1. hillary being too blase about breaking national security laws is like saying bill clinton was too blase about his marriage vows.
hillary was as much a
cheater as bill however, she broke national security laws so she could take millions into her foundation. For instance she sold our uranium to Russia as her foundation was taking in millions from the players involved. see the NYT article I have linked to on this site.
2. Comey has been a deceptive son of bitch since the beginning. Just because he proffered a reason for taking notes does not mean he did not have ulterior motives.
3. The legislature creates criminal laws to protect the country. When they create a law without an intent element it is done so on purpose.
So while Clinton intentionally broke multiple laws with her putting classified info on a home brew server.
lets focus on a
non intent crime since you tried to focus on intent. . Non intent crimes are rare. When the legislature writes an non intent crime it does so with very good reason. In this case it is to protect national security.
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1
) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
===
"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged."
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
(You really don't have the experience to lecture us on jurisprudence. You always seem to slant it far off base. )