FBI director--Comey states Petraeus case worse than Clinton's emails

[Vigilante]

 

[S.J.]

And all that has what to do with this thread?

Absolutely nothing--it's because you wanted to change the topic--LOL You're flapping in the wind.

I know it's real tough to go into this race with the Chimpanzee nominee--and it hurts to lose your primary weapons Benghazi and Emails--so you're trying to divert the topic from David Petraeus a 4 star General, and CIA director and what he did, because it makes Hillary Clinton's email scandal look very weak in comparison. You don't know what to say or how to defend it, so the typical tactic is to change the topic, and you did to Muslims and Islam.

And exactly how did I change the subject?

Do you read your own posts, and what you have plastered at the bottom of them? You've got to be a Donald Trump supporter--LOL.

I know what I've posted in this thread and I know what you've posted and your rant is off topic. Can't even stick to the topic of your own thread?

Yeah right---LOL You're full of conspiracy theory--then you try and divert--I know exactly who you are. I have been doing this for many years. You're way to easy for me.
Column: Trump exploits rational political ignorance

Again, you're off topic in your own thread. Why don't you just start another thread since you can't stick to your own topic, stupid?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[oreo]

Comey is correct.

Petraeus give Paula Broadbutt a whole box of classified documents so that he could put his dick in her.

And he went all in.

So there was indeed a crime with wrongful enrichment (Paula Broadbutt's vagina).

Comey is INcorrect.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — Paula Broadwell had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.


There was NO MENS REA that the General INTENDED TO CRIMINALLY HARM THE US.

So STFU.


.

Did she have the security clearance to write a book about the classified documents that David Petreaus handed over to her--LOL I kind of doubt it. A 4 star General and director of the CIA delivered classified documents to his mistress so she could write a book about him.

Now it's going to take a lot of evidence to bring down a 4 star General who happened to be director of the CIA.

David Petreaus ADMITTED he committed a criminal act. He admitted wrong doing--so I don't think you have a defense on this one--LOL But nice try anyway.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[oreo]

Absolutely nothing--it's because you wanted to change the topic--LOL You're flapping in the wind.

I know it's real tough to go into this race with the Chimpanzee nominee--and it hurts to lose your primary weapons Benghazi and Emails--so you're trying to divert the topic from David Petraeus a 4 star General, and CIA director and what he did, because it makes Hillary Clinton's email scandal look very weak in comparison. You don't know what to say or how to defend it, so the typical tactic is to change the topic, and you did to Muslims and Islam.

And exactly how did I change the subject?

Do you read your own posts, and what you have plastered at the bottom of them? You've got to be a Donald Trump supporter--LOL.

I know what I've posted in this thread and I know what you've posted and your rant is off topic. Can't even stick to the topic of your own thread?

Yeah right---LOL You're full of conspiracy theory--then you try and divert--I know exactly who you are. I have been doing this for many years. You're way to easy for me.
Column: Trump exploits rational political ignorance

Again, you're off topic in your own thread. Why don't you just start another thread since you can't stick to your own topic, stupid?

Anytime you want to actually say something intelligent regarding this thread topic, bring it on.

 

[S.J.]

And exactly how did I change the subject?

Do you read your own posts, and what you have plastered at the bottom of them? You've got to be a Donald Trump supporter--LOL.

I know what I've posted in this thread and I know what you've posted and your rant is off topic. Can't even stick to the topic of your own thread?

Yeah right---LOL You're full of conspiracy theory--then you try and divert--I know exactly who you are. I have been doing this for many years. You're way to easy for me.
Column: Trump exploits rational political ignorance

Again, you're off topic in your own thread. Why don't you just start another thread since you can't stick to your own topic, stupid?

Anytime you want to actually say something intelligent regarding this thread topic, bring it on.

I already did, but you changed the subject to muslims. Remember???

 

[Contumacious]

Comey is correct.

Petraeus give Paula Broadbutt a whole box of classified documents so that he could put his dick in her.

And he went all in.

So there was indeed a crime with wrongful enrichment (Paula Broadbutt's vagina).

Comey is INcorrect.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — Paula Broadwell had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.


There was NO MENS REA that the General INTENDED TO CRIMINALLY HARM THE US.

So STFU.


.

Did she have the security clearance to write a book about the classified documents that David Petreaus handed over to her--LOL I kind of doubt it. A 4 star General and director of the CIA delivered classified documents to his mistress so she could write a book about him.

Now it's going to take a lot of evidence to bring down a 4 star General who happened to be director of the CIA.

