There can be only one.....
Posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, it does not require intent to harm.
There can be only one.....
What is interesting is the comments at the Post indicate that there are a lot of stupid people that are 100% convinced she will get off. Bill Clinton lost his law license and was fined 80K$ for his lies, very small change relative to the she devil. Hopefully things will end soon. I am so sick of H.
YES SHE DID!
PROFIT!
SHE PERSONALLY PROFITED BY GIVING INFORMATION TO HER CRONIES TO USE IN NEGOTIATIONS.
Now it wasn’t “malicious” in that she planned to do harm.
But she profited from distributing this information and she knowingly distributed this information wrongly.
Any other prosecuting attorney would be throwing the book at her.
1. it is not “just” about the emails.
2. remember this is the Washington ComPost.
3. The Clinton Foundation pocketing “donations” from those who paid Bill Clinton huge sums to give a speech and those paying received preferential treatment from the Secretary of State. Soliciting Bribes in return for favors from Hillary.
Number 3 is the real kicker.
Mens rea is an ‘element’ of a chargeable offense.
For instance;
Intentionally run somebody over = Homicide
Drunk, run somebody over = Negligent Homicide
In an accident, somebody dies = maybe a traffic ticket.
In Hill’s case, mens rea is irrelevant; her negligent handling of the information all by itself constitutes a felony.
Idiots! Give Petraus back his job an exhonorate him!
Obviously most of you missed the asterisk at the end of the Federal Criminal Code which clearly states that “being a Democrat, especially if running for President indemnifies any individual from being charged for violation of these codes”.
Who believes these lies ????????
When dealing with classified information intent is NOT required for criminality to have occurred. Just recklessness. She WwAS at a minimum revkless
You just need to be reckless in handling the info that’s all
NO that is not true for the handling of classified information careless or reckless behavior is all that is needed
You don’t have to have intent, you are still guilty if you are irresponsible!
Hillary: Take that, you little gnats!
Depends what the meaning of is is.
This is the road map to her exoneration. The regime will pick a statute that she did not violate and proclaim her innocent under that statute, for example the espionage act that requires specific intent. In the meantime they will ignore the other statutes she clearly violated, those not requiring specific intent.
The WaPo is ahead of the game here softening the beach head by defacto creating the reality needed to exonerate Hillary, namely, that she not only did not act with intent or even specific intent, oh no, it’s that there was no malicious intent!! Trolls will also be appearing here on FR, like faceto, to tweek us and get us going.
I do think she skates. I also think that the knots she and her media allies will have to twist themselves into in order to allow her to skate end up playing into the Trump narrative of the powerful DC insiders being above the law. It will hurt her.
As for the case, to me it seems the analysis is clear:
1) What statutes are implicated? There are more than one so cherry picking one over the other is silly.
2) For each statute what are the elements necessary in order to establish criminal conduct. For example, each statute may have different intent requirements. Some may be strict negligence. Negligent homocide, for example, does not require malice aforethougt but is still a punishable crime.
3) Apply the elements of each statute implicated to the facts of the case.
4) Render the recommendation to go forward or not go forward with the case.
My understanding is that a person doesn't have to have an intent to break the law, they merely have to have the intent to do that which the law forbids.
It is said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I think there are very few exceptions to that.
If a person is sleep-walking and manages to rob a bank, without having intended to rob the bank, then I think perhaps "mens rea" might be an issue.
If, however, a person intentionally robs a bank, but explains that they didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank, I doubt that a jury would be required to decide whether the person did or did not know the relevant law. The intent to rob is sufficient.
In Hillary's case she most certainly intended to have an unsecure server which she used for all of her business as Secretary of State. I don't think a reasonable juror would believe that she intended to never send or receive any email containing classified information.
In at least one case, she instructed Jake Sullivan, I believe, to strip markings from a document and send it unsecure. The intention then to handle the information other than required by law is clear. She may not have intended to break the law, but she most certainly did intend to do that which the law forbids.
The entire body of secure systems, classification of documents, and laws regarding the handling of classified information is predicated upon the idea that it should not be necessary to prove that a person passed information to the enemies of the United States in order to punish them. It is sufficient that they failed to conform to the legal expectations on handling classified information.
Hillary is guilty as hell of probably many dozens of counts of violation of national security laws and deserves severe punishment for it.
Being drunk and stupid is not an excuse for violating secrecy laws.
COVERUP
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.