Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

You keep referring to the fact that Hillary's emails didn't contain classified material. That's not necessary for the Espionage Act to apply. That's what I'm saying. For our discussion, the element of classified information is irrlevant.

Because you're trying to draw a fundamentally silly distinction between "classified information", and information "relating to national defense". Unless that material is classified, it doesn't materially "relate to national defense", unless you think things like civilians watching a Navy ship leave port is a breach off the Espionage Act. The distinction is largely in place because there are potentially pieces of information that are classified but do not relate to national defense, so revealing those wouldn't fall under the Espionage Act (though they would, under other regulations). For instance, revealing the classified details of IRS tax files on private citizens would be a breach of classified material, but as it doesn't relate to national defense, it wouldn't count under the Espionage Act specifically.

"Relating to national defense" is a subset of "classified information", not a separate category.

And regardless, you still haven't established that any such information was communicated willfully, which is a required element.

[Matchles]

I think Obama kinda put his finger on the scale at the least. Paul Callan said the same thing on CNN

I'd argue Callan is just trying to save face from his special prosecutor article from a few days ago. We see the effect of Comey's letter, I can only imagine how damaging it would be for people throwing around the idea of special prosecutor without context. Plus there is no reason for one. He is speculating that Obama had an influence, there is nothing to suggest he did. Obama has done nothing inappropriate here and if there was some sort of pressure you could bet it would be out there given the leaks coming out of the FBI recently.

[Merkava]

Because you're trying to draw a fundamentally silly distinction between "classified information", and information "relating to national defense". Unless that material is classified, it doesn't materially "relate to national defense", unless you think things like civilians watching a Navy ship leave port is a breach off the Espionage Act. The distinction is largely in place because there are potentially pieces of information that are classified but do not relate to national defense, so revealing those wouldn't fall under the Espionage Act (though they would, under other regulations). For instance, revealing the classified details of IRS tax files on private citizens would be a breach of classified material, but as it doesn't relate to national defense, it wouldn't count under the Espionage Act specifically.

And regardless, you still haven't established that any such information was communicated willfully, which is a required element.

No I'm not. I think that you're trying to introduce a strawman arguement consisting of classified information when that doesn't need to apply for the Espionage Act to be met. Information can fall into both or only one of those catagories.

Edit - I think giving a thumb drive to someone would meet the requirement of "willfully."

- - - Updated - - -

I'd argue Callan is just trying to save face from his special prosecutor article from a few days ago. We see the effect of Comey's letter, I can only imagine how damaging it would be for people throwing around the idea of special prosecutor without context. Plus there is no reason for one. He is speculating that Obama had an influence, there is nothing to suggest he did. Obama has done nothing inappropriate here and if there was some sort of pressure you could bet it would be out there given the leaks coming out of the FBI recently.

This was from April.

[Endus]

No I'm not. I think that you're trying to introduce a strawman arguement consisting of classified information when that doesn't need to apply for the Espionage Act to be met. Information can fall into both or only one of those catagories.

This isn't correct. Do you think an Army wife knowing that her husband is deployed is guilty of espionage? She has information "relating to national defense" (her husband is deployed", but has no clearance just by being an Army wife. This is obviously ridiculous.

It's a subset of classified information, since that category includes items that DON'T relate to national defense, as well. You can't claim that someone's committing "espionage" for communicating freely and publicly available information, but that's what you're arguing, here.

[Merkava]

This isn't correct. Do you think an Army wife knowing that her husband is deployed is guilty of espionage? She has information "relating to national defense" (her husband is deployed", but has no clearance just by being an Army wife. This is obviously ridiculous.

It's a subset of classified information, since that category includes items that DON'T relate to national defense, as well. You can't claim that someone's committing "espionage" for communicating freely and publicly available information, but that's what you're arguing, here.

I don't know. If you think it's a subset of classified information, you're welcome to try to prove that.

Most espionage law only criminalizes national defense information; only a jury can decide if a given document meets that criterion, and judges have repeatedly said that being "classified" does not necessarily make information become related to the "national defense

[RobertoCarlos]

Well congrats Hillary is going to win, enjoy ww3.

[Endus]

I don't know. If you think it's a subset of classified information, you're welcome to try to prove that.

Your source confirms what I was saying.

How about this; why don't you provide me even one single example of someone being charged under the Espionage Act for communicating information that was not classified, but publicly available?

[Matchles]

This was from April.

Then that is even more reason to disregard the statement. We are months out and there is still nothing to suggest that Obama had any hand in directing Comey or any other interference.

[Merkava]

Your source confirms what I was saying.

How about this; why don't you provide me even one single example of someone being charged under the Espionage Act for communicating information that was not classified, but publicly available?

My source does not confirm that. It says that only a jury can determine if information or a document pertains to national defense. It says that Espionage laws are concerned with information relating to national defense and that only a jury can determine that. It says that classified information, on the other hand is established by the US government.

Your challenge is meaningless. I'm not denying that overlap doesn't exist. Only that according to the law, classified information is different from information relating to national defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Then that is even more reason to disregard the statement. We are months out and there is still nothing to suggest that Obama had any hand in directing Comey or any other interference.

That doesn't make sense. Obama's own comments are what were being discussed, and that's when Obama made the comments.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, it doesn't necessarily relate to the national defense if it's classified... that means shit that's not for defense can be classified as well. You really need those night classes... did you sign up yet?

- - - Updated - - -



Right, it doesn't necessarily relate to the national defense if it's classified... that means shit that's not for defense can be classified as well.

