She didn't mean to.
Posted on 07/05/2016 9:12:52 AM PDT by Cubs Fan
18 USC 793...specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document … or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.”
So even if Hillary Clinton never “intended” for sensitive information to be exposed, keeping it outside of the normal storage and safeguards of the government is more than sufficient for a case to be prosecuted. But the fundamental premise of saying there was no malicious intent is still dishonest in and of itself. Whether she cared for it or not, Secretary Clinton was aware that there was a State Department email system in place and available for her use. When your employer provides such a communication system for the employees it requires an active decision on the part of the employee to go out and hire people to set up a completely independent server in their home and keep it’s contents away from the prying eyes of the public. If she had restricted her use of that server to nothing but personal correspondence with friends and family it would still have raised some eyebrows but I believe she’d get a pass on the entire malicious intent question, but that’s not even remotely what happened. She was intentionally doing public business on her private server and it doesn’t require a psychic to figure out why. She didn’t want the public or the press to know about it or have any traceable records.
... Prosecution under 18 USC 793 only requires that the information wind up being outside of its proper place of custody. You can argue the intent angle all the live long day but it doesn’t change the fact that the law clearly appears to have been broken...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The fix was in from the get-go.
No kidding. If malicious intent and sloppy and careless are defenses no one is really guilty of much of anything. Certainly all traffic offenses are no prosecutible.
Who would have thought that Justice Scalia would sit back and let a man he knew was not a natural born citizen take the oath of office?
Not just him, either. All of them. Dick Cheney knew, you can see it in his eyes in that famous picture on Usurpation Day. None of them said anything.
They all took an oath to defend the Constitution and none of them did.
Some of them actively colluded with the Democrats to obscure Obama’s ineligibilty.
The Republic was lost on that day.
Trump is our only hope of a restoration.
(A year ago, I thought Trump was not a serious candidate)
Odd that when I was working and signed non-disclosure statements and had to sign on to proper protocols for using my email, I was made abundantly aware that even discussing confidential info was VERBOTEN and at the very least cause for termination and at the most prosecution regardless if it was a “mere” mistake or not. Sucks being a peon.
It was not negligent. It was deliberate.
The FBI Director said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. He left unsaid what that situation was: The President of the United States has said she did nothing wrong. The President of the United States actively participated in the criminal conspiracy by corresponding with her and allowing her to have her own server.
Orwell warned us, "Some pigas are more equal"
Per Comey’s standard all federal employees may use their personal phones, computers and home internet connections to conduct any sort of government business, including classified/secret/top secret communications, without penalty.
Agree 110%
So, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Praetorians is guilty of a federal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Along with all his FB Praetorian minions...
We now have THREE federal administrative agencies that are guilty of a federal conspiracy to obstruct justice:
Do they even realize what they've done, or is their arrogant reliance on their automatic weapons and mercenary career gunthugs so blinding to them?
People, PLEASE!! Stop thinking of Comey as honest in any way.
He was merely the LAST CIRCUIT BREAKER.
He was in place from day 1, to have a “Clean” reputation to sacrifice if all else failed.
This is true, but in my experience Comey is correct: Without intent, precedent shows that cases of negligence are handled administratively, not criminally. The person may lose their clearance, have it suspended, or lose their job, but they definitely don’t go to jail unless there are other things going on. For example, persons who lie to investigators or otherwise obstruct investigations may be charged criminally for doing that (Libby), or persons who intentionally release information to people who shouldn’t have it (Petraeus) but that is a different matter. I have worked in this domain most of my life, and the only time I have ever seen criminal charges directly related to mishandling classified material are when espionage was the suspected motive.
There is no rule of law anymore in this country. It’s completely gone. Just like most Third World countries, what matters now is what your last name is, and how well connected you are. Common people would go to jail for this, but Hillary will get the nomination for President,
Multiple Freepers were telling me that James Comey and the FBI were pure and honest, that wasn’t true?
No, Comey actually said:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
In other words, a security clearance would be immediately revoked, and the person would likely be terminated for cause.
This is Trump's golden opportunity, if he uses it.
"Comey said:..... Should you trust this person with the nuclear football"?
This was all telegraphed months ago. The MSM has been laser focused on intent. In doing so they de facto amended the law to reflect in the public mind what was needed to clear Hillary.
And Comey doesn’t care.....The corruption runs deep
She didn't mean to.
Comey is just cementing in people’s minds that there are two systems of justice. One for the rich and powerful and one for the little guy.
How else can you interpret his statement that “no reasonable prosecutor” would proceed with this case?
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.