SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal contractor was arrested in August for unlawful retention of classified documents:
A federal contractor suspected of leaking powerful National Security Agency hacking tools has been arrested and charged with stealing classified information from the U.S. government, according to court records and a law enforcement official familiar with the case. Harold Thomas Martin III, 51, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, was charged with theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, authorities said. He was arrested in August after investigators searched his home in Glen Burnie, Md., and found documents and digital information stored on various devices that contained highly classified information, authorities said. The breadth of the damage Martin is alleged to have caused was not immediately clear, though officials alleged some of the documents he took home "could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States." Investigators are probing whether Martin was responsible for an apparent leak that led to a cache of NSA hacking tools appearing online in August, according to an official familiar with the case.
From the US DoJ release:
A criminal complaint has been filed charging Harold Thomas Martin III, age 51, of Glen Burnie, Maryland, with theft of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials by a government employee or contractor. According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Martin was a contractor with the federal government and had a top secret national security clearance. Martin was arrested late on August 27, 2016. The complaint was filed on August 29, 2016, and unsealed today.
Also at The New York Times , NBC, PBS, the Baltimore Sun .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:51AM
He should have just told them his last name was Clinton. Bam. No prosecution.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:08AM
He didnt intend to do it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:36AM
Yes, and as we all know, intent totally doesn't matter. Murder and manslaughter are the exact same thing
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
doesn't say anything along the lines of:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
I'm so surprised by such a blatant Clinton false-equivalency post!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @10:23AM
False-equivalency? You poor, naive Monkey. How many potential witnesses against her need to die in suspicious circumstances before your red pill kicks in do you think?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:15PM
Jesus fucking christ, you too?
Fuck, I didn't realize my opinion of you could go any lower.
And this, from the guy who used to brag about how smart he was [theregister.co.uk] because it took great intelligence to break out of the internet echo chamber.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:52PM
I pity you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:23PM
> I pity you.
And I pity any fool who believes you.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:40AM
Exactly, all he had to say was that he was, "extremely careless."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @12:29PM
You've got to be pretty dense to not see the difference between the two. Really dense. Or just ignorant. This is more in line with a Snowden than a Clinton. The interesting question here is determining what his intentions were with the material.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @01:57PM
In that case, we should throw him a ticker tape parade for being a hero.
Clinton must be stopped at virtually any cost. I wouldn't recommend assassination because that's a bit overboard, but the woman represents an existential threat to America as we know it. Trump is a dumby, but she's shown a complete lack of remorse or even comprehension about any of the things she's done wrong. And it's a rather long list with serious consequences. Trump isn't much better, but most of it can be expected of just about any business person managing a large enterprise.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Thexalon on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:01PM
Please explain exactly what Hillary can do as president that she couldn't have blackmailed Bill into doing in, say, 1995. Or, if she wasn't willing to risk it then, in 2000 when Gore had already lost and Bill could do whatever he wanted without facing any repercussions (e.g. pardoning Marc Rich).
That's where most of the Clinton conspiracy theories break down: If Hillary Clinton was going to do something terrible, she could have done it fairly easily in the 1990's. Compare that to spending 8 years slumming it in the Senate, then losing to Obama and spending 4 more years running around playing diplomat, and then having to win an election. Oh, and since according to most Clinton conspiracy theories she can and does commit murder with impunity, why didn't she simply take out the 4 people ahead of her in the presidential succession when she was Secretary of State?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:50PM
You're working from a model that assumes that the Clintons are the ones who are orchestrating the conspiracy. They aren't. It's more accurate to liken them to consiglieri to the Oligarchy/Powers That Be/Masters of the Universe/Deep State/UniParty/Lizard People. They don't have grand plans or strategies of their own, because they spend most of their time working out how to make a quick buck. The oligarchs, for their part, do not have pro-active grand plans or strategies because they spend most of their time trying to figure out how to co-opt or snuff out any challenges to their status quo. Players like the Clintons are tools they use for that purpose.
As far as cover-ups the Clintons might be involved in, they're not the ones figuring out the cover-ups. They surround themselves with amoral lackies who work that sort of thing out. Bill Clinton had Vernon Jordan, Donna Brazile, and others like them. (George W. Bush had Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others, to give you an example from the Republicans.)
It is theoretically possible for a President of the United States to thwart the Oligarchs, but that President would almost have to come from that stratum and have no fear of them. Teddy Roosevelt is the only example who comes to mind, and his term in office, which he wound up in by accident, set the Masters of the Universe back a full century. It's only now that they have recovered the absolute power they enjoyed before, and they stand poised to use it to put an end to the yearning of the American people for freedom once and for all.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:34PM
The trouble with assassinating Hillary is that Wall Street would just put up another stooge. They're the real power, and they don't care who's carrying the water for them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:56PM
The problem with it is that assassinating people for political reasons is an extremely dangerous proposition. There's 310m-ish people in the US and probably 3m-ish of them are psychopaths that would assassinate the President given cause and the chance. There's no way that the Secret Service could protect against that many if assassination becomes an acceptable or even tolerated process.
The other thing though is that Tim Kaine is just as rotten to the core as she is and would almost certainly continue her policies and probably have more ammunition out of respect for the dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @03:55PM
Trump isn't much better, but most of it can be expected of just about any business person managing a large enterprise.
