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

[JimBowie1958]

Monica was turned into a Zombie by the Clintons.

or humidor, take your pick

 

[Mindful]

Just sloppiness all the way around right up to and including the FBI investigation.

If 'lose lips sink ships' after Hillarys email server ran for a few years, no wonder our navy is so under strength.

There was that latest Russian hacking incident.

 

[Mindful]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

What you DON'T know is that what appears in Statute about mishandling classified info is NOT a definitive set of rules for any SPECIFIC dept. Some depts have special sources and methods. NOTHING in there to proscribe a UNIVERSAL set of rules for all the variables. Won't go into more detail on that. But folks moving satellites and drones around to trouble spots -- have totally DIFFERENT "security documentation and security issues".. There are GUIDELINES and then there is the 100 times LARGER book of approved practice -- which is INTERNALLY at Agency level..

She WAS responsible for the practices for handling all material that was classified at State. Her LEAST concern was complying with some unclassified "guideline" that you can read on the Internet... Anderson Cooper is NOT gonna tell you that. MAYBE a congress critter would explain that -- but it would never make air.

You're not following along if at this point -- these are your questions.,

What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) Absolutely in evidence.

2) NO requirement for that mishandled information to actually BE stolen or compromised. No "espionage" required... And INTENT is your choice to believe she's a mere incompetent idiot or she knew EXACTLY she was circumventing the APPROVED methods and channels. The "defense" against intent rests solely on being incompetent and naive about her responsibilities.

3) I've never once argued here that this SHOULD have gone to court if it was a NORMAL joe. I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses. Just because the "public discussion" is void of this consideration doesn't mean that it ain't ACTUALLY one of the most important "security implications" of what she did. So it IS part of determining how SERIOUSLY she violated the law and/or the rules..

I look forward to you recognizing that a Prez subject to blackmail should never be a candidate for further handling of National secrets.. Her current "courtesy clearances" should have been revoked YESTERDAY. And you don't statutes or courts or the DOJ to accomplish that.




.

Your paragraph about exposure to blackmail: could this imply that any member of her staff could be targeted in this manner? Maybe have been already, and no one knows about it.......yet?

After all, there have been other cover ups. And eventual exposure. Or whistle blowing.

 

[320 Years of History]

Some depts have special sources and methods.

Fine. Please reference the laws State has that she violated, under which she can now be penalized for having violated, and that have not thus far been noted. I'm more than happy to consider them.

I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

I squarely disagree with that proposition. Nobody, high or low on the food chain, should be subject to greater or lesser criminal investigation and prosecution. That said, you got what you wanted; Mrs. Clinton's actions were criminally investigated. The FBI conducted the investigation.

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses.

As I noted before, I'm not unwilling to discuss the blackmail effect. I'm just unwilling to do so in this thread. I remain willing to discuss it in a different CDZ or SDF thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

What you DON'T know is that what appears in Statute about mishandling classified info is NOT a definitive set of rules for any SPECIFIC dept. Some depts have special sources and methods. NOTHING in there to proscribe a UNIVERSAL set of rules for all the variables. Won't go into more detail on that. But folks moving satellites and drones around to trouble spots -- have totally DIFFERENT "security documentation and security issues".. There are GUIDELINES and then there is the 100 times LARGER book of approved practice -- which is INTERNALLY at Agency level..

She WAS responsible for the practices for handling all material that was classified at State. Her LEAST concern was complying with some unclassified "guideline" that you can read on the Internet... Anderson Cooper is NOT gonna tell you that. MAYBE a congress critter would explain that -- but it would never make air.

You're not following along if at this point -- these are your questions.,

What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) Absolutely in evidence.

2) NO requirement for that mishandled information to actually BE stolen or compromised. No "espionage" required... And INTENT is your choice to believe she's a mere incompetent idiot or she knew EXACTLY she was circumventing the APPROVED methods and channels. The "defense" against intent rests solely on being incompetent and naive about her responsibilities.

