Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Baz Dane

Clinton Email Scandal Facts

1,792 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Claire.
2 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Intent is not required for the section of the law that Hillary broke.

Since the whole law itself is quite long I feel a link would be appropriate.

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

In the law itself intent is mentioned, but it's only mentioned in sections a and b.  Initially that may seem to prove your case that intent is required but the problem is the word or at the end of each section.  Since or is used only one section needs to broken for Hillary to of broken the law instead of all sections.  While without intent they can't prosecute Hillary under sections a and b, Hillary can definitely be prosecuted under section f which has no intent required and possibly under section d depending on what emails may still come up.

Whilst intent may not, on the surface, appear to be the correct standard, I can assure you, it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
Just now, Claire. said:

Whilst intent may not, on the surface, appear to be the correct standard, I can assure you, it is.

Where is your proof, the law does not require it so what are you using to say it is the standard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Claire. said:

Whilst intent may not, on the surface, appear to be the correct standard, I can assure you, it is.

So im inferring that perhaps youre a law student claire? Forgive me if im wrong, but if im right, from your perspective and knowledge base how does one definitively determine intent? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane
1 hour ago, Claire. said:

The Supreme Court rewrote the statue some time ago to require intent to sustain a conviction, so yes intent is indeed mentioned (more than once), and yes it is absolutely necessary.

 

Can you cite where the SC "rewrote the statue" specifically pertaining to 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
28 minutes ago, Lemieux said:

Can you cite where the SC "rewrote the statue" specifically pertaining to 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) please.

Gorin v. United States (1941)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

So im inferring that perhaps youre a law student claire? Forgive me if im wrong, but if im right, from your perspective and knowledge base how does one definitively determine intent? 

Yes, currently in grad school. The answer to your question is complex, but will do my best to Dick and Jane it. Evidence of intent comes in two ways: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence (an admission from the accused, for example) is very rare, so in the vast majority of cases, intent must be proved by inference through circumstantial evidence. So in Hillary's case, for instance, they would have been looking for sources of proof through emails, internal memos, text messages, the recollection of participants, telephone logs, and the like. More specifically, anything that would infer intent to benefit a foreign nation or cause injury to the United States.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Claire. said:

The Supreme Court rewrote the statue some time ago to require intent to sustain a conviction, so yes intent is indeed mentioned (more than once), and yes it is absolutely necessary. Intent, not gross negligence, is the standard, so on that Hillary did not break the law.  I realize that many believe gross negligence should have been enough, but they can't go around rewriting the statute simply because they don't like someone. You're correct though in stating that as a civilian she could have still lost her clearance or her job, but that would have been at the discretion of  her boss, not Comey or the Department of Justice.

 

You have not taken document handling courses have you? You have not taken course in the repercussions of improper handling of documents have you?

Intent is not a requirement. You are probably confusing espionage with mishandling of documents. Espionage is the intent to transfer the information. Mishandling of documents is also a crime. Spillage is a crime.

There are online courses available that are available to the public to understand the handling of documents. You might want to find one of these and learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Where is your proof, the law does not require it so what are you using to say it is the standard

First of all, the FBI focused on 18 USC §793(f) because it's the clause they seem to have deemed the most plausible for bringing charges. As for intent, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Gorin v. United States (1941), suggests that the Espionage Act’s intent requirements are necessary to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. That's my proof.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This is a classic case of fumbling misdirection in which someone wants to pretend that a particular law is more important. Hillary was not attempting espionage. So drop the nonsense. This is about moving documents from a secure environment to an unauthorized environment. It's not legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane
36 minutes ago, Claire. said:
 
I thought you might cite that.
That's not rewriting the statue at all. :no:
In fact, Gorin wasn't charged under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) either.
He was charged under then-Title 50 of the US Code...
 
- "Count One: USC 50 §31 Copying, taking, making and obtaining documents, writings and notes of matters connected with the national defense (§1 of the Act)."

- "Count Two: USC 50 §32 Communicating, delivering and transmitting to Gorin as a representative of the Soviet Union writings, notes, instruments and information relating to the national defense (§2 of the Act)."

