Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
its not necessary to "intend" to commit a crime in order to commit a crime.
lets try this "but officer, I didn't intend to go 80 in a 45 zone, so using the Hillary doctrine you have to let me go free"
The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".
Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.
Does that help you understand how it works?
bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.
You are incorrect.
This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.
Not in matters of criminal negligence.
.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
No, I wouldn't. Because I understand how the law works.
And Hillary doesn't? That's a pretty weak argument.
You misunderstand.
Whether or not Hillary understands the law is irrelevant - she didn't break it.
The fact that you consciously and purposefully pressed the accelerator demonstrates "intent".
Now, on the other hand - if your accelerator jammed, and caused you to accelerate to 80 unintentionally, it is unlikely that you would be charged with speeding.
Does that help you understand how it works?
bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.
You are incorrect.
This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.
Not in matters of criminal negligence.
.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
bullshit, you are responsible for keeping your car under the speed limit, equipment failure is not an excuse.
You are incorrect.
This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.
Not in matters of criminal negligence.
.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
No, I wouldn't. Because I understand how the law works.
And Hillary doesn't? That's a pretty weak argument.
You misunderstand.
Whether or not Hillary understands the law is irrelevant - she didn't break it.
She was grossly negligent which is punishable. They changed those words and we know the people investigating Hillary were Trump haters. It smells.
then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?
we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.
Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
You are incorrect.
This is a fundamental part of our legal system that you don't seem to be understanding. Intent matters.
Not in matters of criminal negligence.
.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
Hillary's official state.gov email is not approved to handle classified information either. No email account connected to the public internet is approved to handle classified information.
That's why the server part is irrelevant.
The fact that is was used to send/receive and store classified information makes it relevant.
.
why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?
To hide what?
It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.
Using it to communicate with the president and foreign officials was illegal, those communications are automatically classified.
.
This is now the second time you've repeated this. It's still not true.
why can't you get it through your head she did it to hide?Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
if trump were to make his own server to communicate with - would you give it the same "all clear, boss" or would you say trump is hiding something?
To hide what?
It was not against the law for Clinton to set up a private server for her email. Full stop.
Using it to communicate with the president and foreign officials was illegal, those communications are automatically classified.
.
This is now the second time you've repeated this. It's still not true.
Try reading the state dept protocol on communications.
.
Not in matters of criminal negligence.
.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
No, "gross negligence" is not intent.
Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.
Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.
Sure. "Negligence" is a specific standard of mens rea that applies to a (very) few crimes.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
No, "gross negligence" is not intent.
Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.
Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.
In this case it does. Not only that, the investigators said they wanted to stop Trump. McCabe met with them to create an 'insurance policy' in case Trump was winning. This is called trying to fix an election. Lynch's meeting with Clinton was orchestrated to give Comey free reign to exonerate Hillary.
And congress applied it to this one. There is a standard of reasonableness, Comey stated that no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on an unsecure system.
.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
No, "gross negligence" is not intent.
Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.
Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.
In this case it does. Not only that, the investigators said they wanted to stop Trump. McCabe met with them to create an 'insurance policy' in case Trump was winning. This is called trying to fix an election. Lynch's meeting with Clinton was orchestrated to give Comey free reign to exonerate Hillary.
No, it doesn't. Words don't change meanings because you want them to - particularly in the context of laws, which are written very specifically.
This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.
What makes you think that document was classified?
Section 793(f)(1) does not require intent, prosecutors told us that the Department has interpreted the provision to require that the person accused of having removed or delivered classified information in violation of this provision possess knowledge that the information is classified. In addition, based on the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), the prosecutors determined that conduct must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” be “criminally reckless,” or fall “just a little short of willful” to meet the “gross negligence” standard.
In other words, the Justice Department added proof elements that are not in the statute. The Espionage Act literally says that if you are a government official who has been entrusted with sensitive information, you are guilty if you either willfully cause its transmission to an unauthorized person or place (Section 793(d)), or are grossly negligent in permitting it to be removed from its proper custody, transmitted to an unauthorized person, or lost, stolen, or abstracted (Section 793(f)(1)).
What could be more gross, reckless, and willful than imposing a non-secure private email system on the communications of the government’s highest-ranking national-security officials?
