CDZ FBI Recommends No Charges Against Mrs. Clinton...but what it says creates political drama...AWKWARD

[Fair&Balanced]

it is obvious from your last post that you are viewing this from a political spectrum. I mean how do you with a straight face say " I don't think she committed a crime, but I wanted her indicted ?" I wouldn't have wanted her indicted had she not committed a crime.

Red + Blue:
I said that with regard to Mrs. Clinton's role in "Email-gate," the actus rea aspect of criminality exists and is provable beyond a reasonable doubt and that the mens rea component of criminality does not exist to the extent that it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I've also said that both components are necessary. That is also what Dir. Comey said. If you are going to paraphrase me, fine, but do so completely and accurately.

Red:
How do you with a straight face "cherry pick" what I wrote. taking them out of context, and thereby misrepresent by omission what I did in fact write and mean? You know as well as I do that I have gone out of my way to make clear that the basis for my view and that of the FBI is the lack of clear evidence to show the existence of mens rea in the commission of the acts of "Email-gate." You know that because you've been posting in the thread I created expressly to discuss the role and importance of mens rea. Moreover, I posted multiple references in the OP and elsewhere in that and this thread about how the concept of mens rea plays into the FBI's determination/recommendation to the DOJ.

As I asked you before, did you read them? I did.

This is personal for me.

That may well be a very good reason why you should refrain from partaking in what is supposed to be an objective discussion on the matter. You may be taking the matter too personally and thus not seeing the nature and application of legal theory through the clear lens of neutrality.

You're wrong okay.

What was Comey supposed to say " Okay guys, let's indict her and put the POTUS on the stand to explain why he was sending classified material to an insecure server?"

If she truly hadn't done anything wrong, Comey wouldn't have spent 15 minutes explaining to everyone everything she DID do wrong.

As for it being personal to me, the fact that it is personal to me is why I have a greater understanding of the applicable law than you . I lived it. I began my career LONG before email. Used to be all contacts and such were via phone. And yes, you had to go to the embassy, or another off site location that had a secure phone to discuss classified material. If you called on a non secure land line, your ass would be in the fire. Then came mobile phones, and with them the warnings not to use them to discuss classified material, then came email with the same type warnings. Now , if I as a lowly NSA agent was being told not to use private email accounts to discuss classified material, is it conceivable that Sec of State was not given the same admonishments?

And the thing with security clearances is that the higher up the food chain you move, the more responsible you are supposed to be in your treatment of classified material. This negates Hillary's entire "it wasn't marked classified " bullshit, because at that level, she often ORIGINATES classified material and is tasked with deciding on her own whether that material should be classified or not, and to treat it appropriately.

And here's another thing to scare you, The President has access to nearly EVERYTHING , shouldn't that person be someone who there is not a sniff of a question about their ability to safeguard it?

And yeah, I'm not going to step back on the subject, that fat cow risked MY personal safety so that she could avoid FOIA requests.

 

[320 Years of History]

As for it being personal to me, the fact that it is personal to me is why I have a greater understanding of the applicable law than you . I lived it.

Based solely on your remarks, it appears to me you have far more experience than I living with the consequences of violations of the Espionage Act and with having to comply with its terms. It also appears, again based solely on your remarks, is that you don't know more than I about the interpretation of laws and what it takes to gain a conviction for alleged violations of them.

I think those two things because throughout this conversation, I've consistently written about the requirements for successfully prosecuting someone for violations of Section 793(f) of Title 18 and what you've been discussing is the "real world" consequences that may result from one's violating Section 793(f) of Title 18. Nobody, not I, not the FBI , is disputing the risks that were possibly introduced because Mrs. Clinton violated Section 793(f). What is under discussion is whether there exists "beyond a reasonable doubt's" evidence that she did so with the specific intent of violating Section 793(f).

What people in this discussion have described are various types of intent, but all of them are "general intent." Well, 793(f) is not a general intent code section; it's a "specific intent" law. That distinction is clearly shown and discussed in the legal documentation I've provided in the course of my posts on the matter.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

So again, we have a Hillary supporter pleading that she could not be expected to reasonably know that classified information from her job as Secretary of State would pipe classified information through her private email server and thus put that said classified information at risk on an unsecure server.

I'm amazed that so many Democrats think that this type of unreasonable, irresponsible behavior is what we need in charge of our national defense in a time of grave danger to our nation.

And if you dont think that the Islamic Jihadists pose such a risk to the USA, just look what they did to the Soviet Union, which is no longer here.

They were the final straw the size and mass of a stack of 2x4s.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is personal for me. I used to work for the NSA, I was one of the many who went to countries I wasn't supposed to be in, to do things I wasn't supposed to be doing. Often times those things were coordinated through the State Department. That means potentially that emails containing my name and my whereabouts while conducting illegal activity in a foreign country without diplomatic cover were at one time or another on her server.