- "Count Three: USC 50 §34 Conspiring to communicate, deliver, transmit, and attempt to communicate, deliver and transmit to the Soviet Union and to a representative thereof, documents, writings, plans, notes, instruments and information relating to the national defense (§4 of the Act)."

- "The case then went to the Supreme Court. It was argued in December 1940 and decided in January 1941. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and rejected all of defense counsel's arguments."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorin_v._United_States

Gorin got a 6 year prison sentence, and his partner Salich got 4 years.

That's apples and oranges from Hillary's case.

And also, it does not address 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) specifically by any means at all.

 

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) is STILL written and understood in this manner...

 

- "(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."

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

No "Intent" required.

You cite the Gorin case, from 1941, and as I stated above, his case wasn't under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f).

But in 1991, Marine Rickie L. Roller was indeed found guilty under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) and not because of intent...

He was an intelligence operative in 1991 who got a transfer to another base, and he accidentally packed some classified documents with his stuff. When he realized his mistake, he intended to destroy the documents when he got to the new base, but he didn't get that chance as one of the movers of his stuff found the documents and reported it.

He ultimately pleaded guilty to 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)(1) and got 2 years in jail.

NOT because he intended to destroy the documents(as he never did) and he certainly had NO "Intent" to do "anything that would infer intent to benefit a foreign nation or cause injury to the United States." as you put it.

- "of interest is the fact that it called Roller’s inadvertent taking of the classified information “his own gross negligence."

- "[t]he purpose of the federal espionage statute is to protect classified documents from any unauthorized procedures such as ‘removal from its proper place of custody’ . . .”  United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1995). In other words, the crime—as the name suggests—occurs when classified information is “mishandled.”

- "For this reason, a subjective belief that the lost information will be of actual harm to the United States—and indeed any intent to cause actual harm—is irrelevant to the commission of this crime."

http://smkslaw.com/military-appellate-courts-address-gross-negligence-in-the-handling-of-classified-materials-in-the-1995-case-of-united-states-v-roller/

So Roller got 2 years under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f), and "Intent" was never the issue. It was his "gross negligence" that earned him his sentence.

 

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) does not require "Intent", was not rewritten, and Hillary Clinton should have been charged under it... and under some other charges as well. I'll get to them again if I have time.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
2 hours ago, Lemieux said:
I thought you might cite that.
That's not rewriting the statue at all. :no:
In fact, Gorin wasn't charged under 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f) either.
He was charged under then-Title 50 of the US Code...

I will keep this short. First, the Supreme Court interprets law. Judicial decisions may become common (or case) law, which is enforceable, but different from enacted law.  I did not mean the Supreme Court literally re-wrote the statute. Second, with respect to citing various other cases,  it's important to recognize that each is unique, making comparisons difficult.  Specifically, you cited United States v. Rickie L. Roller. We can tear it apart if you want, but just so you know, it in no way provides a close precedent.

As for Gorin v. United States, it challenged whether the phrase relating to the national defense in the Espionage Act was too vague. The Supreme Court's answer was no because:

[W]e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not envision a prosecution under the Espionage Act without intent to injure the United States.

Regardless, it's Department of Justice policy anyway, not to prosecute civilians at the State Department (or other federal agencies) for mishandling classified documents as long as there's no evidence of criminal intent. Is there a bit of a double standard when it comes to military personnel? Yes, there is.

As for what else Hillary could have been charged with, I really don't care. I come to this site to get away from this stuff, not get embroiled in it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
6 hours ago, Claire. said:

The Supreme Court rewrote the statue some time ago to require intent to sustain a conviction, so yes intent is indeed mentioned (more than once), and yes it is absolutely necessary. Intent, not gross negligence, is the standard, so on that Hillary did not break the law.  I realize that many believe gross negligence should have been enough, but they can't go around rewriting the statute simply because they don't like someone. You're correct though in stating that as a civilian she could have still lost her clearance or her job, but that would have been at the discretion of  her boss, not Comey or the Department of Justice.

 

Have you ever held a clearance or undergone training for such?  Please provide a link to the SCOTUS commenting on the handling of classified material.  TIA as it would be something I haven't been aware of and am always willing to learn new things.

Edit:  never mind,  I see you have been taken to the wood shed already. 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Link please.

