The Hill: Was Loretta Lynch coordinating with James Comey in the Clinton investigation?

[Coyote]

Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.

The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.

Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!

And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.

The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

To add -

"Intention" isn't about knowing that you're breaking the law. It's about doing things on purpose. If you act, with the intention that a result should come from your action, the requirement for intent is satisfied.

Saucier didn't take those pictures by accident, he did it on purpose. That's where the idea of intent comes in.

There's no evidence that Clinton's spillage was intentional.

Yes, he intended to take the pictures, but he thought that as they were private, and were not going to be given to anyone beyond his friends and family that it was not a crime. Hillary KNEW that what she was doing was illegal (she is an attorney after all, she is ASSUMED to KNOW the law based on her classification as an expert). The most likely reason for her to set up the private server was to avoid FOIA requests. That is the only thing that makes any sort of sense.

Actually, from what I have read, the reason had more to do with her discomfort with technology and her reliance on others. There is no evidence of intent to break a law but plenty of her lack of tech.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know the exact law of the FBI attempting to interfere in the national election of the President. What was that treason statute number again?

There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Emphasis mine]

Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.

I'm having a hard time following your argument.

Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".

Because you are trying to find loop holes, what's so complicated?

This is not a matter of "loop holes". This is about the rule of law, rather than the rule of feelings.

A Trump supporter is telling you that he doesn't like loopholes in the law. I love this place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.

I'm having a hard time following your argument.

Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".

Because you are trying to find loop holes, what's so complicated?

This is not a matter of "loop holes". This is about the rule of law, rather than the rule of feelings.

No you want laws and a nanny state, if there is no laws against it you think it's ok.

And you're upset that people call you out on it, we don't follow government laws we follow the bible's laws in the 10 commandments (or try too)

What?

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Emphasis mine]

Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.

I'm having a hard time following your argument.

Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".

Because you are trying to find loop holes, what's so complicated?

This is not a matter of "loop holes". This is about the rule of law, rather than the rule of feelings.

A Trump supporter is telling you that he doesn't like loopholes in the law. I love this place.

AT least you didn't lie and say I voted for him.

 

[AntonToo]

Powell used his AOL account. Private company, not government organization last I checked.

U.S. lawmakers to press AOL for Powell's State Department emails

Shame on you mr.Officer-of-the-Court for making up bullshit...

He turned every last email of his back to the state when requested. What did Hil--Liar do again when they asked her for hers???

Actually he did not. HENCE THE REQUEST TO AOL.

 

[AntonToo]

Powell used his AOL account. Private company, not government organization last I checked.

U.S. lawmakers to press AOL for Powell's State Department emails

Shame on you mr.Officer-of-the-Court for making up bullshit...

When Powell was Sec of State they didn't have a email system silly boy. Like I said, you're not very good at this are you? From YOUR link...

"The State Department did not have a fully functioning email system when Powell joined it in 2001, according to agency officials. Powell has said he told technology officials to set up a computer with his AOL account in order to become the first secretary of state to use email.

In contrast, Clinton eschewed the official state.gov email system when she took office in 2009. Department officials have said she would not have received permission for this had she asked."

Ahh, so having gone from a fabrication about how Powel and Rice used only government email you now move on to a story about how there wasn’t government email.

But of course your new story is just more bullshit, this one also beside THE POINT of legality of using private email to handle (sometimes classified) DoS bussiness.

Both Rice and Powell did it, read up final findings on that and stop your denial already

Classified Info Found on Past Secretaries' Private Email

 

[AntonToo]

Well, it's against the law to send any classified intel in a regular email, no matter which account or server you use.

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no "treason" statute. Treason is defined in the Constitution, not in the Code.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Emphasis mine]

Once again you are posting like an idiot, so there is no law against this , so I can do it and get away with it.

I'm having a hard time following your argument.

Yes, when something is not against the law, you can do it and "get away with it".

Because you are trying to find loop holes, what's so complicated?

This is not a matter of "loop holes". This is about the rule of law, rather than the rule of feelings.

A Trump supporter is telling you that he doesn't like loopholes in the law. I love this place.

When has Trump ever endorsed loopholes in the law?

 

[westwall]

Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!

And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.

The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

To add -

"Intention" isn't about knowing that you're breaking the law. It's about doing things on purpose. If you act, with the intention that a result should come from your action, the requirement for intent is satisfied.

Saucier didn't take those pictures by accident, he did it on purpose. That's where the idea of intent comes in.

There's no evidence that Clinton's spillage was intentional.

Yes, he intended to take the pictures, but he thought that as they were private, and were not going to be given to anyone beyond his friends and family that it was not a crime. Hillary KNEW that what she was doing was illegal (she is an attorney after all, she is ASSUMED to KNOW the law based on her classification as an expert). The most likely reason for her to set up the private server was to avoid FOIA requests. That is the only thing that makes any sort of sense.

