Why no investigation...Stryzok the texting loving lawyer...protected Hillary from criminal charges!

[healthmyths]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

It wasn't the wording of the press release. It was the wording that changed it from a criminal charge that other people have faced criminal penalties to something lesser.
Actually the "INTENT" of Hillary is really the question. And that's what the following article points out was the rationale for Comey NOT to charge her under Statute 18 USC 793.

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

"In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."

So doing more research, the FBI knowing full well that Hillary would NEVER EVER INTEND to use the material to harm the USA and benefit a foreign power, that's why they
changed to "extremely careless" a far lesser charge.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

It wasn't the wording of the press release. It was the wording that changed it from a criminal charge that other people have faced criminal penalties to something lesser.
Actually the "INTENT" of Hillary is really the question. And that's what the following article points out was the rationale for Comey NOT to charge her under Statute 18 USC 793.

Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

"In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."

So doing more research, the FBI knowing full well that Hillary would NEVER EVER INTEND to use the material to harm the USA and benefit a foreign power, that's why they
changed to "extremely careless" a far lesser charge.

You don't understand what the words you're using mean. The link you've quoted backs up my point, not yours.

"Gross negligence" and "intent" are mutually exclusive, in the context you're trying to use them. They describe fundamentally different mens rea (loosely, mental states)

 

[healthmyths]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

Where is your research to prove that?
United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home.
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments. By contrast, as Judge Mukasey outlined, the military cases are “reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility.”
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

Where is your research to prove that?
United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home.
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments. By contrast, as Judge Mukasey outlined, the military cases are “reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility.”
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

My "research"?



Try reading your own link: Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, is the Standard in Clinton Case

As for the various military convictions for "accidental" retention of classified material - those people were charged under the UCMJ, not 18 USC 793(f).

Since Hilary Clinton has never been a member of the armed services, she is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

[healthmyths]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

What should be investigated is that Hillary did the following which Stryzok changed from ""grossly negligent"? " which would then be under Statute 18 USC 793 a federal crime.
And the investigation should be why was it changed to "extremely careless"?
Grossly negligent is using an unsecured server to send/receive top secret confidential emails.
Some of which were found on Weiner's computer...an unauthorized civilian.

HAROLD T. MARTIN, III
x-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
Ex-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-d018-d829-a37b-db7c98c70000

So if this X-NSA contractor is now facing criminal charges for violating Statute 18 USC 793 why did Stryzok change the wording to "extremely careless"...unless it was political bias!

Crimes aren't defined by the words used in press conferences.

Since I've already explained this, and you've chosen to remain willfully blind, I don't have high hopes. But I'll try again.

The only mention of the words "gross negligence" in 18 USC 793 is in section (f).

In other words, 18 USC 793(f) is the only statute on unauthorized release of classified information that doesn't require a finding of intent.

The only problem for you guys is that 18 USC 793(f) is understood by everyone to basically be unconstitutional. That's why no one has ever been charged for violating it, absent the intent to do so. Your example above is a perfect example - there's no doubt that Harold Martin intended to steal the top secret information that the FBI found in his house.

They found the classified emails on the server in the residence of Hillary Clinton. What is the difference?
More importantly what was the "intent" of Hillary to have the private server in the first place? As SoS she was required to use Dept equipment.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Here's a pop quiz.

How many people in US history have been charged with violating 18 USC 793(f) under a "gross negligence" theory?


(The answer is zero).

Where is your research to prove that?
United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home.
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

Mrs. Clinton set up her own unauthorized and non-secure communications system, well aware that the nation’s most sensitive classified information would likely be transmitted on it, in violation of laws and guidelines she was obliged to enforce as the head of one of the government’s most important departments. By contrast, as Judge Mukasey outlined, the military cases are “reported felony prosecutions of soldiers for putting copies of classified documents in a gym bag and then not returning them out of fear of discovery; placing classified documents in a friend’s desk drawer and forgetting them; tossing documents meant to be destroyed in a dumpster rather than in the appropriate facility.”
Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton | National Review

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

What should be investigated is that Hillary did the following which Stryzok changed from ""grossly negligent"? " which would then be under Statute 18 USC 793 a federal crime.
And the investigation should be why was it changed to "extremely careless"?
Grossly negligent is using an unsecured server to send/receive top secret confidential emails.
Some of which were found on Weiner's computer...an unauthorized civilian.

HAROLD T. MARTIN, III
x-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
Ex-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-d018-d829-a37b-db7c98c70000

So if this X-NSA contractor is now facing criminal charges for violating Statute 18 USC 793 why did Stryzok change the wording to "extremely careless"...unless it was political bias!

Crimes aren't defined by the words used in press conferences.

Since I've already explained this, and you've chosen to remain willfully blind, I don't have high hopes. But I'll try again.