3) I've never once argued here that this SHOULD have gone to court if it was a NORMAL joe. I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses. Just because the "public discussion" is void of this consideration doesn't mean that it ain't ACTUALLY one of the most important "security implications" of what she did. So it IS part of determining how SERIOUSLY she violated the law and/or the rules..

I look forward to you recognizing that a Prez subject to blackmail should never be a candidate for further handling of National secrets.. Her current "courtesy clearances" should have been revoked YESTERDAY. And you don't statutes or courts or the DOJ to accomplish that.




.

Your paragraph about exposure to blackmail: could this imply that any member of her staff could be targeted in this manner? Maybe have been already, and no one knows about it.......yet?

After all, there have been other cover ups. And eventual exposure. Or whistle blowing.

Sure. Anyone who mishandled classified material over that server or are embarrassed by anything that might show up there -- could be pressured in their judgments or decisions. Including being strong-arm into revealing MORE national secrets. That's why being blackmail-able is such a serious consideration for clearances.

If a bad actor group or country hacked that system ANYTIME in it's operational lifetime, they likely have a MUCH more complete record of the correspondence than even the FBI has at this point..

 

[flacaltenn]

Some depts have special sources and methods.

Fine. Please reference the laws State has that she violated, under which she can now be penalized for having violated, and that have not thus far been noted. I'm more than happy to consider them.

I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

I squarely disagree with that proposition. Nobody, high or low on the food chain, should be subject to greater or lesser criminal investigation and prosecution. That said, you got what you wanted; Mrs. Clinton's actions were criminally investigated. The FBI conducted the investigation.

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses.

As I noted before, I'm not unwilling to discuss the blackmail effect. I'm just unwilling to do so in this thread. I remain willing to discuss it in a different CDZ or SDF thread.

So -- if YOU were aware of the blantant disregard for security protocols at State -- would YOU have referred the Secretary of State to the Internal review board for security matters?????????????????

She was a Cabinet member. She WAS the top of the food chain and not likely to be sanctioned. So what would be your motivation for making that kamikaze move??

 

[JimBowie1958]

She was a Cabinet member. She WAS the top of the food chain and not likely to be sanctioned. So what would be your motivation for making that kamikaze move??

BUT she is also a top member of the Royal House Clinton, not a minor factoid there, bro.

 

[Mindful]

On the applicable statutes --- I watched 3/4 of Comey getting questioned. NOBODY was invoking 793 because that's the FELONY version of 1924. So let's keep the margins clean..

Well, perhaps you then missed the part where they discussed gross negligence and expressly cited Subsection 793 of Title 18. I suggest you re-watch the hearing or read the transcript.

As for Clinton"s JOB to set policy and standards for handling classified material at State -- AND her role to make sure violations are handled INTERNAL to the Dept appropriately -- You are flat wrong.....As I told you in my first post -- THESE are the folks that hand out Administrative sanctions that Comey repeatedly spoke of. And as the HEAD of the dept at State -- It was INDEED her responsibility to perform oversight on those operations.

No, I'm not flat wrong. It seems that just as the nuanced differences between being able to prove mens rea and actus rea seems lost on you, it appears you also have missed the subtle distinction between setting standards and "handling" the implementation of the standards that have been set. They simply are not the same things.

• Setting standards is the act of defining what standards must be followed.
• Handling standards entails the things you noted in the quoted passage above:
  • Identify violations of the standards defined
  • Levy sanctions for identified and confirmed violations
  • Monitor the execution of business processes

You claim my understanding that the SecState does not set the standards that pertain to how classified information is to be handled is mistaken. Fine. Give me a link to the document that indicates the State Department has defined its own standards governing the handling of classified information. I provided links to the documents that indicate other agency/department/task force heads set those standards. Show me I'm mistaken. I don't mind being mistaken, but I at least showed and provided links to clear evidence that the standards I know of and that have been promulgated throughout the federal government came from someplace other than the Department of State.

