put on server, subsequently reclassified. This fails the gross negligence standard which is why Republicans were so eager to prove the Chinese hack.

FAIL

Well except that isn’t true.

from PolitiFact | FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Actually the article says 2 items were classified at time received and does not give classification level. Your quote is a distortion.

No it says marked classified, material doesn’t have to be marked classified to be classified and as secretary of state she should have known classified data when she saw it whether it had been previously marked classified or not.

So you know what the Secretary of State was checking in her email accounts…

[TheDoctorIsIn]

It is most certainly the exact same law.

18 U.S.C. § 793(f) is part of Section 1(b) of the Espionage Act of 1917. The relevant text has not been amended at all.

This is why no one has ever been convicted of violating any section of 18 U.S.C. § 793 without proof of intent.