My wife and children would not have appreciated it had I been killed due to information leaking off that server.

The federal employee data has been hacked so many times now that ISIS probably has multiple lists with everyone that is such an employee on the cloud by now.

In effect, your name has been leaked to our nations enemies, and I believe it is the result of deliberate neglect by the Obama regime.

ISIS has already published a list of over 8,000 names of federal employees that they want killed.

Is your name on that list? You can thank Obama as well as Hillary.

 

[Picaro]

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

he is mistaken plenty of reasonable prosecutors are going WTF

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.

As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.

Having worked in the intelligence field for some time, I can tell you carelessness with classified material most certainly is a crime. There are several behind bars now for that very reason. After Bill met with the potential prosecutor and Hillary rode on Air Force One with the one who appointed the FBI director this is simply a way to let a Clinton skate once again.

the head of the FBI said in other cases it certainly was a crime

and now lawyers for other crooks are going to come out of the woodwork for others convicted and sentenced for a lot less, and cite 'the Hillary Defense'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

in other cases it certainly was a crime

In other cases the specific details differed.

yes they are not Hillary Clinton

that is the specific difference

 

[jon_berzerk]

As director of the FBI who has spent over 20 million dollars and a year investigating Clinton emails he certain should know if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges.

Although, I didn't agree with everything he said, I found his report really refreshing. How often do we hear anything out of Washington that's not just political bullshit? I think his report said what most people believe. Clinton is guilty of careless handling emails with classified information, but not guilty of any crime.

At minimum she's guilty of being too stupid/careless to be President.

As much as Republican would like to frame it as such, carelessness is not necessarily a crime. Gross negligence can certainly be. However, proving the Secretary of State has been grossly negligence when their is no evidence would be a pretty tall order. After all the Secretary did not set up the server and probably had little knowledge at the time of exactly where here emails were being store or how secure they were. Those tasks are relegated to others.

Having worked in the intelligence field for some time, I can tell you carelessness with classified material most certainly is a crime. There are several behind bars now for that very reason. After Bill met with the potential prosecutor and Hillary rode on Air Force One with the one who appointed the FBI director this is simply a way to let a Clinton skate once again.

the head of the FBI said in other cases it certainly was a crime

and now lawyers for other crooks are going to come out of the woodwork for others convicted and sentenced for a lot less, and cite 'the Hillary Defense'.

of course

looks like this going to get second look

 

[Picaro]

No charges were brought because influence peddlers like the Clintons bought their way out of it. The FBI director just states that he doesn't recommend prosecuting her, not that she was innocent of anything, and he goes to announce that others will be prosecuted for doing the same thing she did, and that this is just a special Hillary pass that no one else will get. He thinks she will win and he's covering his ass like any other career bureaucrat will, and doesn't want the Clinton smear machine hanging a target on his back. You spin and bloviate and dissemble all you want, she was guilty and the report says so.

Opinions, assumptions, and wishful thinking.
He did not say other will be prosecuted for doing the same thing. That is your interpretation.

Just your naive and credulous opinion, assumption, and wishful thinking. Those of us who live on Planet Earth know how political corruption and influence peddling work.

 

[Flopper]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

 

[jasonnfree]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

 

[320 Years of History]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

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.

You just proved she's too stupid to be President.

 

[320 Years of History]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

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.

You just proved she's too stupid to be President.

Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't. Whether I did or did not has nothing to do with whether she is guilty of criminally violating 793(f).

 

[Flopper]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

 

[Flopper]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

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.

I think it is pretty clear Hillary had no intent to violate the law and probably no knowledge that she might be when when she read and sent some of her emails. Most top executives in large organization don't know where there emails are stored nor what level of security exists because that's not really there job even thou they may be responsible for such.

I think anyone with an once of intelligence knows that Clinton did not setup the server and most probably had no knowledge of the security of that server nor the security protocols in use. Clinton is responsible as Secretary of State for the proper handling of classified material but criminally negligence, is a Republican wet dream.

 

[jasonnfree]

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

Temperament, experience, knowledge. Pretty subjective subject, but we do know she had experience under fire, which she either flat out lied about or fantasized about. Great, a president who is either a liar or lives in a fantasy world. Getting on to other things like email. You say there was no intent on her part to do wrong. The prisons are full of people who didn't intend to do harm to their victims. "But judge, I didn't know the gun was loaded", don't cut it except we must give hillary a break because...??? She might have compromised agents in the field or whatever. Good luck with your candidate who can't be trusted to handle matters of national security or telling the truth, but she does have other important qualities we need in a president such as........?

