CDZ Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate"

[320 Years of History]

Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s not there.

Exactly. We also have to assume that foreign governments have all of them. It's the American people who are in the dark.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/64683

Be that as it may, we don't indict people on assumptions about the nature of what does not exist.

Please stop. I proved to you CONCLUSIVELY that the CLINTON Administration declared that yes neglect with classified material is illegal, BUT usually not prosecuted as a criminal offense.

Not prosecuted =/= non criminal, PERIOD.

I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".

What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.

From The Washington Post article:

Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.​

The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.

I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s not there.

Exactly. We also have to assume that foreign governments have all of them. It's the American people who are in the dark.

The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

Be that as it may, we don't indict people on assumptions about the nature of what does not exist.

Please stop. I proved to you CONCLUSIVELY that the CLINTON Administration declared that yes neglect with classified material is illegal, BUT usually not prosecuted as a criminal offense.

Not prosecuted =/= non criminal, PERIOD.

I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".

What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.

From The Washington Post article:

Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.​

The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.

I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

 

[320 Years of History]

Be that as it may, we don't indict people on assumptions about the nature of what does not exist.

Please stop. I proved to you CONCLUSIVELY that the CLINTON Administration declared that yes neglect with classified material is illegal, BUT usually not prosecuted as a criminal offense.

Not prosecuted =/= non criminal, PERIOD.

I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".

What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.

From The Washington Post article:

Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.​

The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.

I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Please stop. I proved to you CONCLUSIVELY that the CLINTON Administration declared that yes neglect with classified material is illegal, BUT usually not prosecuted as a criminal offense.

Not prosecuted =/= non criminal, PERIOD.

I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".

What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.

From The Washington Post article:

Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.​

The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.

I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

No, it is certainly NOT called "the espionage act" LOL chapter 37 is entitled "Espionage and Censorship" and includes MANY subsections, Section 793 does NOT deal with Espionage. Section 794 actually deals with Espionage.

The ESPIONAGE ACT itself is an older law that was incorporated into Title 18 of the US Code.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".

What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.

From The Washington Post article:

Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.​

The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.

I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

No, it is certainly NOT called "the espionage act" LOL chapter 37 is entitled "Espionage and Censorship" and includes MANY subsections, Section 793 does NOT deal with Espionage. Section 794 actually deals with Espionage.

The ESPIONAGE ACT itself is an older law that was incorporated into Title 18 of the US Code.

You just keep believing that....

• U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act - Jun 15, 1917 - HISTORY.com
  
• Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Espionage Act of 1917
  
• Espionage Act | Open Websites
  
• Espionage Act of 1917

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

No, it is certainly NOT called "the espionage act" LOL chapter 37 is entitled "Espionage and Censorship" and includes MANY subsections, Section 793 does NOT deal with Espionage. Section 794 actually deals with Espionage.

The ESPIONAGE ACT itself is an older law that was incorporated into Title 18 of the US Code.

You just keep believing that....

• U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act - Jun 15, 1917 - HISTORY.com
  
• Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Espionage Act of 1917
  
• Espionage Act | Open Websites
  
• Espionage Act of 1917

LOL read your own link , it says right in it that the Espionage Act was made part of Title 18 Chapter 37, just as I said.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:

What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:

[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.​

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.​

Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

No, it is certainly NOT called "the espionage act" LOL chapter 37 is entitled "Espionage and Censorship" and includes MANY subsections, Section 793 does NOT deal with Espionage. Section 794 actually deals with Espionage.

The ESPIONAGE ACT itself is an older law that was incorporated into Title 18 of the US Code.

You just keep believing that....

• U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act - Jun 15, 1917 - HISTORY.com
  
• Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Espionage Act of 1917
  
• Espionage Act | Open Websites
  
• Espionage Act of 1917

LOL read your own link , it says right in it that the Espionage Act was made part of Title 18 Chapter 37, just as I said.

I can see now that the best way to get you to read things to which I link is to post the wrong thing so you can feel a sense of accomplishment by finding a snippet of "whatever" that has nothing to do with the central point. Good...now maybe you'll read on your own about how legal precedents pertaining to how criminal culpability is determined apply to more than just the specific case in which the precedent was established.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What the hell? Who's talking about ESPIONAGE? Were talking about Title 18 US Code 793 , which deals with the mishandling of classified material, and makes it a crime, and sub section (f) which SPECIFICALLY makes it a crime whether there was intent or not. Now as I showed you EARLIER, under Bill Clinton it was clarified that mishandling of classified material without intent IS a crime. It just is rarely prosecuted. But they specifically said it normally isn't prosecuted only if the agency in question took internal actions. IE you work for the State Department, they find out you say lost a briefcase with classified material in it, they will normally strip you of your security clearance and fire you. But they won't prosecute.

Now obviously, no internal action was performed against Hillary.

Now, please stop talking about espionage.

Did is escape you that Title 18 Chapter 37, which includes Section 793 is called the "Espionage Act" because that's what it addresses?

....Oh, nevermind. I can see that you don't understand the idea of legal precedent.

No, it is certainly NOT called "the espionage act" LOL chapter 37 is entitled "Espionage and Censorship" and includes MANY subsections, Section 793 does NOT deal with Espionage. Section 794 actually deals with Espionage.

The ESPIONAGE ACT itself is an older law that was incorporated into Title 18 of the US Code.

You just keep believing that....

• U.S. Congress passes Espionage Act - Jun 15, 1917 - HISTORY.com
  
• Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• Espionage Act of 1917
  
• Espionage Act | Open Websites
  
• Espionage Act of 1917

LOL read your own link , it says right in it that the Espionage Act was made part of Title 18 Chapter 37, just as I said.

I can see now that the best way to get you to read things to which I link is to post the wrong thing so you can feel a sense of accomplishment by finding a snippet of "whatever" that has nothing to do with the central point. Good...now maybe you'll read on your own about how legal precedents pertaining to how criminal culpability is determined apply to more than just the specific case in which the precedent was established.

At this point, it is clear that you are purposely misreading my posts.

I have said from the VERY beginning that it is unlikely that she will be indicted, for several reasons. But that does not change the fact that she broke the law.

This is almost always the result of a criminal investigation into mishandling of classified information. A decision of no indictment, again for a variety of reasons. The KEY difference being that in those other cases the person was sanctioned by their employer.

Let me give a personal example. Ten years ago, I had a friend who worked at the same agency as I did. He was Supervisory officer in Washington, whilst I was a field agent.

This friend , one night stopped for dinner one night after work, his car was stolen whlst he ate. Yes in the trunk of the car was his briefcase containing classified material. His security clearance was revoked and he was offered a choice, resign or face criminal charges. He resigned, and poof the criminal charges for neglectful handling of classified material went away. Obviously that doesn't mean he suddenly hadn't been neglectful with classified material, it simply means a choice was made not to prosecute him criminally. It happens A LOT.

So yes, Comey could have recommended indictment. He CHOSE not to. But the law was violated.

 

[320 Years of History]

But that does not change the fact that she broke the law.

I have not refuted the assertion that Mrs. Clinton's actions meet the standard of actus rea. What I have consistently stated is that there is no clear evidence that she possessed the mens rea needed to hold her criminally culpable for the acts she committed.