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.
Let's free all those manslaughter victims currently in jail! They weren't aware of their criminal behavior.
This should go to court.
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.
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).
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.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unbreakable Lex said: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.
The law "gives a F" because, under the law, you did not do something that calls for charges if you did it carelessly.
Comey said seven email chains were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received on Clintons server.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clintons 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.
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).
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 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.
Soooo, then what was her intent? What did she want to happen? Who was she conspiring with, if anyone?
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.