 

[Flopper]

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

The FBI, is far more impartial and capable of conducting criminal investigations than House Republicans. The bureau has spent over 20 million dollars in a year long exhaustive investigation of Clinton's emails. There finding is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and is not recommending prosecution. The JD has followed the FBI recommendation, saying there will be no prosecution. To any sane person, this should end the issue so why is the House continuing to waste tax payers dollars on silly hearings and probes. There is not going to be a prosecution and Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee.


Could it be that House Republicans are trying to distract voters from looking at the temperature, qualifications, and background of Clinton's opponent.

Not even a transcript of questions asked of her. Security of the country could have been compromised, we'll never know. Hillary is either too stupid or to arrogant to follow email protocol, or she's hiding something. Not all emails were recovered. I'm fine with Trump's record so far. He comes out and says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush like most politicians. A lot of the things he's said have been twisted by the press to mean something else.

Trump has great one liners and can adlib better than anyone I know. However, can he formulate complex polices, explain and defend them. From his speeches and interviews, the answer seems to be no. He defends his policies by diverting and his explanations leaves his audience perplexed requiring clarifications and corrections by his staff.

I would certain vote for Trump for host on a late night TV show but as president forget it. He would be an embarrassment to the nation and would most likely get the country into really serious trouble with his inability to keep his foot out of his mouth.

Trump doesn't have the temperament, the experience, or knowledge to lead this country.

Temperament, experience, knowledge. Pretty subjective subject, but we do know she had experience under fire, which she either flat out lied about or fantasized about. Great, a president who is either a liar or lives in a fantasy world. Getting on to other things like email. You say there was no intent on her part to do wrong. The prisons are full of people who didn't intend to do harm to their victims. "But judge, I didn't know the gun was loaded", don't cut it except we must give hillary a break because...??? She might have compromised agents in the field or whatever. Good luck with your candidate who can't be trusted to handle matters of national security or telling the truth, but she does have other important qualities we need in a president such as........?

Clinton would not have been my first choice, however against Trump, she is hands down the best qualified despite her problem with the email which have been be blown out of proportion by the opposition. .

 

[JimBowie1958]

Clinton would not have been my first choice, however against Trump, she is hands down the best qualified despite her problem with the email which have been be blown out of proportion by the opposition. .

Better a lying criminal liberal than a conservative that speaks plainly and honestly, right Comrade?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Seems that Hillary's deletions of emails, calendar events and other activities were designed to protect her from prosecution and this is evidence of criminal intent.

Mrs. Clinton's deeds don't rise to the level of criminality. That is the point. Nobody is saying setting up a server and sending/receiving classified information via it isn't wrong or ill advised. The law does not care if it was ill advised. The legal question one must ask is not "did the person knowingly set up a server that may have sent/received classified content?". The questions, in order to establish criminality, are:

• Did the person know that setting up a server to send and receive DoS emails was illegal?
• Did the person set up the server with the intent of sending/receiving classified content?
• Did the person set up the server intending to circumvent the provisions of Title 18 or other regulations/laws?

The simple answer in Mrs. Clinton's case is that she did not implement the server to avoid the stipulations of Title 18 or anything else. As has been repeatedly noted, at best, her intent was convenience, and not the convenience of trading classified content with anyone.


Dir. Comey used the "extreme carelessness" language and, understandably, one might ask, "Well, isn't 'extreme carelessness' synonymous with 'gross negligence?' Mrs. Clinton's deeds could fit into the language of 793(f). Couldn't that then be used to prosecute Mrs. Clinton's deeds as criminal?" The answer, is that, yes, one could use that as a basis for prosecuting, but it would be the first time the DoJ has done so. Most importantly, to prosecute her on that basis is to do so for the purpose of weakening or destroying her political prospects, not because she was criminally motivated to do something that is illegal.

Our criminal system doesn't aim to prosecute people because "this or that" statute allows one to be prosecuted. Our system of jurisprudence does not go "witch hunting," even if politically that's what people do in the interest of bringing down their political opposition.


Hillary’s political foes note that the State Department buck should stop definitively with Madam Secretary; as the head of the department, a systemic lack of security should be blamed on her. Reasonable people could certainly debate the level of responsibility a cabinet member should bear for such a failure. Still, such a theory of liability would never lead to a reasonable conclusion that Secretary Clinton should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While Hillary-haters will undoubtedly fixate on the finding that her department was “extremely careless” with the handling of sensitive information, the bottom line is that such a failure just isn’t criminal.

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.

They do so 320 , and I proved that to you CONCLUSIVELY in the other thread about this. Traditionally charges are just not brought when the convening authority has sanctioned the person involved. IE the person who did it was fired and or stripped of their security clearance by whatever agency they worked for. That was obviously not done here. Stop stupidly claiming she didn't break the law when in fact she did.