FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

To put the wrong information some people keep repeating to bed - When the word AND is used ALL elements must be met. When the word OR is used each element stands on its own.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or


(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(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.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

Section F stands on its own.

a reply to: RickinVa

Yes, you keep telling us what the "truth" is, and as support you say "look it up."

If my statement is incorrect PROVE It with actual EVIDENCE and not your assumed authority either. You've been presenting us with that for months as well, and you were blatantly WRONG in your claims.

So, stop with the "i'm an authority and you can take me at my word" and prove me wrong.

Or admit you're full of hot air.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes you tried this argument before and were shot down because you didnt understand the definition posted was in general (as I stated in the post) and was used as an example to those who didn't know the difference, much like yourself.

Yes, I understand that you claim that definition is used "in general" but it is also applied to legal matters. That definition was from a legal dictionary site.

Intent is not required for section F and no amount of you being wrong will change that.

I admit that the debate on gross negligence is a tough one. That is why I have reverted to opinion by the SCOTUS and even others that indicate that intent is the defining factor that separates simple negligence and gross negligence.

scholarship.law.marquette.edu...

Given the precedence set forth by the SCOTUS and other courts around this nation, I remain firm on the position that gross negligence requires intent and a conscious effort to subvert the law itself.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Another long posting of Federal law ...

Another selection of bolded words ...

Zero commentary, evidence, or anything else regarding the topic of discussion.

Do you think you're fooling anyone with this?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: RickinVa

I can not tell you where the place of custody IS, but I can tell you where it's NOT, and that is on a private home server. It also is NOT a blackberry.

So tell us ... what you base that on. A hunch? Intuition?

If you admit you don't know what the legal implications of the phrase "place of custody" is ... how do you possibly know what it isn't?

Basic logic.

a reply to: RickinVa

Section F specifically states:

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—

Place of custody is key.

That's what is says.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wen dealing with classified information proper place of custody as defined is the secured servers used / designated by the US government.

Even Comey spoke to that fact. By placing classified emails on a private, unauthorized, unsecured server they were improperly removed from their "place of custody".

So yes you are wrong.

I urge people to double check and verify what you post. You intentionally ignore facts / laws you don't understand and you make false claims about the law and its application.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you tend to bring classified work documents home with you without expressed permission? Cmon man, I know your a stickler for serious facts but use a little logic here...basic logic if you will.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you once again failed to read what was posted so once again you ignored a chance to learn why you are wrong. Thank you for proving my point from further back in the thread that you ignore facts / what you don't understand / what doesn't support your position. All you are doing is derailing the thread and trolling, burying important info and facts under useless information.

The motto is deny ignorance, not embrace it.

I urge people to double check and verify what you post. You intentionally ignore facts / laws you don't understand and you make false claims about the law and its application.

a reply to: introvert

Again - place of custody are secured servers designated by the US government to store / house / what have you classified information (at all levels). A private unsecured server in Clinton's basement is not authorized and storing them there is illegal.

There is a reason there were emails talking about setting up a small office area near the sections where the secured servers were located in the SD and other federal locations. The areas were secured for classified info and electronic devices were not allowed in those areas.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Again - place of custody are secured servers designated by the US government to store / house / what have you classified information (at all levels). A private unsecured server in Clinton's basement is not authorized and storing them there is illegal.

Section F specifically states the information had to be "removed"...etc.

In the case of an unsecured server, section F would not apply.

Can you tell us what section does?

a reply to: introvert

and since Clinton had all her emails diverted to her non secure home server the classified emails in question were removed from their lawful place of custody, secured government servers, Clinton's own.

Clinton's server was not and is not a part of SIPRNet.

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the 'completely secure' environment".[1] It also provides services such as hypertext document access and electronic mail. As such, SIPRNet is the DoD's classified version of the civilian Internet.

SIPRNet is the SECRET component of the Defense Information Systems Network.[2] Other components handle communications with other security needs, such as NIPRNet which is used for nonsecure communications, and JWICS which is used for Top Secret communications.

Section F does in fact apply.

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or

The classified emails found on the private server (not any that were upclassified) were removed from their proper place of custody (Siprnet) and transferred to a private unauthorized server (clintons).

a reply to: Xcathdra

And once again you're sharing your unappreciated personal impressions of me.

Argue your case, provide evidence. You've demonstrated that your legal knowledge is limited to cut-and-paste and bolding.

Why are you so desperate to make it personal?

I'm sure folks are starting to wonder what your agenda really is ...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Again - place of custody are secured servers designated by the US government to store / house / what have you classified information (at all levels). A private unsecured server in Clinton's basement is not authorized and storing them there is illegal.

There is a reason there were emails talking about setting up a small office area near the sections where the secured servers were located in the SD and other federal locations. The areas were secured for classified info and electronic devices were not allowed in those areas.

Again, you make a statement with absolutely no backup.

If you're correct, and have so much professional knowledge, surely you can cite that procedure from a manual at State ... or something ... anything ... besides your own witness.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra


I'm sure folks are starting to wonder what your agenda really is ...

Not really, and you should not speak for others and you pointedly speak out about in other threads.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The facts / law where shown / explained.

Please stop trolling.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Again, you make a statement with absolutely no backup.

If you're correct, and have so much professional knowledge, surely you can cite that procedure from a manual at State ... or something ... anything ... besides your own witness.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Educate yourself on SIPRNet then come back and join us.


I urge people to double check and verify what you post. You intentionally ignore facts / laws you don't understand and you make false claims about the law and its application.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, what were the emails, and the information contained, removed from?

If it did not originate or end-up on the proper systems, that is another matter.

For section F to apply, you would have to prove it was "removed" from it proper place.

Please do so. Prove that the information contained in any of those emails were removed from it's proper place.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Again, you make a statement with absolutely no backup.

If you're correct, and have so much professional knowledge, surely you can cite that procedure from a manual at State ... or something ... anything ... besides your own witness.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Educate yourself on SIPRNet then come back and join us.

Thanks for yet another suggestion trying to shut down my commentary.

Here's a simple request, made again. Demonstrate that either in published procedure manuals from the State Department, any part of Federal law, or any reasonable source other than yourself ... why the materials in Secretary Clinton's possession didn't constitute holding in "a place of custody."

Do that, or please, stop trying to take this off-topic with snide personal commentary.

a reply to: Gryphon66

no problem. here ya go:

fas.org...

here is a company that will build you a "place of custody" and guarantee it meets NSA standards:

www.armagcorp.com...


took about 60 seconds.... you are welcome