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 ...
How about simple intent?
Does the law really require malice? Does it require specific intent?
That makes no difference. Willful removal of classified markings so as to send the info via insecure channels is a crime. It doesn’t matter whether it was malicious or not.
At least, that's how it works for everybody else.
Does not matter, can’t have secure info on non-secure devices. Trying to deflect.
No intent required under the law.
Ok, fine then. We’ll just send her to jail for being such a dumbazz.
Or give her a lobotomy. Makes no difference to me.
Two options at that point. Either too stupid or too dishonest to be trusted with classified material. Too stupid isn't an excuse for breaking the law. Either explanation disqualifies her from ever holding office again.
Intent is required.
It’s called mens rea.
I had no malice when I ran red lights and sped and went around double yellows when i was a lad.
Cop didn’t seem to give a @#$@#.
And if I had hurt a person doing one of those things, he REALLY wouldn’t have given a @#$@.
“According to U.S. officials”
That could be Bob the janitor.
Malice has nothing to do with it.
When it comes to classified info, making a stupid mistake is enough to put you in serious trouble.
And Hillary didn’t make a “stupid mistake”. The action was deliberate. Clearly. The malice is harder to determine — but again: malice doesn’t matter.
Uh, where to begin?? She was the Secretary of State and she was briefed on proper handling of classified information; she gave underlings instructions on removing classification markings of documents ... it doesn’t matter what her intentions were, she committed criminal acts and needs to be jailed for it!
Yes!!! Of course they’ll not do a damn thing to her!
It doesn’t. Does anyone thing Gen. Petraeus was malicious in his mishandling?
Interesting.
I’m not surprised though that the Washington Post is trying to confuse the issue.
Petraeus got in trouble because he did it intentionally.
uh...I’m quite sure General Petraeus had no malicious intent when he shared information with one person who happened to be an intelligence officer with a security clearance.
So maybe Petraeus should get his 100k fine back?
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.