The Clinton Thread II

[chaseter]

Let's free all those manslaughter victims currently in jail! They weren't aware of their criminal behavior.

This should go to court.

 

[samsnee]

To quote Gosling in The Big Short:

"Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested."

 

[Matt]

sigh...

She knew the law and acted criminally in the interest of convenience.

Comey says "any reasonable person should have known" this was careless...but "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges.

Criminal law does not use a reasonable person standard. Tort and civil law does. Not criminal. Once again, you are using words you do not understand, that are legal terms of art used outside of their layperson meaning. To act criminally, there must be a guilty mind, an intent to act criminally. If you are acting carelessly or recklessly or unreasonably, by most laws (again, exception being manslaughter and a few others), you have not acted criminally. It is a very basic but also very important aspect of criminal law. In fact, it is the most baseline cornerstone. There is no criminal act without a guilty mind. If you acted carelessly or recklessly, you did not have a criminal mind. This simple stuff.

 

[Matt]

Let's free all those manslaughter victims currently in jail! They weren't aware of their criminal behavior.

This should go to court.

Manslaughter is an exception (which I pointed out). And it is a statutorily designated exception. For Clinton to be criminally liable for reckless behavior in this context, there would have to be a statute that says there is no intent requirement for this specific crime (or that the intent to act carelessly is sufficient to establish guilt, as is the case with manslaughter).

 

[chaseter]

You can apply that logic to any crime without pre-meditation...including crimes of passion, such as murder all the way down to petty crimes. You can't prove a guilty mind without evidence or a confession.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Criminal law does not use a reasonable person standard. Tort and civil law does. Not criminal. Once again, you are using words you do not understand, that are legal terms of art used outside of their layperson meaning. To act criminally, there must be a guilty mind, an intent to act criminally. If you are acting carelessly or recklessly or unreasonably, by most laws (again, exception being manslaughter and a few others), you have not acted criminally. It is a very basic but also very important aspect of criminal law. In fact, it is the most baseline cornerstone. There is no criminal act without a guilty mind. If you acted carelessly or recklessly, you did not have a criminal mind. This simple stuff.

You don't really think the pompous know it all "i'm a lawyer speaking legalese" works do you?

She intended to act criminally when she thought she was too big to fail and too important to fail and too narcissistic to give a **** about laws she broke because she decided they did not matter. Period.

Of course she had a "criminal mind" to bypass the security and limitations of the State Department's communications ability. She wanted convenience and in this case, it was convenient to knowingly break the laws so she could "work from home".

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Manslaughter is an exception (which I pointed out). And it is a statutorily designated exception. For Clinton to be criminally liable for reckless behavior in this context, there would have to be a statute that says there is no intent requirement for this specific crime (or that the intent to act carelessly is sufficient to establish guilt, as is the case with manslaughter).

Look up the Espionage Act. It makes it a crime for ANYONE through gross negligence to allow the loss, theft or removal of classified information or fails to promptly report such mishandling to his/her superior.

 

[Matt]

You can apply that logic to any crime without pre-meditation...including crimes of passion, such as murder all the way down to petty crimes. You can't prove a guilty mind without evidence or a confession.

No, you can't apply that logic to any crime without premeditation because there is still intent to kill (for example, a murder done in the heat of the moment still have the requisite intent to commit murder, regardless of how much time one held that intent).

As to proving it, one proves a guilty mind through circumstantial evidence (or a confession). Clearly there was not sufficient to establish mens rea here...only that Clinton acted recklessly and carelessly, which is again, different from criminally (due to the lack of intent).

You don't really think the pompous know it all "i'm a lawyer speaking legalese" works do you?

She intended to act criminally when she thought she was too big to fail and too important to fail and too narcissistic to give a **** about laws she broke because she decided they did not matter. Period.

Of course she had a "criminal mind" to bypass the security and limitations of the State Department's communications ability. She wanted convenience and in this case, it was convenient to knowingly break the laws so she could "work from home".

Yeah, except she didn't because she acted carelessly, not criminally.

You can call it "pompous legalese" all you want. I'd rather be speaking pompous legalese and know what I am talking about than throwing around terms I do not understand and being outright wrong (while stubbornly convinced of my own righteousness).

 

[Kelly]

You don't really think the pompous know it all "i'm a lawyer speaking legalese" works do you?

She intended to act criminally when she thought she was too big to fail and too important to fail and too narcissistic to give a **** about laws she broke because she decided they did not matter. Period.

Of course she had a "criminal mind" to bypass the security and limitations of the State Department's communications ability. She wanted convenience and in this case, it was convenient to knowingly break the laws so she could "work from home".

Prove that....therein lies the problem.

They do not even have precedents to call upon...this would become that, which makes the burden of proof, EVEN GREATER....

 

[Supernova]

carelessly/ criminally who gives a F she still did somerhing bad that called for charges. But since she is about to do a visit with obama we couldnt possibly have this story go any further and hang out there.

 

[Matt]

Look up the Espionage Act. It makes it a crime for ANYONE through gross negligence to allow the loss, theft or removal of classified information or fails to promptly report such mishandling to his/her superior.

Crimes require proof of each element. The Espionage Act does allow for a recklessness standard to prove theft (one element of an Espionage Act violation). It also requires other elements be proven to charge. Such as a reasonable knowledge or certainty that the act would result in classified information being given to a foreign actor.