David Petreaus ADMITTED he committed a criminal act. He admitted wrong doing--so I don't think you have a defense on this one--LOL But nice try anyway.

Excuse me dingle berry

He entered into a plea agreement which required that he admit to that,

Learn the facts, then, and only then repost.

 

[oreo]

Comey is correct.

Petraeus give Paula Broadbutt a whole box of classified documents so that he could put his dick in her.

And he went all in.

So there was indeed a crime with wrongful enrichment (Paula Broadbutt's vagina).

Comey is INcorrect.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — Paula Broadwell had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.


There was NO MENS REA that the General INTENDED TO CRIMINALLY HARM THE US.

So STFU.


.

Did she have the security clearance to write a book about the classified documents that David Petreaus handed over to her--LOL I kind of doubt it. A 4 star General and director of the CIA delivered classified documents to his mistress so she could write a book about him.

Now it's going to take a lot of evidence to bring down a 4 star General who happened to be director of the CIA.

David Petreaus ADMITTED he committed a criminal act. He admitted wrong doing--so I don't think you have a defense on this one--LOL But nice try anyway.

Excuse me dingle berry

He entered into a plea agreement which required that he admit to that,

Learn the facts, then, and only then repost.

If you're innocent you don't admit guilt--LOL The only reason anyone accepts a plea bargain, is that they know there is a lot of evidence against them, and if they don't take a deal, they could spend many years in prison.

 

[oreo]

We can only Thank God that General Petraeus is not running for President you would have probably nominated him as the Republican nominee--LOL Instead you're stuck with a Chimpanzee that has major issues with his tweety fingers.

This double standard you Reich wingers have is obvious.

 

[oreo]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

 

[S.J.]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

 

[whitehall]

The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the Attorney General. What do you expect him to say when he already blew it and is on the freaking political ropes? Comey thought he would show the American public how hard the FBI worked on the Hillary case but it backfired on him big time when he gave all the reasons why Hillary should be indicted before he recommend against indictment.

 

[paperview]

The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the Attorney General. ...

Bzzzt.

Wrong.

 

[paperview]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

Because he stressed that her actions were not criminal. Careless? Yes. Foolish? Perhaps. Arrogant? Probably. Stupid? Possibly. Criminal? No.

The law is the law. It's not a stick to be used by politicians to beat their opponents into submission and slander their reputation. What she did was the modern equivalent of leaving sensitive information on her desk in her locked office rather than putting it in a lockbox in a vault. Doing so could create a vulnerability, because someone could pick the lock to her office and steal the information. But all that did was create a vulnerability, not a breach. Unless they can prove such a breach occurred, and definitively say sensitive information was obtained by unauthorized personel as a result, this is much ado about nothing.

She lied about it, that's a pretty good indication she knew what she did was illegal. Besides, you don't understand the law. Look it up. It doesn't matter if she "intended" to do anything illegal, the crime is "doing" it. You're ignorant, at least on this issue.

The law that they were attempt to indict her under was the Espionage Act of 1917. Here is the US Code derived from it. 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information If Walt Whitman and Herman Melville had an overly verbose baby that decided it wanted to write a law, it would write the Espionage Act of 1917, and I'm not posting the full text of that garbage here.

There is nothing in the entire text of the law that mentions "unsecured channels". The elements it relies upon are relics from a time when everything had a hard copy and any breach would have to be physical. That is the point: Emails inherently create copies without intention of storage, duplication, or distribution. Computer hacking allows for access to the information without knowledge of or access to any of the parties or materials involved. In fact this type of "access" (computer to computer) literally did not exist and had not been conceived yet when the law was written. The last revision to the act predated the first email by over 20 years. Because of these facts, someone could cause a breach and not do so knowingly or willfully, and because of this be completely untouchable under the law.

THAT is the point that Comey was making. He stressed many times that what Hillary did was extremely careless, she shouldn't have done it, she lied to the public, etc. None of that was disputed. What he was saying was that the law itself is INADEQUATE for today's times. The State Department knows the score and sets rules accordingly. They have their own regulations about what their employees can and can't do. If an employee violates them, as Clinton has surely done, then they can discipline them within the restrictions allowed as their employer. They can fire them, suspend, them, or revoke their clearance. That's it. The State Department can make recommendations regarding the laws, but it's up to Congress to legislate.

Hillary lying proves nothing with regards to legality. It makes her look foolish, irresponsible, and untrustworthy if the narrative shifts to how she can't follow security protocols and repeatedly endangered state secrets. Criminal charges be damned, she had a lot to lose by this coming to light. If she wasn't facing a shaved orangutan with dementia in 2016, she'd have probably just lost the election.

