The Clinton Thread II

[chaseter]

That must mean he can never be wrong.

(even though he keeps mentioning exceptions to the law)

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

At the very least, it's violating her terms of employment. Which would lead to her termination and disbarred from future employment (government = public office).

At the most, the information falls into enemy hands...which is against the law.

That's not the case at all, you're showing how truly ignorant you are on the matter. The most something like this would do to any member of the military or government would be that they would lose their clearance. Happens all the time in the military for various reasons. Just because you lose your clearance does not mean they fire you. In some cases if the person can't regain their clearance or be re-trained into another position then they will terminate their employment but it does not happen often. Another reason why government jobs are so cushy.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

That must mean he can never be wrong.

He's literally spelling out why you're wrong and you can't seem to grasp that you're out of your depth in the conversation. Which is pretty typical with almost every conversation I've ever seen you get involved in so par for the course I guess.

 

[Matt]

And yes, lawyers do have to prove intent. I know this because I am a lawyer. Part of my practice is criminal defense. The prosecution has to prove every element of a crime, including intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. How is this done? Usually through the act speaking for itself (example, a person would not punch someone in the face unless the intended to batter the victim).

This is not always that simple. For example, it is what makes rape such a hard crime to prosecute. There must be intent to rape (unless it is statutory, which is strict liability). If there is genuine, good faith, belief of consent, there is no intent. Thus, the defendant is not criminally liable. The prosecution has the burden of proving that the Defendant was aware of the lack of consent and had sex with the victim anyway. They must show intent to overcome the victim's lack of consent. That makes it particularly hard to prove. Generally, in cases like that, intent is shown through circumstantial evidence (example: bruising and other signs of struggling).

At any rate Chase, you are 150 % wrong when you say there is no need to show intent to get a conviction. If you do not have intent, you have not committed a crime.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case because there is no violation of the law. You are conveniently ignoring that point. I am calling you foolish because you are simply outright ignoring the fact that requisite elements of a crime are unsatisfied and throwing around legal terms of art in the layperson sense, thus misconstruing both Comey's words and the text of the statute in question.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"

Highest levels of classified information were removed from custody of the United States Government and stored and transmitted in an insecure environment. There was a clear violation of the law.

From what I can see, there was no precedent for this which is a horrible excuse. There's no precedent for this because email is relatively new and the world hasn't seen the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton before. Make a new precedent. Times change.

Violating an NDA is not a crime.

This isn't some movie embargo NDA. Violating this particular NDA is a crime.

 

[chaseter]

Let me simplify, Matt, with a simple yes or no question.

If a person unintentionally commits a crime, are they innocent? Yes or no.

 

[Matt]

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information"

Highest levels of classified information were removed from custody of the United States Government and stored and transmitted in an insecure environment. There was a clear violation of the law.

From what I can see, there was no precedent for this which is a horrible excuse. There's no precedent for this because email is relatively new and the world hasn't seen the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton before. Make a new precedent. Times change.

No, its not a horrible excuse. There is no precedent because the statute has not defined it as a crime. Saying "there is evidence of potential violations that might fall into the statute" is not the equivalent to criminal liability. You cannot punish someone for something that is not statutorily defined. Almost breaking a law is not breaking a law. Getting close enough to breaking the law is not breaking a law. You either break a law or you do not.

This isn't some movie embargo NDA. Violating this particular NDA is a crime.

No it isn't. Violation of an NDA is never a crime. Fraud, is a crime. Disclosing government secrets is a crime. Violating an NDA is not, under any circumstances, a crime. An NDA is a contract. Violation of a contract subjects someone to civil liability, not criminal.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

At any rate Chase, you are 150 % wrong when you say there is no need to show intent to get a conviction. If you do not have intent, you have not committed a crime.

Sorry officer, I did not intend on driving drunk.

 

[Matt]

Let me simplify, Matt, with a simple yes or no question.

If a person unintentionally commits a crime, are they innocent? Yes or no.

There's an old joke that every law professor tells. Law school is paying someone $100,000 to teach you how to say "it depends."

So my answer is: it depends.

What law have they unintentionally broken? I need that information to answer your question.

 

[Matt]

Sorry officer, I did not intend on driving drunk.

You are being willfully ignorant at this point.