I really don't understand this argument. Trump is roughly as bad as Clinton, but it's okay because other people are just as bad? WTF? You're argument would then hold for Clinton as well: "She may be evil but it can be expected of her, Trump, most large business managers, and miscellaneous other sociopaths and narcissist, so, yeah, no problem voting for any of them."
You might want consider what's really driving your decisions or at least generate better rationalizations.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 06 2016, @05:31PM
Of course it's more in line with Snowden than Clinton, but why not avail himself of the Clinton defense? After all, if we had Rule of Law then the precedent set with her ought to obtain for all subsequent cases involving classified material, shouldn't it? Let's also consider the scale and scope of her mishandling vs. his--he had access to less classified material than she because she was SECRETARY OF STATE, you know, one of the top five members of any administration in terms of importance? So his was by far the lesser crime, unless you mean to argue that she set up her email server on accident when it tumbled out of her purse and against all laws of probability connected and configured itself with her exact email credentials? Because surely if she can use that excuse to escape culpability for the greater crime, then surely he could use it to escape culpability for the lesser crime?
Of course, if you can't see that then perhaps your accusation of density and/or ignorance is better directed at a mirror.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @03:37PM
> He should have just told them his last name was Clinton. Bam. No prosecution.
He should have just told them his last name was Petraeus.
Clinton received unsolicited, unmarked classified materials from a civilian who probably got them from the CIA.
Petraeus (director of the CIA) deliberately took marked classified materials from classified systems and deliberately gave them to a civilian for his own benefit (to get his dick wet in the woman writing his hagiography).
Petraeus was charged, but he got a hand-slap — 2 years probation and a $100K fine (the prosecution only asked for a $50K fine).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @04:52PM
[Citation Needed]
Liar.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @06:02PM
> [Citation Needed]
Prove it was solicited.
> > unmarked
> Liar.
Will it make a difference if I prove it to you?
Your reactionary bubble is so well fortified that facts don't matter.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 06 2016, @07:38PM
This isn't a court of law, the burden is on you to prove your bestie is not a criminal and that we should vote for her. You know, like you keep demanding of her opposition.
Yes. And you're going to do this, how? Hack the DOJ since they haven't released them and will likely never release the classified ones? Oh, are you wanting me to take the word of the guys who refused to prosecute her despite enough evidence to have her in prison for life?
Reactionary? Really? Get an insult that's not from the 1800s.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2016, @11:23PM
> This isn't a court of law, the burden is on you to prove your bestie is not a criminal and that we should vote for her. You know, like you keep demanding of her opposition.
This isn't about voting for her. This is about you slurping up the bullshit and then calling it the truth.
> And you're going to do this, how? Hack the DOJ since they haven't released them and will likely never release the classified ones?
If you are so sure it can't be proven, put your money where your mouth is.
If I prove it, you commit to never posting about clinton's emails ever again.
Chicken? Yeah, I thought so. Coward.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @10:37AM
Oh, I'm sorry I've gone with a preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a shadow of doubt. Wait, no, I'm not.
If you had proof you'd have posted it by now. At this point you're just trying to draw this out so people might not see you as the stooge you are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @12:15PM
The reason I haven't posted it yet is because I want you to put your money where your bullshit slurping mouth is. I am fucking tired of posting proof and having it be ignored and then the fucktard goes around repeating the same bullshit as if it never happened.
If I am such a fakir, all you gotta do to call me out is agree: If I prove that none of the classified material was marked you won't post about clinton's emails anymore. You've got nothing to lose, right? Look, I know you haven't bothered to check into it yourself, your too much of a lazy fucktard and that's why you won't commit, because in the back of your head you are thinking, "holy shit, maybe he's right and he'll make a fool of me." Well, punk if you don't commit that's just admitting you don't even have the courage of your own convictions.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @12:40PM
Oh my balls, you have busted them. Please, bitch. Prove it or don't. At this point I really don't care anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:09PM
Coward.
Well, there we have it. The mighty butthurt knows he's so full of shit that he won't even stand by his own words.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @01:21PM
Bored now. If you could prove your shit you would have done it when first asked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @01:37PM
> If you could prove your shit you would have done it when first asked.
Going in loops [soylentnews.org] now because you know you are intellectually bankrupt.
Come on man, all you got to do is stand by your own words.
Unless you are willing to stand by your words I've got no reason to prove anything. You are the one who accused me of being a liar but its just an empty accusation unless you are willing to back it up.
> Bored now.
You've said that twice now, but you sure keep posting like you care. You are just too much of a coward to actually back your own words. Just cut-n-paste it: "If you prove that none of the classified material was marked, I won't post about clinton's emails ever again." I'm not even saying you have to admit you were wrong, you just have to stop talking about it. That's about the smallest possible thing you could do to back your own beliefs. But you won't even do that because you don't even trust yourself. You are full of shit and you know it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 07 2016, @01:56PM
I do not gamble. Not for any reason. But have fun thinking you won something. You're still a liar, just like your gal Clinton, until you prove otherwise. I'm going to go do actual work now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @02:09PM
> I do not gamble. Not for any reason.
Haha. Yeah, you just post bullshit because you have neither personal responsibility nor any commitment to truth.