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 ...
The law on handling classified material says nothing about intent.
Espionage is a different kind of bird.
Take a look at it.
Wrong. Gross negligence is also a form of mens rea. Read the statute.
..Intent is required.
It’s called mens rea...
Unlike most crimes, specific intent is NOT
required for a conviction on this.
I suggest you read the statute. The “intent” wording is absent.
> Intent is required. It’s called mens rea.
I’m afraid your conception of justice is one that has not applied to the US justice system in a long, long time. Mens rea is no longer required except where explicitly stated as a requirement in a statute.
Interesting is correct intent is not required.
Setting up the private server would be the intent if it were needed as in the violation of the record keeping laws.
I still think she will not be prosecuted and won’t require a pardon. FBI will just let her go.
I just saw Hannity’s show tonight and Judge Janine said that she was 100% certain the FBI was going to forward a criminal referral to the Attorney General.
Irrelevant, she violated her agreement with the State Department on treatment of classified emails. She lied to investigators etc about her emails and whether they were turned over, etc. etc. etc.
The fact the Democrat media are now trying to fabricate defenses for her to the public shows they are worried.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Agree with above. Malice is not the issue. Negligent or deliberate mishandling is the issue.
They, whoever they are, are attempting to redefine the dialogue.
Many will fall for it.
What’s next? “I’m just human and we all make mistakes”.
I don’t think that mistakes were made other than getting caught.
Not for strict liability crimes like this. Even if they give her a pass, the law still requires that she be barred from ever holding another federal job or position of authority.
Did they make any mention of her intent to use the private server to evade FOIA requests and strong-arm pay-to-play money from people needing State Department approval ?
ALL of the political class needs to be retired and sent to public sector jobs. If you or I were to claim the lack of ‘malicious intent’ in and effort to defend ourselves from an IRS charge of tax evasion, we would be laughed at. Hillary either broke the law, or she didn’t. If she did, then the only choices to explain this are incompetence vs arrogance. Which is it? Neither suggests a person worthy of the Presidency.
Among other things, Hillary was warned about the security risks of her Blackberry and ignored those warnings.
since when is it about malicious intent? she’s not a spy? big deal.....nobody has accused her of being a spy
Scant: barely sufficient or adequate.
Good enough, indict.
Matt Zapotsky has written a great non news story in the Post to deflect the gravity of Hillary’s crimes from the scrutiny it deserves.
Deflect and obfuscate. That’s the WAPO for you.
I sense a deliberate attempt by leftist media to devalue the importance of the crime Hillary committed. She defeated established national security procedure for some benefit for herself.
Is malicious intent an element of the crime?
Wouldn’t it be simple knowledge regardless of intent, possibly recklessness or criminal negligence?
What elements was Petraeus guilty of?
I THINK the law punishes simple carelessness. If you light a fire on the floor in your apartment , what do you think might happen? If you allow your children to play with rattlesnakes, are you not responsible for endangerment?
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.