 

[Donner]

This is awesome

I admire Matt's patience right now. He's clearly right.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

No, its not a horrible excuse. There is no precedent because the statute has not defined it as a crime. Saying "there is evidence of potential violations that might fall into the statute" is not the equivalent to criminal liability. You cannot punish someone for something that is not statutorily defined. Almost breaking a law is not breaking a law. Getting close enough to breaking the law is not breaking a law. You either break a law or you do not.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

No it isn't. Violation of an NDA is never a crime. Fraud, is a crime. Disclosing government secrets is a crime. Violating an NDA is not, under any circumstances, a crime. An NDA is a contract. Violation of a contract subjects someone to civil liability, not criminal.

This proves her intent. The NDA shows that she was informed and knowledgeable.

 

[chaseter]

There's an old joke that every law professor tells. Law school is paying someone $100,000 to teach you how to say "it depends."

So my answer is: it depends.

What law have they unintentionally broken? I need that information to answer your question.

The prosecution rests its case.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

You are being willfully ignorant at this point.

What? I am impaired and not thinking straight. I clearly would never intentionally drive in this condition.

 

[Matt]

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

You do not read a statute in isolation. You have to read the whole. Subsection F is not satisfied because she lacks knowledge that the material has been delivered to "anyone" --- who is anyone? Well, if you'd find the statutory definitions that pertain to the Espionage Act, you'd know that anyone speaks of foreign actors/bad faith actors seeking to aide foreign governments. The lack of that specific type of third party (who must be actual and apparent, not a hypothetical hacker) makes it so subsection F does not apply. Therefore there is no recklessness standard to be had.

This proves her intent. The NDA shows that she was informed and knowledgeable.

No it doesn't for a whole slew of reasons I am not getting into.

The prosecution rests its case.

Then the prosecution loses. And I am guessing you know that. No crime of which Clinton is accused falls into a category such as manslaughter in which recklessness = intent. And in those crimes you still have to prove intent. You have to prove intent to act recklessly or intent to ignore foreseeable consequence. There is still an intent requirement. EVERY crime has some intent requirement. Otherwise it is not a crime.

What? I am impaired and not thinking straight. I clearly would never intentionally drive in this condition.

You intended to get drunk knowing that a foreseeable consequence of getting intoxicated could be DUI. Thus, intent is satisfied.

 

[Matt]

This is awesome

I admire Matt's patience right now. He's clearly right.

Its like arguing with children who are just repeatedly saying "NUH UH!"

I am licensed to practice law in PA, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, as well as in federal court. But clearly these genuises are right and I am wrong. Oy vey.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Its like arguing with children who are just repeatedly saying "NUH UH!"

I am licensed to practice law in PA, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, as well as in federal court. But clearly these genuises are right and I am wrong. Oy vey.

Lex I'll give a pass on because I can see he is genuinely trying to find a flaw that isn't there. Chaseter is just a contrarian that will argue against most things for the sake of arguing.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

You do not read a statute in isolation. You have to read the whole. Subsection F is not satisfied because she lacks knowledge that the material has been delivered to "anyone" --- who is anyone? Well, if you'd find the statutory definitions that pertain to the Espionage Act, you'd know that anyone speaks of foreign actors/bad faith actors seeking to aide foreign governments. The lack of that specific type of third party (who must be actual and apparent, not a hypothetical hacker) makes it so subsection F does not apply. Therefore there is no recklessness standard to be had.

This is where your legalese and "precedent" have you backed into a corner. She signed the NDA. She understood the rules and they were outlined to her. Even the Director of the FBI accuses her actions as not being reasonable. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the anyone. Her IT pro that was not cleared to handled said information was the anyone. Every person that sent classified information to an address ending with clinton.org is the anyone. The Russian phishing emails scattered throughout her inbox was a foreign actor. She jeopardize national security for the sake of convenience. She knew what she was doing. The intent is clear. She signed the policy. This is just another example in a long list of items that show Hillary Clinton is full of **** and doesn't care about anything but satisfying her own ambitions. Laws and rules be damned.

You intended to get drunk knowing that a foreseeable consequence of getting intoxicated could be DUI. Thus, intent is satisfied.

Hillary Clinton intended on breaking the Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement knowing that a foreseeable consequence of breaking the security agreement would be breaking the law stated in 18 US Code 793 which is punishable by fine and/or 10 years of imprisonment. Thus, intent is satisfied.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Lex you are just wrong buddy. You can't plug and play with what you think is right because it makes sense to you. The "anyone" has a set parameter.

