Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: Fasceto

How about simple intent?

Does the law really require malice? Does it require specific intent?


2 posted on 05/05/2016 8:19:53 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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.


3 posted on 05/05/2016 8:20:04 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto
The law doesn't require intent in order to convict; just the failure to properly protect and safeguard the classified materials.

At least, that's how it works for everybody else.

4 posted on 05/05/2016 8:20:20 PM PDT by Interesting Times (WinterSoldier.com. SwiftVets.com. ToSetTheRecordStraight.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

Does not matter, can’t have secure info on non-secure devices. Trying to deflect.


5 posted on 05/05/2016 8:21:19 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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.


7 posted on 05/05/2016 8:21:45 PM PDT by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto
Uh, did she have classified data on her personal server? Yes.

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.

8 posted on 05/05/2016 8:21:47 PM PDT by USNBandit (Sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

“According to U.S. officials”

That could be Bob the janitor.


11 posted on 05/05/2016 8:22:38 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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.


12 posted on 05/05/2016 8:22:40 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Democrats are mean-spirited racists who don't care about our children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto
No malicious intent is required. Under the Espionage Act ( Section 793 ) applies to anyone who has been entrusted with information relating to the national defense, and to a federal official who through gross negligence permits information to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.
13 posted on 05/05/2016 8:22:58 PM PDT by TheCipher (Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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!


14 posted on 05/05/2016 8:23:18 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto
Negligent Homicide also does not carry malicious intent, but it is a felony and you go to jail, and you sure as hell are not fit to be president.
15 posted on 05/05/2016 8:23:24 PM PDT by tinyowl (A equals A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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?


20 posted on 05/05/2016 8:24:25 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

The law on handling classified material says nothing about intent.


21 posted on 05/05/2016 8:24:31 PM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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.


28 posted on 05/05/2016 8:27:52 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.


29 posted on 05/05/2016 8:28:18 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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 ?


32 posted on 05/05/2016 8:30:12 PM PDT by PLMerite (Compromise is Surrender: The Revolution...will not be kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

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.


33 posted on 05/05/2016 8:30:56 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

Among other things, Hillary was warned about the security risks of her Blackberry and ignored those warnings.


34 posted on 05/05/2016 8:31:19 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

since when is it about malicious intent? she’s not a spy? big deal.....nobody has accused her of being a spy


35 posted on 05/05/2016 8:31:49 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fasceto

Scant: barely sufficient or adequate.

Good enough, indict.


36 posted on 05/05/2016 8:32:55 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Ride To The Sound Of The Guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson