Intent is required.
It’s called mens rea.
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.
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.
There is a good discussion of it here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/emmens_reaem_and_hillary_clinton.html
There is also a good argument that her withholding the information from FOIA requests and from the Benghazi Committee constitutes evidence of removal from proper repository for a specific intent.
No it is not. Mishandling of secure information is a crime.
I have to take training several times a year on the proper handling of secure information. Mishandling is "mala se".
Take a look at 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. It's "gross negligence". Your boss is certainly gross.
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.
NO that is not true for the handling of classified information careless or reckless behavior is all that is needed
"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Incorrect.
First, the statute does not require intent. Mistaken mishandling of classified material is illegal, and has been punished severely in the past.
Second, the act of setting up a non-government server, while simultaneously shunning the secure system already in place for the Secretary of State position implies clear intent to avoid the secure system. I have read, IIRC, that Hillary did not even have a state department email address - that means she deliberately avoided the secure system.
Third, she was required (like all who handle classified info) to undergo a series of training sessions, complete with signed acknowledgements, on what was allowed and not allowed. To immediately violate the acknowledged rules signals intent, even though it is not required under the statute.
The only other alternative is that Hillary’s IQ is so low that she cannot understand the word “classified”.