A. Intent is not needed for all of these statutes.
B. Intent has always been clear anyway.
C. Comey took a major hit.
I'm going to walk you through this one more time:
Intent is required in all but one subsection but it is not the ONLY element. ALL elements must have prima facie cases. Another element is knowledge. ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE knowledge of delivery to a third party, as is defined by the pertinent statutes. She had intent to put these on her server (and no, her personal server is NOT a third party under the Act, before you go down that road, nor are her lawyers or IT professionals), but no intent to deliver them to an ACTUAL third party (as is defined by the statute). THAT is what the intent requirement is under the Espionage Act. It is not satisfied because there is no ACTUAL third party (as is defined by the statute).
The one subsection that does not require intent is subsection F which requires GROSS MISCONDUCT. Gross misconduct is a legal term of art. Its not a layperson's understanding of it. Gross misconduct is judged based on reasonable person standard in the RELEVANT COMMUNITY. Its not how you or I would act. It is how other SecStates in the digital era, who preceded Hillary Clinton would act. Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, and Condi Rice, the three people who fit that description (in other words, the ONLY other members of the RELEVANT COMMUNITY) have done the same thing. Therefore it is common practice. BY DEFINITION GROSS MISCONDUCT
CANNOT BE COMMON PRACTICE IN THE FIELD. If every heart surgeon in the country started cutting out people's hearts and eating them as the person lies on the operating table, it may violate another statute, but, by definition, it would cease to be gross misconduct. You cannot have gross misconduct when it is the norm. This isn't an arguable fact. It is the law.
Finally, the statute was silent regarding electronic transmission. The Rule of Lenity is a Constitutional protection, coined by Justice Scalia no less, that basically holds that when a statute is ambiguous or silent on a matter, it MUST be interpreted in a manner that favors the Defendant. Not can, not may, MUST. The silence regarding electronic transmission alone means that none of these subsections apply.
Now there is a catch all term, I believe in regard to the Espionage Act it is "other such instrumentalities" or something along those lines.
That does not apply here. Again, as explained by Justice Scalia there is a canon of statutory construction (how we read statutes) called ejusdem generis. When there is a catchall term, you understand that term by the list that precedes it. For example, if a statute prohibits having vehicles in the park and defines "vehicles" as "bikes, skateboards, scooters, and others," the word others MUST (again, not can or may) be read as non-motorized recreational vehicles. It would not apply to cars.
The Espionage Act lists things like "books, papers, maps," etc. Everything listed is something that would relate to a hard, physical copy. Therefore you LEGALLY CANNOT apply emails to that statute under ejusdem generis. That is the law. It is not optional. This isn't something that can be selectively followed.
Finally, even assuming there was a valid legal ambiguity in a statute (and again, there's not because the judicial branch does not update statutes), it still cannot be a case of first impression (a term you continuously have misused today). Cases of first impression are APPELLATE matters. To have a case of first impression, there must be an actual case-or-controversy, before an appellate court. You cannot use a criminal trial to determine a matter of LAW. That's not how it works. Comey could not say "We're gonna prosecute her and let her appeal to settle this area of law." That would be creating a sham case-or-controvery through collusion, which is at best unethical, at worst illegal. Trial courts do not settle ambiguous laws. They are not the place that first impression case would be litigated. A first impression issue would be brought up on appeal following the trial level proceedings. But again, you're understanding of that term is so wrong and perverted that its almost not worth mentioning because it simply does not apply here.
It cannot be explained any more clearly than that.
Lex, I like you, I really do. That is why I am being so patient. It cannot be explained any clearer than this. You are making an idiot of yourself. I do not say that to be mean. I say it because you are being stubborn, irrational, unreceptive to fact (not opinion, fact) and making yourself come off as uneducated and stupid. Please, for the sake of your reputation, just stop.