Notice, to establish guilt, the law does not require proof that the official had knowledge of every individual bit of classified information that was transmitted. If the government official establishes a blatantly unauthorized, absurdly non-secure system for government communications among officials who have top-level national-security duties, a rational jury could surely find the willful transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons or locations.
And if the jury had doubt about that — notwithstanding the thousands of emails containing classified information on Clinton’s system — gross negligence is the fall-back position. The official is also guilty if, by her recklessness, she enabled to exposure of classified information in an unprotected setting, enabled its transmission to unauthorized people, or created a situation that directly caused its compromise, theft, or loss.
You tell me: what could be more willful and intentional than removing classified markings from a classified document and sending over the nonsecure transmission network through an unprotected and unsecured server in Hillary Clinton's basement?
This email from Hillary Clinton to a subordinate deliberately tells him to strip off the classification heading from a document and send it non-secure. That is the textbook definition of compromising national security.
What makes you think that document was classified?
Maybe it was that line where the subordinate says "We're having issues sending a secure fax". Geez Doc, are you seriously going to deny what your own eyes are telling you? Hillary Clinton was sending and receiving hundreds of classified information over that unprotected server, and she damn well knew it cuz she told an underling to remove the heading and send it nonsecure.
1. Comey didn't say that.
2. The SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that intent was required for prosecutions under the Espionage Act. What Congress wrote (back in 1918) is only relevant through the eyes of the last hundred years of judicial precedent.
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
No, "gross negligence" is not intent.
Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.
Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.
In this case it does. Not only that, the investigators said they wanted to stop Trump. McCabe met with them to create an 'insurance policy' in case Trump was winning. This is called trying to fix an election. Lynch's meeting with Clinton was orchestrated to give Comey free reign to exonerate Hillary.
No, it doesn't. Words don't change meanings because you want them to - particularly in the context of laws, which are written very specifically.
Then why did they change the words? Gross negligence would have got her in hot water that's why. You seem to want to take a hyper narrow view of the events. The IG report states several investigators actively seeking to 'stop' Trump. They tried to fix the election in Hillary's favor or create an 'insurance policy' (Russia allegations) in case he got elected. Comey's statement was meant to exonerate Hillary. Now she is trying to spin it to say it caused her defeat.
then hillary built the server - she is responsible for what happens on it.if they reworked the accelerator for whatever reason they deemed necessary. if they did this and then it went bad and killed someone, are you responsible for the work you did on said accelerator or can you go "sorry, not my intent"?
we can't walk away from the consequences of our actions as if the things we did were common and normal at the time when they were not.
Criminally, you wouldn't be responsible, unless you intentionally rigged your "private accelerator" to become jammed.
Civilly, you could be held responsible for your own shoddy workmanship, if you were in an accident because of it.
the problem these days is no one wants to be accountable for their actions because we're too busy judging the actions of others.
she built the damn thing. she owns whatever happens from it.
anything else is pure chicken shit.
Hillary's server is entirely irrelevant to any charges of mishandling classified material. I don't know why you guys can't get that through your heads.
Wrong it deals with the intentional removal and retention of classified information on a system not approved to handle classified information.
.
"approved to handle classified information"? by whom? There was no such language in the law (though it was revised after Hillary's time at DoS).
Gross negligence is intent. That's why they changed the wording.
No, "gross negligence" is not intent.
Intent means you intended to do something. Gross negligence (in the criminal context) means an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the wilful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm.
Credit - Black's Law Dictionary.
In this case it does. Not only that, the investigators said they wanted to stop Trump. McCabe met with them to create an 'insurance policy' in case Trump was winning. This is called trying to fix an election. Lynch's meeting with Clinton was orchestrated to give Comey free reign to exonerate Hillary.
No, it doesn't. Words don't change meanings because you want them to - particularly in the context of laws, which are written very specifically.
Then why did they change the words? Gross negligence would have got her in hot water that's why. You seem to want to take a hyper narrow view of the events. The IG report states several investigators actively seeking to 'stop' Trump. They tried to fix the election in Hillary's favor or create an 'insurance policy' (Russia allegations) in case he got elected. Comey's statement was meant to exonerate Hillary. Now she is trying to spin it to say it caused her defeat.
The wording used in a press conference is irrelevant - the wording of the law is what matters.