Actually, from what I have read, the reason had more to do with her discomfort with technology and her reliance on others. There is no evidence of intent to break a law but plenty of her lack of tech.

The surreptitious way in which her IT business was done supports the theory of FOIA request avoidance for her actions. That is the one reason that can fully explain the extraordinary lengths that she went through to ensure no one in government knew how to access her server.

 

[westwall]

Correct. By sending the emails to a non government server she was by definition breaking the law.

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit. Powell and Rice both used personal email.

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

 

[westwall]

Yes, but they were still on GOVERNMENT servers.

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

Did you bother to notice how the State Dept had no email capacity when Powell was in office? He was the first to ever use it.

 

[AntonToo]

NO THEY WERE NOT, thats what made them PRIVATE, duh.

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

Did you bother to notice how the State Dept had no email capacity when Powell was in office? He was the first to ever use it.

did you notice how it is irrelevant? What you just said is completely beside the issue.

Powell either used private email system to conduct DoS business or he did not use private email system, available alternatives are MOOT.

 

[westwall]

You can have a private email on a government server numbskull. You're not very well versed on this matter. I suggest you do some research of your own instead of parroting what your masters tell you, 'cause they're wrong.

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

Did you bother to notice how the State Dept had no email capacity when Powell was in office? He was the first to ever use it.

did you notice how it is irrelevant? What you just said is completely beside the issue.

Powell either used private email system to conduct DoS business or he did not use private email system, available alternatives are MOOT.

Yes, he SET UP the State Dept email system you boob. It didn't exist prior to his arrival.

 

[Weatherman2020]

33,000 emails, deleted while under subpoena is prima facie evidence of a crime.

What crime?

"Contempt of Congress" is the only one I can think of.

Changing the wording of the investigation result from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" is an example of a government official engaging in corrupt actions which clearly falls under the Statute. The aforementioned deletion of emails while they were under subpoena is likewise a example of a government official acting in a CORRUPT manner. I don't know how much more plain it can be made to you, but using the REASONABLE PERSON standard as a guide tells this person that just like a doctor who aids a injured person, and is thus held to a higher standard than a regular civilian, the SECRETARY of STATE would likewise be held to a higher standard, especially given the knowledge that she was REQUIRED to sign a document stating that she understood the laws pertaining to the usage, and keeping of classified material.

That's about as basic as I can make it for you.

Changing the wording in the statement didn't change anything. That was a matter of rhetoric.

The reason why the FBI opted to not recommend charges against Hillary wasn't because of the words that Comey used in his statement - it was that only one person in history has ever been charged under that 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) absent specific intent.

The root of this is the idea that § 793(f) was unconstitutionally vague. As the only section of the Espionage Act that did not require intent as a statutory element, the courts were mixed on how to apply it in cases where intent wasn't proven. Only one such case ever ended up being prosecuted - and even in that case, the plaintiff was already known to be in the employ of a hostile foreign power.

If it wasn't already clear, in 1941, the SCOTUS ruled on a § 793(f) case called Gorin v. United States, in which the court held that without proof of intent, the definition of "against the national interest" was unconstitutionally vague.

Incorrect. Gross negligence is a crime, changing the wording to "extremely careless" makes it no longer a crime. Strzok did that at least twice. That is the very definition of official corruption.. Furthermore "Intent" as a aspect of the crime is a myth. There is no requirement for intent. That was a comey invention.

Dude, you know that I'm in law school at the moment. Intent, or a comparable mental state, is an element of nearly every crime on the books, aside from the "strict liability" crimes, such as statutory rape. It's a basic part of criminal law - the mens rea.

The Court already ruled on this - absent intent, § 793(f) is unconstitutionally vague. § 793(f) is the only section of the Espionage Act that doesn't specifically enumerate "intent" as a required element.

Dufus who claims gross negligence is not a crime in the handling of classified material says he’s in law school.

So far the Dufus claims classified material can be handled in any manner, the FBI can attempt to interfere with the election of a President, and Hillary is an innocent babe in all matters.

 

[AntonToo]

Lol the only way to have AOL email account is to use their servers in the cloud, which is why Powell needed internet connection and why AOL was directly asked for his emails.

Not well versed? Please stfu, clearly better versed than a shameless fabricator like you.

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

Did you bother to notice how the State Dept had no email capacity when Powell was in office? He was the first to ever use it.

did you notice how it is irrelevant? What you just said is completely beside the issue.

Powell either used private email system to conduct DoS business or he did not use private email system, available alternatives are MOOT.

Yes, he SET UP the State Dept email system you boob. It didn't exist prior to his arrival.

Aaaaand? How did it make his email use different from the perspective of the federal law?

 

[RadicalRedneck]

Strozok knew all the time that President Trump didn't collude with the Russians and told Mueller in an e-mail. YET they went forward with the farce anyway. The Department of Justice and the FBI needs to start prosecuting the RIGHT people and sending them to jail.

