Replies

Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

The rest of the article may be correct, but there's no requirement for #3, at least for the first law he cites.

He does qualify this:

The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

What he overlooked was the "gross negligence" clause:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Hillary might be able to wiggle out from under the "gross negligence" clause by claiming that someone else was responsible for the server. That's laughable, but Pagliano and company just might be scared enough of the Clinton machine to take the fall for her.

But, take a look at the second clause I highlighted. Hillary also had the responsibility to report a breach of classified information. But, she never did so.

This one is a lot harder to wiggle out from. Although she has claimed nothing was "marked classified" (which actually turned out to be false), the law doesn't make that distinction. And, there are certain things about which classification level is not in dispute: information that reveals methods of intelligence collection is considered to to be classified at the highest level -- top secret and SCI.

Clinton was "read in" to SCI, and signed a separate NDA agreement. All of this would have been explained to her.

All good points.

Regarding intent, I think it is beyond question that she intended to avoid both scrutiny and record retention.

While campaigning for the Senate in 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton told dinner guests at a fundraiser, “I don’t do email. As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I — I don’t even want — why would I ever want to do e-mail?”

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QApICxqiZcw#t=197

Report: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/4/hillary-clinton-2000-i-dont-do-email/

“Although she has claimed nothing was “marked classified” (which actually turned out to be false)”

This has been wordplay on her part since the beginning. The government does not the word “classified” to designate sensitive material:

Typical classification levels

Top Secret -Top secret is the highest level of classified information.
Secret
Confidential
Restricted
Official

She has been lying about this since day one and the MSM and the GOP never called her on it. A shame really, because she has said it so many times that most Americans have heard her say it. A simple take down regarding this would register well with the voters and they would know and understand right away the lie.

Clinton was “read in” to SCI, and signed a separate NDA agreement. All of this would have been explained to her.

If Hillary pleads ignorance, she is useless as a candidate for President. Vote for Jello Brain isn’t a great slogan.