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Matt]

carelessly/ criminally who gives a F she still did somerhing bad that called for charges. But since she is about to do a visit with obama we couldnt possibly have this story go any further and gang out there.

The law "gives a F" because, under the law, you did not do something that calls for charges if you did it carelessly.

 

[Kelly]

carelessly/ criminally who gives a F she still did somerhing bad that called for charges. But since she is about to do a visit with obama we couldnt possibly have this story go any further and hang out there.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Crimes require proof of each element. The Espionage Act does allow for a recklessness standard to prove theft. It also requires other elements be proven to charge. Such as a reasonable knowledge or certainty that the act would result in classified information being given to a foreign actor.

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Comey said seven email chains were classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level” when they were sent and received on Clinton’s server.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.

 

[Supernova]

Not easy typing on a phone at work

 

[Kelly]

Comey said seven email chains were classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level” when they were sent and received on Clinton’s server.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.

Soooo, then what was her intent? What did she want to happen? Who was she conspiring with, if anyone?

 

[Bruce Banner]

This needed to be resolved. It's been an annoying elephant in the room.
I feel like there should be rules in place next time that could block you from being in the running for office if there is an active investigation happening.

So we have a "negligent and careless" democratic nominee nonetheless.

 

[Supernova]

The law "gives a F" because, under the law, you did not do something that calls for charges if you did it carelessly.

If not charges atleast the lose of a job would be in order. If me or you did this carelessly at our employer we would be shown the door.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

The dots are easy to connect.

1. Attorney General said they will go with FBI recommendations.
2. Obama scheduled to publicly stump for Clinton starting tomorrow.
3. FBI comes out today with recommendation not to go after indictment since no "reasonable prosecutor" would indict someone with evidence of violating Espionage Act statutes 110 times.

 

[Matt]

Comey said seven email chains were classified at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program level” when they were sent and received on Clinton’s server.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.

That does not equate to a reasonable certainty or foreseeability that the information would wind up in the hands of a foreign actor. The Espionage Act requires some degree of intent to transfer information to a foreign actor. In lieu of that, there is no Espionage Act violation.

Might I remind you, you are citing to a guy who said all of this, but still recommended she not be charged. Why do you think that is? BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T VIOLATE ANY LAWS!

You may not like what she did. I sure as hell don't. It was reckless and careless. It was not illegal because she did not satisfy statutorily defined elements required to charge her with an offense.

Your boy Trump said in a debate that he made donations to politicians to get things that he wanted. He shouldn't charged with bribery because what he has described throughout this campaign does not satisfy the elements of 18 USC 201. Its corrupt, I don't like it. Its not illegal.

 

[chaseter]

No, you can't apply that logic to any crime without premeditation because there is still intent to kill (for example, a murder done in the heat of the moment still have the requisite intent to commit murder, regardless of how much time one held that intent).

As to proving it, one proves a guilty mind through circumstantial evidence (or a confession). Clearly there was not sufficient to establish mens rea here...only that Clinton acted recklessly and carelessly, which is again, different from criminally (due to the lack of intent).

You can't prove intent without evidence or a confession. A lack of knowledge isn't a legal excuse and not being in the right state of mind to make you fully aware of the consequences of your actions isn't either. You can't prove intent here but a law was broken regardless. It's still against the law. The rich and powerful being above the law must stop.

 

[Matt]

The dots are easy to connect.

1. Attorney General said they will go with FBI recommendations.
2. Obama scheduled to publicly stump for Clinton starting tomorrow.
3. FBI comes out today with recommendation not to go after indictment since no "reasonable prosecutor" would indict someone with evidence of violating Espionage Act statutes 110 times.

You are conveniently glossing over the fact that to be charged under the Espionage Act there must be some ACTUAL (not hypothetical person who could hack a computer but ACTUAL) foreign entity with whom she had ACTUAL contact with (be it voluntarily giving them information, being blackmailed, whatever).

 

[Matt]

You can't prove intent without evidence or a confession. A lack of knowledge isn't a legal excuse and not being in the right state of mind to make you fully aware of the consequences of your actions isn't either. You can't prove intent here but a law was broken regardless. It's still against the law. The rich and powerful being above the law must stop.

Knowledge and intent are two different things.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Soooo, then what was her intent? What did she want to happen? Who was she conspiring with, if anyone?

Her intent was to sit her ass in her living room to conduct state business. She wanted to sip her iced tea by the pool while sending top secret emails. She was conspiring with every single person that willingly sent her top secret discussions to that email address.

I don't believe for a second that she was helping enemy combatants nor was that her intention. Her intention was to say "F that law, it's silly" so that she would not be inconvenienced. She's "too big to charge". And she knew it. Everyone knows it. She put lives at risk yet again because she's too arrogant to give a ****. Reeks of noble privilege.

This was once a nation of laws.

 

[Kelly]

The dots are easy to connect.

1. Attorney General said they will go with FBI recommendations.
2. Obama scheduled to publicly stump for Clinton starting tomorrow.
3. FBI comes out today with recommendation not to go after indictment since no "reasonable prosecutor" would indict someone with evidence of violating Espionage Act statutes 110 times.

What does any of that have to do with being "careless" vs. "criminal"?