 

[Matt]

This is where your legalese and "precedent" have you backed into a corner. She signed the NDA. She understood the rules and they were outlined to her. Even the Director of the FBI accuses her actions as not being reasonable. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the anyone. Her IT pro that was not cleared to handled said information was the anyone. Every person that sent classified information to an address ending with clinton.org is the anyone. The Russian phishing emails scattered throughout her inbox was a foreign actor. She jeopardize national security for the sake of convenience. She knew what she was doing. The intent is clear. She signed the policy. This is just another example in a long list of items that show Hillary Clinton is full of **** and doesn't care about anything but satisfying her own ambitions. Laws and rules be damned.




Hillary Clinton intended on breaking the Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement knowing that a foreseeable consequence of breaking the security agreement would be breaking the law stated in 18 US Code 793 which is punishable by fine and/or 10 years of imprisonment. Thus, intent is satisfied.

I can't do this anymore. You are wrong. 100 % wrong. Completely and totally wrong. You are confusing knowledge with intent. You are confusing willful behavior with intent. These are very different concepts. One is a factual question. One is a legal question. Your failure to understand the differences between these distinctions is why you are wrong. But I am done explaining it. Educate yourself, beyond what you want to see. Then we will talk.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Lex you are just wrong buddy. You can't plug and play with what you think is right because it makes sense to you. The "anyone" has a set parameter.

That's not true. This is email communication. The reason why you can't use Gmail or Facebook Messenger to send classified email is the assumption that those systems are already compromised and lack security detail that can identify if a foreign actor has accessed the emails. The Government, while lacking in information assurances, does have security protocols to at least know when a foreign actor has infiltrated your system. It may be after the fact, but there are resources allocated to identify these threats. Clinton.org has no such security measures. This is why it is illegal to send classified information across non-secured media.

Hell, in the private sector, access to cloud email services such as Gmail and Facebook messenger are being outlawed, especially in bigLaw because hackers understand that corporate law firms hold much of the same data their corporate clients house yet the law firms are much softer targets.

Cybersecurity is still in it's infancy and it's clear many people are ignorant to it's threat. Again, Comey said he didn't recommend charges due to a lack of precedent in a matter dealing with new technologies. Let that sink in.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I can't do this anymore. You are wrong. 100 % wrong. Completely and totally wrong. You are confusing knowledge with intent. You are confusing willful behavior with intent. These are very different concepts. One is a factual question. One is a legal question. Your failure to understand the differences between these distinctions is why you are wrong. But I am done explaining it. Educate yourself, beyond what you want to see. Then we will talk.

I am not 100% wrong.

 

[Matt]

I am not 100% wrong.

Whatever you want to believe, kid.

 

[chaseter]

Matt, you can't say a criminal act requires mens rea to prove guilt and then say it depends two pages later. At that point, you are deciding on whether it was recklessness, negligence, liability, or intentional. You can be convicted without intent, which I already stated. That's why you walked back your assertions to a 'it depends'. United States v. Dotterweich is an example of conviction without intent.

I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't take a law degree to know the law.

Also, it's so funny to see Liberals want convictions of banking and housing industry leaders for causing the Great Recession but then backing Clinton's no charges news. It's the rich and powerful escaping Justice.

 

[Matt]

Matt, you can't say a criminal act requires mens rea to prove guilt and then say it depends two pages later. At that point, you are deciding on whether it was recklessness, negligence, liability, or intentional. You can be convicted without intent, which I already stated. That's why you walked back your assertions to a 'it depends'. United States v. Dotterweich is an example of conviction without intent.

I'm not a lawyer but it doesn't take a law degree to know the law.

Also, it's so funny to see Liberals want convictions of banking and housing industry leaders for causing the Great Recession but then backing Clinton's no charges news. It's the rich and powerful escaping Justice.

U.S. v. Dotterweich is a strict liability case. Strict liability cases (such as statutory rape, certain public health code violations, etc) waive intent because the Defendant is knowingly conducting high risk behavior (or should know). Basically when you enter into certain acts, there is an assumption of risk so high that even if you act in good faith, you are still criminally liable. They still include an intent component --- the intent to undertake the high risk act.

Like Lex, you are wrong. Even strict liability crimes require intent, just not intent to commit the unlawful act, rather intent to engage in high risk behavior with full knowledge of potential consequence.

Key component of criminal law:

Guilty act
Guilty mind

No crime without either. Its that simple. You are wrong.