Your response to my experienced observation that having a Sec State conduct the MAJORITY of her biz on a home-brewed ad hoc UNAPPROVED comm channel puts LIVES and National reputation at risk boggles my mind.

I cannot speak to the nature or extent of how or why my remarks boggle your mind. I take you at your word that your mind is boggled.

What I can say is I don't really care about the majority or minimality of Mrs. Clinton's email communications happening over her personal email server/account. What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

What boggles my mind is why you and others have so much trouble understanding what the FBI's director, a highly qualified attorney in his own right, has "told you:" Subsection 793(f) is a "specific intent" law. As I've made clear, using my own words as well as corroborating them with highly credible and cogent legal thought that was published long before "Email-gate" came to light, that means not just "any old intent" such as the intent to use a personal email account -- which would be "general intent" -- but the specific intent to violate 793(f)'s stipulations. Moreover, the documents to which I provided links -- both laymen-grade and "jurist-grade" -- have expressly noted the distinction between "general intent" and "specific intent."

I don't expect most folks to come to a discussion like this one knowing and fully comprehending those distinctions/nuances within our jurisprudential system and thought. Heck, I didn't fully "get" them prior to the other day when, upon being surprised that the FBI was not recommending charges be brought, I bothered to "Google" some information about this idea of intent, about mens rea, and its role in criminal cases and burdens of proof. However, I do expect is that folks who give a damn, bother, as I did to read the "jurist-grade" "thoughtware" on the matter and use it, not merely their "gut" feelings on the matter, as the basis for their own conclusions.

And to tell me you're following along here --- I'd really like your comments on the Blackmail issue I brought up.

Bring it up in a different thread, one focused on that topic. I'll post my thoughts.

When repeatedly asked "what would happen to an FBI employee that pulled this stunt" -- he repeatedly said what I've been saying about Administrative sanctions and Review.

Yes. And??? What administrative sanctions are there to levy in connection with "Email-gate?" The woman does not currently work at State.

he set a NEW precedent to give them IMMUNITY from ANY consequences.

Hardly. What he did is make clear that specific intent to violate the specific provisions of the Espionage Act are what must be shown in order for a prosecution to have any hope of resulting in a conviction.

Not to mention the re-tred power whore's HUSBAND on whose servers that crime was committed.

Clearly biased language of that sort makes questionable the credibility of any assertions you make about being objective in considering the facts, legal precedents and their applicability to this case. "Colored" language like that makes clear that you have an "axe to grind" re: Mrs. Clinton and makes your other remarks appear disingenuous and politically motivated, or at least motivated by something other than unfailing objectivity.

So I ask again. Was she (and her ethically challenged husband) REALLY that incompetent, lazy and stupid? Or was there "mens rea"?

You can ask that question, one that BTW sets up a false dichotomy/dilemma, but I won't answer it. I won't answer it because (in)competence and specific intent (mens rea) are not the same things, nor are they mutually exclusive opposites. Thus one can be incompetent and willful, competent and willful, incompetent and not willful, incompetent and willful.

What you DON'T know is that what appears in Statute about mishandling classified info is NOT a definitive set of rules for any SPECIFIC dept. Some depts have special sources and methods. NOTHING in there to proscribe a UNIVERSAL set of rules for all the variables. Won't go into more detail on that. But folks moving satellites and drones around to trouble spots -- have totally DIFFERENT "security documentation and security issues".. There are GUIDELINES and then there is the 100 times LARGER book of approved practice -- which is INTERNALLY at Agency level..

She WAS responsible for the practices for handling all material that was classified at State. Her LEAST concern was complying with some unclassified "guideline" that you can read on the Internet... Anderson Cooper is NOT gonna tell you that. MAYBE a congress critter would explain that -- but it would never make air.

