And? There was no law against using private email for government business, do you need a citation? A prosecutor could not establish an intent because what could be the intent? She knowingly received classified information in her private email because??? Lynch didn't make the decision, Comey did and any non-partisan lawyer agrees with it. Powell and Rice's people used private emails too, name one government employee prosecuted for receiving email unmarked classified emails that were unsolicited. But that's besides the point, the email system you guys wanted her to use (aka state.gov) is itself an unclassified system, technically or legally there is no difference.
DOJ reopened Hillary's email case and considering plea deal?
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
And? There was no law against using private email for government business, do you need a citation? A prosecutor could not establish an intent because what could be the intent? She knowingly received classified information in her private email because??? Lynch didn't make the decision, Comey did and any non-partisan lawyer agrees with it. Powell and Rice's people used private emails too, name one government employee prosecuted for receiving email unmarked classified emails that were unsolicited. But that's besides the point, the email system you guys wanted her to use (aka state.gov) is itself an unclassified system, technically or legally there is no difference.
A prosecutor has to think that it's worth taking in front of a judge and Comey didn't think so even though he destroyed her election chances because of it.
You cannot establish intent to break classified information laws when it wasn't known to be classified at the time, person was an OCA, willingly gave all that emails for their reclassification (where's the intent) and the email system she was supposed to use was also an unclassified system. In fact, the emails you guys keep whining about were in the unclassified system long before it got to her inbox but she should be prosecuted because?
Find an actual source where Hillary is even being investigated first and then we will talk about your fantasy felonies. Ed Klein is fake news.
Having worked as a contractor for the U.S. government for periods of time, I can tell you very directly that there are laws against using private email for federal government business. You sign documents when you start at the government stating very directly what the criminal and civil penalties are for mis-handling classified data and/or using private email for official correspondence.
If Hillary was simply a government employee she would have been criminally prosecuted and fined for using her private email account for information that was classified. However she was secretary of state so no prosecutor wanted to touch the case -- since she would have hired all sorts of powerful attorneys (that a basic government employee could never afford) and eventually evaded the charges. In other words it was a "no win" case (especially with the political angle) for the prosecutor.
This being said... I don't thing that anyone is going to re-open the email case against Hillary. They may re-open the case to see if the Russians hacked/stole the emails, or open cases against underlings (who Hillary would throw right under the bus).
1. There were no laws against using personal email when Hillary was SoS. The Federal Records Act was updated after she left the department, in fact the very reason the state department asked for her emails was because of the change in that law. Powell and Rice were asked too for their emails, they didn't give any.
2. KNOWINGLY mishandling classified data is a crime, that's not the same as using private email for official correspondence which was very common prior to 2012. Powell used AOL and his emails contained classified info that was unmarked, where is the cry for prosecution? Nobody even cared.
3. Show me one government employee - just one who has been criminally prosecuted for using a private email account that contained classified info, just name one. Enough theories, show me a precedent.
You won't because you can't.
Intent does not need to be established under statute section that specifies that just the removal of government records from their normal place of safekeeping constitutes felony level gross negligence. Were you watching porn or something when this was explained to you before?
In regard to the use of private email being used for government business, you left off the part about it not being unlawful provided that the government has a copy of them as required by law. It is clear that she had thousands and thousands that were not preserved as part of required government records. Also it is unlawful to use a private email in an unsecured environment that places government information at a lower level of protection than it would have been when in a government-approved environment. Need I say more on that?
Last edited:
comey does not decide whether to prosecute... that was not his job.
besides he had to make up an intent element to excuse her behavior. But, intent was not an element of many of the laws she violated.
I don't think you even comprehend mens rea.
There are specific intent crimes and general intent crimes...
There are also rare laws which specific state intent is not required. (for instance national security laws like the ones hillary violated.)
Laws requiring general intent mean the criminal only has to reckless or intend to do the act that is prohibited.
Comey's made up a fictional element of intent.
Clinton broke laws which Congress specifically stated do not require intent.
once again you misrepresent how the law works.
besides he had to make up an intent element to excuse her behavior. But, intent was not an element of many of the laws she violated.
I don't think you even comprehend mens rea.
There are specific intent crimes and general intent crimes...
There are also rare laws which specific state intent is not required. (for instance national security laws like the ones hillary violated.)
Laws requiring general intent mean the criminal only has to reckless or intend to do the act that is prohibited.
Comey's made up a fictional element of intent.
Clinton broke laws which Congress specifically stated do not require intent.
once again you misrepresent how the law works.
Last edited:
If intent doesn't matter then why is KNOWINGLY written into that statute?
Second, gross negligence was explained very well by Comey during his testimony
"I know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the Department of Justice is bringing a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts," Comey added.
The FBI director also appeared to take a shot at former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and other ex-prosecutors who have been saying they would've charged Clinton with gross negligence.
"I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did," Comey said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266
First, there are multiple examples of federal government employees being fired and prosecuted for mis-handling confidential data to private email accounts. The cases most well publicized involve IRS employees and contractors (usually tax info on celebrities).
Secondly let me state that the rules regarding not using private emails for government communications have been in effect for federal employees since Bill Clinton took office. The Federal Records Act has nothing to do with this prohibition which more than one high-level government official has evaded over time. All these high-level employees should have been prosecuted (Rice, Powell, Clinton, etc.) for their use of private emails accounts - it was not very common prior 2012 (despite your assertion).
Comey was the chief investigator, he had to make the recommendation to the DOJ and he recommended there should not be any prosecution, that's where it ends after Lynch said they will go with whatever Comey said.
There were only two statutes, one required intent, other required gross negligence. Nobody has been prosecuted for gross negligence under the Espionage act in 100 years but Hillary should have been because they found classified info that wasn't even marked as such??? Really?