It
ambiguously speaks to intent of some sort, yes. Does it speak to intent to violate Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act? No. Physically destroying the phones and "bleachbitting" them most vividly speaks to the intent to ensure that the information the phones cannot be obtained by others.
I have not seen any evidence indicates that the 33K emails that were subpoenaed were digitally destroyed. As far as I know, the subpoena was for work related emails.
I haven't seen evidence that the 33K messages that were destroyed were or were not work related. Also, I've not seen evidence proving the deletion occurred after the subpoena was issued. Have you? If so, most importantly with regard to the temporal aspect, please do share.
You are avoiding the obvious conclusions and yes, people have been convicted of negligence without proving intent, which is the nature of negligence laws. And no I am not going to read up on that law you keep talking about. Why? Because there are many OTHER laws on negligence and it is not worth my time to pursue something that is patently obvious to anyone with any sense, except of course a lawyer.
Are you a lawyer?
Clinton and her minions have destroyed subpoena'd evidence and that is a crime, Period, whether she had 'intent' or not is obvious. She had intent to destroy government documents which is illegal. She had intent to obstruct justice by not complying with the subpoenas. She lied repeatedly to the FBI about the whole matter repeatedly, which is not only indicative of intent but also is itself illegal.
You have not one leg to stand on but you will keep arguing this point to the horizon of Reason and Sanity and beyond to protect this criminal bitch who is part of the worst criminal syndicate to ever run for the Presidency in our nations history.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but you wont be. No Clintonista has a shred of shame left in them.
no I am not going to read up on that law you keep talking about. Why? Because there are many OTHER laws on negligence
The specific law Dir. Comey considered that Mrs. Clinton may have violated, Section 793(f) of the Espionage Act, is one for which the SCOTUS has provided an explicit ruling (
Gorin) indicating that intent is required to be shown. That means
Gorin is the one SCOTUS decision you should read to become informed about what is and is not required re: 793(f).
Even though you are unwilling to read that decision, the prosecutors and judge who would participate in a trial in which a defendant is charged in connection with 793(f) will have read it, and they will have no choice but to apply it, even though you are unwilling to do so. Whereas you are indeed free to prattle on interminably and ignorantly of
Gorin, judges and attorneys handling cases relevant to it have no such leeway.
Individuals who examine
Gorin and other cases brought under 793(f) would, as the legal editor of
Fortune did, find
seven relevant civilian prosecutions under it. (There are cases of individuals having been charged with violating 793(f), but they plead guilty -- either to 793(f) violations or to other crimes -- thus there was no prosecution.)
- A case involving “larceny” of a notebook marked “SECRET,”
- A case in which a sailor “stuffed the document down his pants front and walked out of the building with it”;
- A case whereby an airman took classified photos home because he found them “amusing”;
- A case in which a longtime custodian of classified records, who had actually taught courses on the subject, intentionally took home 311 classified items to use as “personal reference material”;
- A case in which an Air Force serviceman, whose job required him to destroy classified documents in a prescribed manner, took the materials home instead and just tossed them in a dumpster, where they were discovered by children. He had also filed false reports attesting that he had disposed of the documents properly.
- United States v. Rickie L. Roller: In 1989, a Marine Corps sergeant was working in a secured area where he habitually, and lawfully, placed classified material in his desk. After some nasty run-ins with his superior, he was transferred. On his last day, packing his office, he threw a bunch of personal effects from his desk into a gym bag including, as it happens, several classified documents, some of which were Top Secret. A few weeks later, he discovered the classified materials. Fearing reprimand, he hid them in his garage. He planned, he later testified, to destroy them when he got to his next duty station. When he did move to the new location, however, the professional movers helping him came across the classified documents. They notified the authorities. After a search, the remaining documents were found. Roller was sentenced to five years, which was commuted to 10 months confinement.
- United States v. Arthur E. Gonzalez: In February 1979, an Air Force staff sergeant took a trip to visit an oil worker friend in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. When he arrived, he discovered that he’d inadvertently intermingled two Top Secret messages with some personal mail he’d taken. He put the documents in a desk drawer in his friend’s room, intending to pick them up when he returned to his squadron. When he departed on February 25, however, he forgot the documents, leaving them in the desk. Gonzalez’s friend shared the room with another oil worker, with each occupying it on alternate weeks. In early March, the other oil worker discovered the documents, gave it to his oil company supervisor, who gave it to the Air Force authorities. Gonzalez was sentenced to five months confinement, which was commuted to 43 days.
I am a CPA, which means I have a general understanding of how the law works. One of the ways in which the law works is that regardless of whether some thing did in fact exist -- in this case, intent -- there must also be convincing evidence of its existence. The lawyer James Comey asserted that convincing evidence did not exist as of last July.
But, no, I am not an attorney, which is I why I have referenced and relied upon analysis offered by people who are. For example:
Clinton and her minions have destroyed subpoena'd evidence and that is a crime, Period, whether she had 'intent' or not is obvious. She had intent to destroy government documents which is illegal.
Well, I bid you advise the FBI and DOJ that Mrs. Clinton be prosecuted not for 793(f) violations, but rather for obstruction of justice.
