[taxcontrol]

The law does not take intent into account. The law says if you mishandle classified information, you have committed a felony.

[lafroste]

The question is really pretty straight forward. If I kept and disseminated classified information in an unsecure, unsanctioned manner, would I be charged with a crime? Yes or no? That same answer applies to Hillary.

[Jmouse007]

Thats Not the Point. THE point is that she knowingly, willingly broke a multitude of laws concerning national security, classified and TOP SECRET MATERIALS, committed numerous crimes and felonies AND to top it all off; she wilfully, malimciously did everything within her power to try to destroy all evidence of her plethora of crimes! The FBI and all of the intelligence agencies and agents have obtained rock solid EVIDENCE, AND EYE WITNESSES WHO CAN AND HAVE TESTIFIED TO ALL OF THE ABOVE! THAT IS THE POINT, ALL THAT REMAINS TO BE ANSWERED IS THE QUESTION:

Will Mrs. Clinton be INDICTED AND PROSECUTED FOR ALL FOR THE LAWS SHE AS BROKEN AND CRIMES SHE HAS COMMITTED? ...

[Sacajaweau]

Here we go with the definition of “is”.....

[Mariner]

In cases of Secrecy Laws and National Security, intent is not necessary to be in criminal violation.

Negligence alone is felonious.

[comebacknewt]

The fix is in.

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

[LittleBillyInfidel]

PS - For all the wannabe “1-L’s” here who are also quoting common legal Latin, please research case law on negligence and criminal negligence that’s irrespective to espionage and then ‘compare and contrast’.
If this bitch skates, there will be legal chaos.

[Vendome]

So, she was just careless?

How does fare any better?

[FlingWingFlyer]

...according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

And just WHO might these "U.S. officials familiar with the matter" be? The janitor that cleans the offices?

[indthkr]

Banana Republic bump for later....

[InterceptPoint]

AFAIK, the law is not concerned with intent. She took classified information from secure facilities and placed them in an unsecure location. That is against the law.

She did that thousands of times.

But apparently without intent to do so.

Sure. As if intent matters. It doesn’t.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If setting up your own private personal server to hide government business from the American people isn’t “malicious intent”, then I sure don’t know what is.

[doug from upland]

This is crap, spinning reporting for Hillary. This reporter doesn’t know anything.

[faithhopecharity]

Intent has nothing to do with it under the law. At least, under statutes that have been discussed so far Note though that intent can be inferred from the foreseeable consequences of actions - so that even more serious charges ( capital crimes against the state ) are clearly in play

[freepersup]

Money laundering is a whole different ball game. Influence peddling. Same. Pay to play. More of the same. Call it what you will. Sympathetic article. Do not care. Do not want.

[Steve_Seattle]

“Officer, I had no malicious intent when I robbed that bank; I just wanted some easy money.”

[MHT]

No malice, just stupidity. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
And she was NEVER ignorant of the laws.

[Organic Panic]

There is no malicious intent when a drunk drives in to a school bus. It is still a crime.

[Gene Eric]

>> intended to break classification rules

And neither do drunk drivers intend to kill.

Unreal.

[Gator113]

Are you a troll?