No, that's not what it means. Classified information and information relating to national defense are two different things, established by two different bodies. Just read the information I posted. But you can keep insulting me if it makes you feel better.

[Endus]

My source does not confirm that. It says that only a jury can determine if information or a document pertains to national defense. It says that Espionage laws are concerned with information relating to national defense and that only a jury can determine that. It says that classified information, on the other hand is established by the US government.

It specifically says that the jury has to distinguish whether something relates to the national defense, because it being designated as classified does not do so automatically.

You're welcome to actually back your claims up, though, and give us even a single example of someone being charged and convicted under the Espionage Act for information that was not deemed classified in some manner. Since if it isn't so designated, it can be provided to pretty much anyone. The only information that is protected like this is classified at some level. If it isn't classified at some level, it's available for public access.

[Merkava]

*sigh* The kind of defense related information that falls under the Espionage Act is classified. What you linked says not ALL classified information meets that criteria. And it also says they have to willfully transmit said information. They have found no evidence of that and, as such, no competent prosecutor would bring charges.

No it's not. What I said is that

Most espionage law only criminalizes national defense information; only a jury can decide if a given document meets that criterion

A jury determines what constitutes information relating to national defense as it pertains to the Espionage Act.

[Endus]

No it's not. What I said is that

A jury determines what constitutes information relating to national defense as it pertains to the Espionage Act.

Because not all classified information does.

Unclassified information, however, does not. Otherwise, pretty much every single news media source, and every single member of the Armed Forces, are all guilty of espionage. Is that seriously your claim?

[Merkava]

It specifically says that the jury has to distinguish whether something relates to the national defense, because it being designated as classified does not do so automatically.

You're welcome to actually back your claims up, though, and give us even a single example of someone being charged and convicted under the Espionage Act for information that was not deemed classified in some manner. Since if it isn't so designated, it can be provided to pretty much anyone. The only information that is protected like this is classified at some level. If it isn't classified at some level, it's available for public access.

So I need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of people that have been prosecuted under the espionage act in order to convince you that my source is correct? That makes absolutely no sense.

I've cited sources. If you don't believe them, that's not my problem. Espionage law deals with information relating to national defense. That is determined by a jury. It's not determined by the United States government.

[Endus]

So I need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of people that have been prosecuted under the espionage act in order to convince you that my source is correct? That makes absolutely no sense.

Of course not. But if you can't find even a single example, then it's probable that your premise is just wrong.

I've cited sources. If you don't believe them, that's not my problem. Espionage law deals with information relating to national defense. That is determined by a jury. It's not determined by the United States government.

Your sources back me up, not you. You've provided no sources to defend your claim that there's such a thing as "information relating to national defense" that isn't classified, but which you'd face charges for espionage for willfully communicating.

[Merkava]

Because not all classified information does.

Unclassified information, however, does not. Otherwise, pretty much every single news media source, and every single member of the Armed Forces, are all guilty of espionage. Is that seriously your claim?

If they were entrusted with that information that a jury would classify as relating to national defense and let that information be posessed by someone unauthorized, then yes. Why is that hard to understand?

[Gref]

Please make Hillary win. Go and vote tomorrow.

[Endus]

If they were entrusted with that information that a jury would classify as relating to national defense and let that information be posessed by someone unauthorized, then yes. Why is that hard to understand?

Because your argument would mean that every single member of the Armed Forces who has family or friends not in the Armed Forces, who know A> that he's in the Armed Forces, or B> that they're being deployed (not even where, just if), then that's arguably espionage, in your mind.

That's your argument. That despite that information not being classified at all, communicating it to anyone not explicitly authorized for it (which is their friends and family, in almost every case) is "espionage". Because as a member of the Armed Forces, that membership and their deployment status "relates to the national defense", in theory.

This is obviously a ridiculous premise.


The only reason information couldn't be passed on to someone unauthorized to hold it is if that information were classified at some level. Because the default on information is that if it's not classified, everyone's effectively "authorized" to have access to it.

[HAcoreRD]

Please make Hillary win. Go and vote tomorrow.

it's in 2 days

[Garnier Fructis]

Please make Hillary win. Go and vote tomorrow.

Isn't tomorrow Monday, not Tuesday?

Or is this a timezone thing.

[Merkava]

Of course not. But if you can't find even a single example, then it's probable that your premise is just wrong.



Your sources back me up, not you. You've provided no sources to defend your claim that there's such a thing as "information relating to national defense" that isn't classified, but which you'd face charges for espionage for willfully communicating.

The fact that there are two different legal standards backs me up. Espionage law doesn't deal solely with classified documents or information. That's what distinguishes it from other laws pertaining to classified information. If you think the law is archaic or unnecessarily broad, then that's a different matter. The act was written, I believe, before the current classification standards were enacted.

Not that this means anything, but this appears to be a case of someone charged with violating the espionage act without classified information being involved.

In the late 1990s, Wen Ho Lee of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was indicted under the Act. He and other national security professionals later said he was a "scapegoat"[this quote needs a citation] in the government's quest to determine if information about the W88 nuclear warhead had been transferred to China. Lee had made backup copies at LANL of his nuclear weapons simulations code to protect it in case of a system crash. The code was marked PARD, sensitive but not classified. As part of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to one count under the Espionage Act. The judge apologized to him for having believed the government.[citation needed] Lee later won more than a million dollars in a lawsuit against the government and several newspapers for their mistreatment of him.[84]