 

[The Original Tree]

Everything The Obama FBI and DOJ, Fusion GPS as well as The DNC, Schultz, CInton & her & Obama's Minions and their gang of Pakistani Hackers did to interfere in our election, and stage their Insurance COUP, rig primaries and debates is not only illegal as Hell, but they are Capital Offenses worthy of facing a firing squad or public hanging which imo should be televised!

Or are you an ostrich with your head in the sand?

Where do you want t to start?

Seth Rich’s Murder?
Manufacturing evidence and submitting false evidence to a FISA court for an illegal warrant to commit Espionage on a Presidential Candidate on behalf of the woman who opposed him and ordered by Obama Bin Lying?

Or do you want to talk about Lynch & Comey Conspiring to Obstruct Justice?

Maybe you want to talk about The FBI and DOJ committing perjury regarding the Tarmac Meeting?

Or perhaps you’d like to talk about McCabe, Comey and Strozk with Ohr plotting a Coup in McCabe’s Office with Rosenstein no doubt being part of the meeting to?

How many bullets should you put in a traitors head to
Exact Justice?

You'd need a machine gun with this Criminal Enterprise.

"Have you noticed how the snowflakes have almost entirely stopped talking about the so-called "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign? Now everyday there's some new bombshell about the Democrat conspiracy to overturn Trump's election, and it doesn't look good for the conspirators."

Tree:

These pieces of human Excrement are still dreaming up a new personal attack and false accusation against the President every day.

The score is like 100-0 in favor of Trump though but that is not going to stop these mental midget snowflakes from crying and trying.

It's like a kind of mental retardation with these people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude, you're working at becoming an Officer of the Court. I already AM an Officer of the Court. I've been testifying in open court for probably longer than you've been alive. On three continents to boot!

And in this particular case intent is not an aspect of the crime. The Naval seaman who spent a year in jail was tried for the exact same thing that hillary is accused of and he certainly had no intent to commit a crime. You are flat wrong in this case.

The naval seaman that you're referring to (Kristian Saucier) absolutely "intended" to commit a crime. He didn't "accidentally" take 10 or so pictures of the submarine's classified engine system. He intentionally aimed his smartphone at the engine, and pressed the "Shutter" button - knowing that in doing so, he was violating the law.

And hillary intended to place classified documents on her unclassified server. Saucier had no intent to commit a crime. He DID commit the crime, but he was unaware that it was a crime to take those photo's. hillary, as the most "prepared POTUS candidate evah!" clearly DID know it was illegal, and furthermore, the sailor is not held up to nearly the same standard as the Sec of State, yet she was held to a LOWER standard than he was, and there's that little issue of those 33,000 subpoenad emails that were destroyed, along with the 13 blackberries that were hammered into bits. That is prima facie evidence that smacks that Reasonable Person right in the face. Don't ya think?

To add -

"Intention" isn't about knowing that you're breaking the law. It's about doing things on purpose. If you act, with the intention that a result should come from your action, the requirement for intent is satisfied.

Saucier didn't take those pictures by accident, he did it on purpose. That's where the idea of intent comes in.

There's no evidence that Clinton's spillage was intentional.

Yes, he intended to take the pictures, but he thought that as they were private, and were not going to be given to anyone beyond his friends and family that it was not a crime. Hillary KNEW that what she was doing was illegal (she is an attorney after all, she is ASSUMED to KNOW the law based on her classification as an expert). The most likely reason for her to set up the private server was to avoid FOIA requests. That is the only thing that makes any sort of sense.

Actually, from what I have read, the reason had more to do with her discomfort with technology and her reliance on others. There is no evidence of intent to break a law but plenty of her lack of tech.

That's ridiculous. If she didn't have the tech savvy, then she shouldn't have taken the job. But when you take such a job, you accept all responsibilities that go along with it.

That's like saying the bank robber was not responsible for the guard he shot. His only intent was to steal the money.

 

[westwall]

Read your own link silly boy. There was no cloud back then. Where do you fruitcakes come from????

“cloud” is simply a reference to public facing hosting servers.

AOL emails were hosted on their server farm, accessible through internet.

When Powell used AOL his emails were stored on AOL servers, a password away from break in.

You are totally out to lunch and can’t meaningfully dispute anything I’m saying.

Did you bother to notice how the State Dept had no email capacity when Powell was in office? He was the first to ever use it.

did you notice how it is irrelevant? What you just said is completely beside the issue.

Powell either used private email system to conduct DoS business or he did not use private email system, available alternatives are MOOT.

Yes, he SET UP the State Dept email system you boob. It didn't exist prior to his arrival.

Aaaaand? How did it make his email use different from the perspective of the federal law?

Because the Feds had to work out how those laws would apply to email.