Posted on 04/10/2016 2:48:36 PM PDT by Strac6
Not my area of law but “intent” is usually not a requirement of a law or regulation requiring or prohibiting specific performance.
Intent can make it “worse.”
Murder 1 is killing with premeditation 20-Life-Dirt Nap.
Murder 2 is killing “in the heat of the moment.” You intended the person to die, you just didn’t take the time to form specific plans about it, etc. 8-20. (Actual time served rather than sentence)
Murder 3/Manslaughter is killing without any indent, but with what is generally regarded as gross negligence. 3-10.
You really get POed at Smith, search for him for two weeks, find him in a crowd, and shoot at him and kill him. Murder 1
Smith spits on you in a crowd, you whip out your SNS and shoot him. Murder 2.
You get pizzed that the crowd is playing music too loud, so you whip out your SNS and fire all 6 rounds at the crowd generally but not at any one person, but Smith, who you did not know, dies. Murder 2 or Manslaughter, depends.
You get drunk and your car plows into the crowd. You had no intent to hurt anyone, but you had 12 beers first. Smith, who you did not know, dies. Manslaughter.
Treason would require intent. Very hard to prove here, because, is she wanted enemy to have info, why not just give it to them directly, or directly by actions of 3d party?
Espionage WOULD require intent, but negligence in the release of classified is a serious but lesser crime.
Carelessness with classified material does not require intent.
Obama is a political a$$, but that is not a revelation.
Woodward is deliberately soft-shoeing this issue, IMO. He, too, is a political a$$.
Simple Definition of Espionage: the things that are done to find out secrets from enemies or competitors : the activity of spying.
The “doing” requires an act of commission, rather than an act of omission.
The 800 pound Gorilla in all this is if the investigation of the email legitimately led them to discover acts of bribery, etc, involving the Clinton Global Initiative.
The results of that avenue of investigation would not be “Fruit of the Tainted Tree.” In fact, it would be evidence discovered “in plain sight” while conducting another legitimate investigation.
“the two faced weasel...”
As my Grandmother from the Old Country would say; “This is news?”
That's certainly a valid point. However, she certainly INTENDED to avoid the FOIA. Just because her "intent" had other consequences doesn't make it unintentional.
Not enough to get us to treason, but since the damage to US interests can be just as bad through her knowledgeable mishandling of classified information, the penalties, absent a charge of treason, are still severe.
President Obama said, look this is carelessness....
yep
and about ten felonies and numerous misdemeanors....SO FAR
sensitive sources, methods and SAP intel was put on a private server, whch was hacked in 2009 and hillary knew full well she was violating the law...
she had asked the NSA to give her an encrypted blackberry, they told her to pisoff..
then she set up the unencrypted server...
She was fully aware fo the law and violated it willingly...
obama and clinton are liars in denial... and obama may be obstructing justice...
have to look at his record communications and unofficial communicaitons with loretta lynch...
I got into this discussion once before about the meaning of the word “treason”.
Proving treason is pretty hard.
Espionage is, I believe, what they hung the Rosenbergs for.
Let’s see what they charge her with.
You’re likely right. I know little about law, but I know enough to know that logic is irrelevant, case law rules. I was simply applying logic.
Woodward needs to retire. Almost everything he said on Fox News Sunday was as factually in error as this. I find it hard to believe he isn’t fully aware of his lies either.
I had a secret security clearance. If I left the cover page open on a classified package, in an empty room, I could be prosecuted.
Not securing classified information is a crime. Full stop.
As soon as Hillary set up her own server, she demonstrated criminal intent.
....Very hard to prove here...
But what a lot of people are overlooking, is the aspect of a conspiracy. Did Hillary and her aides form, develop and implement a conspiracy to hide and withhold documents in violations of government laws and regulations.
That is why Pagliano is so important to the government’s case. He will provide evidence this was deliberate and with intent.
You can then move over to the mishandling of classified info, since you have already proved intent, she is guilty.
The job of a journalist is to lie for the cause. That's the way its been for decades, and old Woodard is a pro.
some politicians just need to be swinging by the neck from lamp posts.
I believe the FBI can prove “intent” .... the bad kind, like deliberately ignoring and circumventing security recommendations & procedures.
Judicial Watch Lawsuit Uncovers New Hillary Clinton Email Withheld from State Department
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.