Section 793 subsection f

[wildchild]

From Comey's statement he seemed to state that Hillary never had intent to mishandle classified material. However, the law makes no mention of intent. The term the law uses is 'gross negligence'. I suppose it doesnt matter. We don't follow laws in this country anymore. If you are well connected and your husband can meet the Attorney General in his private airplane, you can do whatever you want.

(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.

 

[piezoe]

From Comey's statement he seemed to state that Hillary never had intent to mishandle classified material. However, the law makes no mention of intent. The term the law uses is 'gross negligence'. I suppose it doesnt matter. We don't follow laws in this country anymore. If you are well connected and your husband can meet the Attorney General in his private airplane, you can do whatever you want.

(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.

I hope there is much more to this law than what you've shown here. This law is so vaguely construed, so ridiculously broad, so open to interpretation that nearly any activity "...relating to national defense..." could be deemed a crime. I'd expect to find such a law only in despotic nations. Perhaps that's telling me something!

 

[Wallet]

I hope there is much more to this law than what you've shown here. This law is so vaguely construed, so ridiculously broad, so open to interpretation that nearly any activity "...relating to national defense..." could be deemed a crime. I'd expect to find such a law only in despotic nations. Perhaps that's telling me something!

Here read it for yourself. she's guilty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Handling classified material us not some lackadaisical,flippant exercise it's serious business.

 

[wildchild]

I hope there is much more to this law than what you've shown here. This law is so vaguely construed, so ridiculously broad, so open to interpretation that nearly any activity "...relating to national defense..." could be deemed a crime. I'd expect to find such a law only in despotic nations. Perhaps that's telling me something!

Does the fact that this is from subsection f mean anything to you? Yes there is more to the law. Subsection F is the part of the law that Hillary clearly violated.

If you want to see the rest of the law, there is thing called Google that you could use to find it.

 

[piezoe]

Here read it for yourself. she's guilty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Handling classified material us not some lackadaisical,flippant exercise it's serious business.

Thank you for that. I did not read the entire uscode on this subject (obviously) but I read enough more from what you posted to recognize that the entire law is not drafted so loosely as paragraph (f). When the question of a whether the transgression of a law is prosecutable, the question of precedence comes up. If there is a long history of not prosecuting similar transgressions, it may be difficult to successfully prosecute, although according to the letter of the law the accused may indeed be guilty. Stare decisis may decide the outcome, especially upon appeal. Prosecutors are obviously aware of this, and are wont to take on cases where they have little chance of succeeding. The more imprecise the law on which the transgression is based, the more weasel room afforded the defense.
In any case, Title 18, U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information -- is perhaps not the correct code under which to prosecute Mrs Clinton.

 

[piezoe]

Does the fact that this is from subsection f mean anything to you? Yes there is more to the law. Subsection F is the part of the law that Hillary clearly violated.

If you want to see the rest of the law, there is thing called Google that you could use to find it.

I disagree. I don't think any of us are in a position to say that she clearly violated paragraph "f". We have no idea what the classifiable information contained in some of the emails dealt with, or whether it was defense related. Not everything the State department deals with is defense related. And again Comley was rather clear that in the opinion of the FBI her bad judgement and handling of what should have been classified material was not prosecutable. I would be reluctant to place may opinion , based on the reports of journalists above those of the investigators.

 

[jem]

you seem to be conflating the importance of common law precedent with criminal law which is statutory in nature.

for background you may wish to read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent


States create new crimes all the time and put them on the books.
Criminal Statutes are evaluated for their constitutionality.
Lack of precedent is not really an issue under criminal prosecutions.
Historically, lack of precedent certainly does not seem to stop democrat prosecutors from going after republicans.

Thank you for that. I did not read the entire uscode on this subject (obviously) but I read enough more from what you posted to recognize that the entire law is not drafted so loosely as paragraph (f). When the question of a whether the transgression of a law is prosecutable, the question of precedence comes up. If there is a long history of not prosecuting similar transgressions, it may be difficult to successfully prosecute, although according to the letter of the law the accused may indeed be guilty. Stare decisis may decide the outcome, especially upon appeal. Prosecutors are obviously aware of this, and are wont to take on cases where they have little chance of succeeding. The more imprecise the law on which the transgression is based, the more weasel room afforded the defense.
In any case, Title 18, U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information -- is perhaps not the correct code under which to prosecute Mrs Clinton.

 

[piezoe]

you seem to be conflating the importance of common law precedent with criminal law which is statutory in nature.

for background you may wish to read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent


States create new crimes all the time and put them on the books.
Criminal Statutes are evaluated for their constitutionality.
Lack of precedent is not really an issue under criminal prosecutions.
Historically, lack of precedent certainly does not seem to stop democrat prosecutors from going after republicans.

There is no lack of precedence in this case, and it's federal statutes, not State, that pertain.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

A decision not to prosecute is not precedent. It might be policy, it might reflect special circumstances or it might just reflect priorities, but it is not binding in the sense that a judicial precedent is.

Comey is way off base on at least three issues here. One, he is purporting to make a decision that is the responsibility of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department to make. Two, he is misstating the law and the elements of the crime. Three, he is lying about prior practice.

But he is "well respected" and "non-partisan" we are told.

 

[piezoe]

A decision not to prosecute is not precedent.

Has anyone claimed such? Did you advance beyond the 9th grade?