You're not following along if at this point -- these are your questions.,

What I care about is:

1. whether any classified information was discussed using that communication mode/system (actus rea), and
2. whether any classified information discussed using her personal email system was discussed there with a clear intent to violate the provisions of the Espionage Act (mens rea), and
3. whether, assuming both those things are true in factual abstraction, those two things can be proven in court and beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) Absolutely in evidence.

2) NO requirement for that mishandled information to actually BE stolen or compromised. No "espionage" required... And INTENT is your choice to believe she's a mere incompetent idiot or she knew EXACTLY she was circumventing the APPROVED methods and channels. The "defense" against intent rests solely on being incompetent and naive about her responsibilities.

3) I've never once argued here that this SHOULD have gone to court if it was a NORMAL joe. I've argued that it should have gone to criminal investigation BECAUSE she was ABOVE the normal system used internal to various Depts for SANCTIONING this egregious violation..

If you don't understand that exposure to blackmail is a LIKELY and serious of her actions -- you'd be in no position to judge the SERIOUSNESS of her offenses. Just because the "public discussion" is void of this consideration doesn't mean that it ain't ACTUALLY one of the most important "security implications" of what she did. So it IS part of determining how SERIOUSLY she violated the law and/or the rules..

I look forward to you recognizing that a Prez subject to blackmail should never be a candidate for further handling of National secrets.. Her current "courtesy clearances" should have been revoked YESTERDAY. And you don't statutes or courts or the DOJ to accomplish that.




.

Your paragraph about exposure to blackmail: could this imply that any member of her staff could be targeted in this manner? Maybe have been already, and no one knows about it.......yet?

After all, there have been other cover ups. And eventual exposure. Or whistle blowing.

Sure. Anyone who mishandled classified material over that server or are embarrassed by anything that might show up there -- could be pressured in their judgments or decisions. Including being strong-arm into revealing MORE national secrets. That's why being blackmail-able is such a serious consideration for clearances.

If a bad actor group or country hacked that system ANYTIME in it's operational lifetime, they likely have a MUCH more complete record of the correspondence than even the FBI has at this point..

I can imagine. (Shudder)

Shades of Cold War stuff. In some seedy location in London. Or Berlin.

 

[Mindful]

She was a Cabinet member. She WAS the top of the food chain and not likely to be sanctioned. So what would be your motivation for making that kamikaze move??

BUT she is also a top member of the Royal House Clinton, not a minor factoid there, bro.

I've never got this, and even during my recent lengthy sojourn in the US, asking around there: how did that pair get so much power? They seem so........ordinary.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've never got this, and even during my recent lengthy sojourn in the US, asking around there: how did that pair get so much power? They seem so........ordinary.

If they were merely ordinary that would be an improvement.

 

[Holos]

Literally:

Difficult actions gather us to this place.

I didn't know it had legal reigns on it, but it definitely is fundamental for efficient judicial decisions.

 

[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]

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.

 

[Mindful]

Hillary and Tony: Can They be Compared?

To lose one email on a personal server may be regarded as a misfortune: to lose several thousand work related emails looks like carelessness. Certainly, FBI Director James B. Comey on July 5, 2016 thought that the handling of very sensitive highly classified information by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless.” Comey raised serious questions about Clinton’s judgment and contradicted a number of her assertions. Any reasonable person he held should know that sensitive information merited greater security.

Though Comey outlined the manner in which Clinton had violated government procedures and rules and had willfully transmitted or mishandled classified information, he concluded she had not violated the law and recommended there be no criminal charges brought against her.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/64692

 

[Mindful]

The concluding paragraph in that piece is quite telling:

"In addition there is a very revealing difference. Blair has expressed full responsibility for his decisions “without exception and without excuse.” He hoped future leaders would learn from his mistakes. Hillary simply acknowledged she had made mistakes."

 

[Mindful]

The strange gaps in Hillary Clinton's email traffic.

The media has spent a lot of time parsing through the Clinton emails that already have been released—compiling lists, looking for specific names or discussion of particular issues. But they ought to pay more attention to the holes. 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

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.