Sounds like one of those "lets charge her with something so ridiculous she cant possibly be indicted" situations.

 

[oreo]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

Then YOU are willing to prosecute Colin Powell and Condi Rice for the same thing? None of these emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. Furthermore Hillary Clinton believed she was working off of a secure server. It was a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department that set it up and maintained it for her. And if anyone should have known it was against State Department protocol to set up a private server, one would think that it would be a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department. It's probably because he has set up several servers for Government officials and it's never been an issue until now. So he gets immunity to save his own ass.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

There was no INTENT of wrong-doing or criminal activity. Having a private server is NOT a CRIME.

There is absolutely no comparison to what David Petreaus did as compared to Hillary Clinton, and that's why there was no recommendation of charges against Hillary Clinton.

DEFINITION OF INTENT: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.
Definition of INTENT

 

[S.J.]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

Then YOU are willing to prosecute Colin Powell and Condi Rice for the same thing? None of these emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. Furthermore Hillary Clinton believed she was working off of a secure server. It was a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department that set it up and maintained it for her. And if anyone should have known it was against State Department protocol to set up a private server, one would think that it would be a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department. It's probably because he has set up several servers for Government officials and it's never been an issue until now. So he gets immunity to save his own ass.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

There was no INTENT of wrong-doing or criminal activity. Having a private server is NOT a CRIME.

There is absolutely no comparison to what David Petreaus did as compared to Hillary Clinton, and that's why there was no recommendation of charges against Hillary Clinton.

DEFINITION OF INTENT: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.
Definition of INTENT

The "crime" is GROSS NEGLIGENCE. "Intent" doesn't mean shit. Here, let Rudy educate you.
Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

 

[oreo]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

Then YOU are willing to prosecute Colin Powell and Condi Rice for the same thing? None of these emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. Furthermore Hillary Clinton believed she was working off of a secure server. It was a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department that set it up and maintained it for her. And if anyone should have known it was against State Department protocol to set up a private server, one would think that it would be a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department. It's probably because he has set up several servers for Government officials and it's never been an issue until now. So he gets immunity to save his own ass.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

There was no INTENT of wrong-doing or criminal activity. Having a private server is NOT a CRIME.

There is absolutely no comparison to what David Petreaus did as compared to Hillary Clinton, and that's why there was no recommendation of charges against Hillary Clinton.

DEFINITION OF INTENT: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.
Definition of INTENT

The "crime" is GROSS NEGLIGENCE. "Intent" doesn't mean shit. Here, let Rudy educate you.
Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Look in your little law book of conspiracy theory and find a crime for gross negligence--LOL

Even gross negligence has to lead to "harm" for it to be a crime. IOW--leaving a child in a hot car, purposeful negligence leading to death, etc.etc.

Not knowing that your workplace didn't approve of private servers is NOT an instance of gross negligence.

 

[S.J.]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

Then YOU are willing to prosecute Colin Powell and Condi Rice for the same thing? None of these emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received. Furthermore Hillary Clinton believed she was working off of a secure server. It was a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department that set it up and maintained it for her. And if anyone should have known it was against State Department protocol to set up a private server, one would think that it would be a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department. It's probably because he has set up several servers for Government officials and it's never been an issue until now. So he gets immunity to save his own ass.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the documents, totaling 37 pages, were not marked classified at the time they were sent, but are being upgraded at the request of the Intelligence Community because they contain sensitive information.

State Department will not release 22 'top secret' Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

There was no INTENT of wrong-doing or criminal activity. Having a private server is NOT a CRIME.

There is absolutely no comparison to what David Petreaus did as compared to Hillary Clinton, and that's why there was no recommendation of charges against Hillary Clinton.

DEFINITION OF INTENT: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.
Definition of INTENT

The "crime" is GROSS NEGLIGENCE. "Intent" doesn't mean shit. Here, let Rudy educate you.
Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Look in your little law book of conspiracy theory and find a crime for gross negligence--LOL

Even gross negligence has to lead to "harm" for it to be a crime. IOW--leaving a child in a hot car, purposeful negligence leading to death, etc.etc.

Not knowing that your workplace didn't approve of private servers is NOT an instance of gross negligence.

This is not general legislation, it's legislation passed specifically for matters concerning national security. You either know it and are hoping nobody else does, or you don't know it because you're ignorant. One thing is for sure, you don't know more about this law than a federal prosecutor.
Here's one law she broke, and it was a law when her husband was president.
Records Management by Federal Agencies (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31