The only mention of the words "gross negligence" in 18 USC 793 is in section (f).

In other words, 18 USC 793(f) is the only statute on unauthorized release of classified information that doesn't require a finding of intent.

The only problem for you guys is that 18 USC 793(f) is understood by everyone to basically be unconstitutional. That's why no one has ever been charged for violating it, absent the intent to do so. Your example above is a perfect example - there's no doubt that Harold Martin intended to steal the top secret information that the FBI found in his house.

They found the classified emails on the server in the residence of Hillary Clinton. What is the difference?
More importantly what was the "intent" of Hillary to have the private server in the first place? As SoS she was required to use Dept equipment.

This is incorrect.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

What should be investigated is that Hillary did the following which Stryzok changed from ""grossly negligent"? " which would then be under Statute 18 USC 793 a federal crime.
And the investigation should be why was it changed to "extremely careless"?
Grossly negligent is using an unsecured server to send/receive top secret confidential emails.
Some of which were found on Weiner's computer...an unauthorized civilian.

HAROLD T. MARTIN, III
x-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
Ex-NSA Contractor Accused Of Theft Must Remain In Federal Custody, Judge Orders
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-d018-d829-a37b-db7c98c70000

So if this X-NSA contractor is now facing criminal charges for violating Statute 18 USC 793 why did Stryzok change the wording to "extremely careless"...unless it was political bias!

Crimes aren't defined by the words used in press conferences.

Since I've already explained this, and you've chosen to remain willfully blind, I don't have high hopes. But I'll try again.

The only mention of the words "gross negligence" in 18 USC 793 is in section (f).

In other words, 18 USC 793(f) is the only statute on unauthorized release of classified information that doesn't require a finding of intent.

The only problem for you guys is that 18 USC 793(f) is understood by everyone to basically be unconstitutional. That's why no one has ever been charged for violating it, absent the intent to do so. Your example above is a perfect example - there's no doubt that Harold Martin intended to steal the top secret information that the FBI found in his house.

They found the classified emails on the server in the residence of Hillary Clinton. What is the difference?
More importantly what was the "intent" of Hillary to have the private server in the first place? As SoS she was required to use Dept equipment.

This is what I meant when I said that this whole exercise was likely pointless.

The difference is intent.

To prosecute Hilary Clinton under 18 USC 793, they would need to prove that Hilary intentionally retained that classified material on her hard drive, in defiance of the law.

 

[otto105]

Unhealthymyth


The good doctor exposed your total commitment to the stupidication.

Just stop already

 

[JBond]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

 

[bodecea]

Strzok didn't "save" Clinton. The wording of a press statement does not change any of the facts of the case.

What exactly do you believe should be "investigated"?

The facts of the case show that Hillary belongs in prison.

Indictments any day now...any day now...any day now...any day now.......................................(checks watch...checks calendar)

 

[otto105]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

 

[JBond]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

 

[dudmuck]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

 

[JBond]

We do know a bunch of her classified emails ended up on a pedophiles computer.

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

 

[otto105]

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

It was nothing when Comey peacocked over it weeks before the election and still nothing now.

 

[JBond]

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

It was nothing when Comey peacocked over it weeks before the election and still nothing now.

Honestly, I believe it is Trump's trump card, so to speak. Nothing will happen to Trump or Hillary. MAD. Mutually assured destruction

 

[AntonToo]

Dude, just stop. The state of Kansas already has enough bad PR in regard to educational standards.

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

First of all Huma had clearance required.

Second of all it got there from Apple auto-backup. There was no intent to mishandle or somehow share anything with her husband.

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck off tard.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/29/class...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...d-huma-abedin-emails-found-on-weiners-laptop/

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

First of all Huma had clearance required.

Second of all it got there from Apple auto-backup. There was no intent to mishandle or somehow share anything with her husband.

Once again, douchebag, intent isn't required.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

**Yawn**

Otto, typical leftist. Always wrong and too stupid to notice.

"FBI agent Peter Strzok was advised of an irregularity in the metadata of Hillary Clinton’s server"

This is meaningless. This means absolutely nothing to anybody. What metadata? How did it indicate a breach?

My post was to otto. Not the brightest guy. He challenged the well established fact that classified Clinton email ended up in a pedophiles computer.

From the article I linked...

"The State Department Friday released a trove of emails from Huma Abedin that the feds discovered on her husband Anthony Weiner’s laptop — including at least five that were marked as “classified.”"

First of all Huma had clearance required.

Second of all it got there from Apple auto-backup. There was no intent to mishandle or somehow share anything with her husband.

Once again, douchebag, intent isn't required.

It's possible that you just never got to whole the concept of object permanence thing, but we've already been over this. Yes, intent is required.