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.
But proof of intent is usually needed to prove guilt.
I bring up, once again, Zimmerman. He killed someone. That is a fact. We all know it. He admits it. Yet....he's walking the streets, a free man. Why? No one could prove intent to murder DESPITE all the evidence showing that he initiated the provocation with his following Trayvon.
Comey had it right. Most lawyers agree and back Comey. They do believe there was negligence, but simply not enough to actually go after her. Sitting behind your screen claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact.
sigh. seriously fbernard, you need to deal in facts and stop debating based on persona opinion not backed by FACTS.
THE US CODE that deals with proper handling of classified information is very clear. INTENT IS NOT A STANDARD. You can utterly and completely INTEND to protect US secrets and NOT intend to mishandle that information and be found guilty of not handling it correctly. That is the LAW.
Comey changed his mind. or someone changed it for him. HE first said it was Grossely Negligent. That wording was changed because that is the wording in the statute. Gross Negligence is the standard for conviction. period.
do you even know what SPECIAL ACCESS means?????? If you don't then you don't need to be discussing this because that wording matters maybe more than anything else here.
again, you are utterly and entirely incorrect on the facts. having a server may or may not have been illegal (I actually think it was but that's irrelevant). The statute in question has been the law for decades.
She processed many details of classified information that included, Classified, Top Secret and Special Access information over her private server system. She had those details stored on her private server. That server did not have security capable of protecting the information. That information was outside of the control of United States PROTOCOL. period.
The ONLY thing you have said here that is debatable is if the action she took (according to Comey was a violation of the statue) might not find her guilty. That was the standard Comey used to indict her. That's is debatable. if the standard was Gross Negligence, there certainly is enough evidence for an indictment. Others sit in prison for far less.
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.
But proof of intent is usually needed to prove guilt.
I bring up, once again, Zimmerman. He killed someone. That is a fact. We all know it. He admits it. Yet....he's walking the streets, a free man. Why? No one could prove intent to murder DESPITE all the evidence showing that he initiated the provocation with his following Trayvon.
Comey had it right. Most lawyers agree and back Comey. They do believe there was negligence, but simply not enough to actually go after her. Sitting behind your screen claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact.
We have a right to defend ourselves when physically attacked. It is a privilege to work for the government and the conditions given that you are allowed to handle or even see highly secret information that could cost our nation dearly with enemies that want to harm us badly..
But proof of intent is usually needed to prove guilt.
I bring up, once again, Zimmerman. He killed someone. That is a fact. We all know it. He admits it. Yet....he's walking the streets, a free man. Why? No one could prove intent to murder DESPITE all the evidence showing that he initiated the provocation with his following Trayvon.
Comey had it right. Most lawyers agree and back Comey. They do believe there was negligence, but simply not enough to actually go after her. Sitting behind your screen claiming otherwise doesn't change that fact.
I'll bite: what did Clinton "intend" when she set up a clearly illegal server in her private home? Why would she do that, unless she "intended" to bypass the law. It's more than negligence, unless you're saying that Clinton was too stupid to understand that having a private server would be a security risk.
sigh. seriously fbernard, you need to deal in facts and stop debating based on persona opinion not backed by FACTS.
THE US CODE that deals with proper handling of classified information is very clear. INTENT IS NOT A STANDARD. You can utterly and completely INTEND to protect US secrets and NOT intend to mishandle that information and be found guilty of not handling it correctly. That is the LAW.
Comey changed his mind. or someone changed it for him. HE first said it was Grossely Negligent. That wording was changed because that is the wording in the statute. Gross Negligence is the standard for conviction. period.
do you even know what SPECIAL ACCESS means?????? If you don't then you don't need to be discussing this because that wording matters maybe more than anything else here.
Oh, dear lord. The original wording was grossly negligent. He'd still need to PROVE gross negligence, and he knew he couldn't. He said as much, and even indicated that many in his professional circle also said as much.
We are all uninformed in a great many areas....or do you propose that you know about every single case out there, historically?????????????
I need not be informed of every case out there, especially since this sub story is not even related to Hillary.
So, I further my searched, and did find the case, and yes, he got a raw deal, as do many americans, all the time. But one thing doesn't have anything to do with another.
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.
I'll bite: what did Clinton "intend" when she set up a clearly illegal server in her private home? Why would she do that, unless she "intended" to bypass the law. It's more than negligence, unless you're saying that Clinton was too stupid to understand that having a private server would be a security risk.
The email server wasn't illegal.
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.
Oh, dear lord. The original wording was grossly negligent. He'd still need to PROVE gross negligence, and he knew he couldn't. He said as much, and even indicated that many in his professional circle also said as much.
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?
Re-read the article. She didn't instruct anyone to delete any specific email.
Quote:
her lawyers at the end, 'Do you want us to keep the personal emails?' And she said, 'I have no use for them anymore.' It's then that they issued the direction that the technical people delete them,
Quote:
Clinton said her team
Quote:
"went through a thorough process" to identify work-related emails, and she said he had "absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department."
No where is there evidence that shows that she personally instructed anyone to delete emails that she believed was required to be submitted to the feds.
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.
