320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #101
Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s not there.
Exactly. We also have to assume that foreign governments have all of them. It's the American people who are in the dark.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/64683
Be that as it may, we don't indict people on assumptions about the nature of what does not exist.
Please stop. I proved to you CONCLUSIVELY that the CLINTON Administration declared that yes neglect with classified material is illegal, BUT usually not prosecuted as a criminal offense.
Not prosecuted =/= non criminal, PERIOD.
I think you are referring to the remarks of this post: CDZ - Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. -- You must understand this to be credible re: "Email-gate".
What the Washington Post article shows is that there may be inequity in how different instances of violations of Sections 1924 and 793 are handled from an administrative discipline standpoint. What you have not established is that in situations where actual criminality exists -- situations wherein the presence of both actus rea and mens rea are clear and demonstrable -- that there is any variability in how the matters are handled.
From The Washington Post article:
Justice Department officials say they generally do not prosecute civilians at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department or other federal agencies who mishandle secret documents, as long as there is no evidence of criminal intent, the information is not divulged to a third party, and the employees are disciplined administratively by their agencies.The FBI Director stated repeatedly that there is not clear evidence of Mrs. Clinton having the "specific intent" required to show criminal intent is present.
I truly don't know why to a person, everyone who has been arguing that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted has ignored that for that to occur mens rea must exist and be proven.
Because 320 the law is fucking clear, intent is not required. It's just that the crime without intent is usually NOT prosecuted. But it's still illegal.
Well, you and the jurists of the SCOTUS disagree on the requirement of mens rea. As I wrote earlier:
What has the Supreme Court said about Title 18 Section 793(f)? In Gorin v. United States, the Court said:
The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.
[W[e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.
The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” FBI agents found that Clinton had no intent nor bad faith to mishandle classified information when she used her private email server. Furthermore, prosecutors are not obligated to indict every person who has done something wrong; they are expected to exercise prosecutorial discretion to make informed choices about which cases make sense to bring. The imagined and sought after case against Hillary Clinton has never seemed particularly compelling, except to those who have disliked her for years, hoping for any excuse to watch her crash and burn.
Seeing as you are in a better position than are the DoJ, Dir. Comey and the FBI and the jurists of the SCOTUS to determine whether mens rea is required, I suggest you write a brief informing them of the error of their interpretation of Title 81 Section 793(f)