Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hilary sent and received classified emails thru her private email server, and she had classified emails stored on her server.
Either she did all of these things on purpose, with intent, or she was a dumb ass and grossly negligent. Which is it?
Negligent, which is exactly what everyone is saying. She's guilty of negligence, not espionage. Comey knew that negligence WITHOUT intent to commit espionage was going down a rabbit hole.
By itself, no. It's not illegal to have a private email server, or to use that private account to send and receive emails and documents that are not classified.
What is illegal, and a federal crime, is to send and receive classified correspondence or classified documents on that same private server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbernard
jeebus, the goal post is being move. It's about an illegal server....no, it's not about the server, it's about intentional espionage, no, it's about negligence, no....it's about an illegal server again.
People refer to her private server as "illegal" or "unauthorized," not because it is illegal to have a private server. However, it is neither legal, nor authorized for any federal employee to use a private email server to send or receive classified material.
it's easy for you to say I'm incorrect on the facts, when many legal experts agree on the same. If you feel you know the law so strongly, build a case, and go after her. It won't be the first attempt that someone goes after her....and fails.
you posted an opinion. not a fact. in fact the US Military as I have pointed out, have prosecuted people for this violation sans INTENT.
I read that opinion and it has a number of leaps. tying things together that are not related to this charge. Nor does your link speak of ANY case where a person was convicted under US Code 18 793 and then SCOTUS overturned due to lack of intent.
Intent is NOT part of the code. Others have been prosecuted under this without intent as part of the standard.
Actually they both are exactly the same thing, they mishandled classified information. 1 was convicted and the other was not, illustrating the 2 tiered justice system we have, laws for them and laws for us.
No, all it shows is the unfairness of it all. Just because one was found guilty, doesn't mean the other needs to be found guilty as well.
Let that sink in. Just because this ex-serviceman was found guilty doesn't mean he should have been found guilty, and his being found guilty doesn't mean that Hillary should be found guilty either.
"Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case."
you posted an opinion. not a fact. in fact the US Military as I have pointed out, have prosecuted people for this violation sans INTENT.
I read that opinion and it has a number of leaps. tying things together that are not related to this charge. Nor does your link speak of ANY case where a person was convicted under US Code 18 793 and then SCOTUS overturned due to lack of intent.
Intent is NOT part of the code. Others have been prosecuted under this without intent as part of the standard.
opinion vs. reality.
If YOU know as fact that she committed a crime, then go after her. Other than that, you're peddling your opinion as well, and might I add, an opinion that most legal experts nor analysts don't agree with.
Oh, and about military personnel being convicted of the same thing.
Quote:
Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.
Negligent, which is exactly what everyone is saying. She's guilty of negligence, not espionage. Comey knew that negligence WITHOUT intent to commit espionage was going down a rabbit hole.
If you are entrusted with possession of classified material, it is a crime to mishandle that material by storing it in a non secure manner.
In other words, if the president or some federal agency entrusts you with the possession of a top secret memo, and you leave it in the bathroom, or a friends house, or any place else, where it is not properly secured, that is gross negligence, and it's a crime.
I served in the military for 22 years. I spent two years as my units classified material custodian. I had to ensure the security of all classified material, from Confidential to Top Secret. Every book, photo, memo, or sketch, is logged, tracked, with a chain of secure custody from and to every person authorized to view or possess such material. So I know what I'm talking about.
Why are democrats squirming so much?
Is it getting hot in here? I'm a little chilled myself.
The feared Grand Jury will hear it all sooner than you had hoped.
I'm not squirming at all. If she really is guilty, then she should be locked up.
But again, WE don't determine her guilt, and I said that early.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