Read my explanation just above your post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
9 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Edit:  never mind,  I see you have been taken to the wood shed already. 

Um, not quite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Quote

Regardless, it's Department of Justice policy anyway, not to prosecute civilians at the State Department (or other federal agencies) for mishandling classified documents as long as there's no evidence of criminal intent. Is there a bit of a double standard when it comes to military personnel? Yes, there is.

I don't believe this to be true at all. I am not a member of the military. None of the training I have been required to take distinguishes between military and civilians. I am subject to the same rules and regulations when handling documents.

Have you been taken to the woodshed? Definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 hours ago, Claire. said:

Yes, currently in grad school. The answer to your question is complex, but will do my best to Dick and Jane it. Evidence of intent comes in two ways: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence (an admission from the accused, for example) is very rare, so in the vast majority of cases, intent must be proved by inference through circumstantial evidence. So in Hillary's case, for instance, they would have been looking for sources of proof through emails, internal memos, text messages, the recollection of participants, telephone logs, and the like. More specifically, anything that would infer intent to benefit a foreign nation or cause injury to the United States.

Thank you for your answer Claire.  I guess i still cant figure out why the establishment of the server in and of itself doesnt show intent. Its really seems like common sense to me that you dont build an email server which is separate from the one which the greatest intelligence agencies in the world put in for you unless you have the intent to hide something. 

Largely I think this really speaks to the culture divide in this nation. We have one side which says the law is absolute and the debating the definition of is is acceptable. The other which says common sense and right and wrong should be relevant to law and legal matters. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane

I'll weigh in on some charges Hillary should be facing.

But first there's a couple things I want to touch on...

Sure, James Comey of the FBI and Loretta Lynch of the DOJ, cleared Hillary Clinton of any doing anything wrong, but at the same time, it's completely WRONG that they were the ones in charge of such a decision to begin with.

BOTH have major conflicts of interest when it comes to the Clintons(See page 1 of this thread). This automatically disqualifies ANY judgment on their part as it cannot be impartial nor trusted.

But anyways, here's some of the charges Hillary should be facing... if there was an actual HONEST Justice system in place that is...

 

18 U.S.C. 1924 (a) (c) Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

- "Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."

Clinton was in fact in possession of documents containing classified materials, by virtue of her office, and without authorization, removed such documents, with intent, to retain them in an unauthorized location.

She did EXACTLY that. Which carries with it a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 1 year.

That's an easy one right off the bat.

Section (c) of the same Code states what its definition of "classified information of the United States" means, which is to include any material relating to "national defense or foreign relations"... in other words, ALL classified materials(pertaining to foreign relations) from the State Department, which itself handles "foreign relations", fall into this category.

This then leads to this... Which is why it is in the discussion, even by James Comey...

 

18 U.S.C. 793 (f) - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information ...

- "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."

While we can't know for sure which of her classified emails may have related to National Defense, because they are classified to us in the public, it's not too hard to understand that at least SOME of the material would fall into that category as it is ALL material from the State Department.

Considering she kept ALL of her emails in an unauthorized location, which included ANY and all classified emails sent from their original locations, this means ALL the documents were most definitely "removed from its proper place of custody" and thus this section of the Code would apply as well... Unless you happen to believe that the Secretary Of State never once had a classified email that related to National Security in any way, shape or form. :no:

Comey called her and her team "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." The Code states "through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody". How anyone can honestly make a difference of the 2 is beyond me. Comey's words and meaning behind them are very clear, they were "extremely careless in their handling" referring to having them all on private servers which is most certainly NOT their "proper place of custody".

"Extremely careless" and "gross negligence" ... I'm not even going to bother to argue the difference as there is none.

At any rate, Comey said he couldn't find "Intent" to bring the "felony" charge, which is what 18 U.S.C. 793 is. But in subsection (f), "Intent" in NOT needed, as has been proven already in past cases.

Both Rick Roller(posted about in my last post above) and Arthur Gonzales were both charged and given prison sentences specifically under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f), exactly because of "gross negligence", and had nothing to do with "Intent", much less "anything that would infer intent to benefit a foreign nation or cause injury to the United States."

Their cases do in fact set precedent in that "Intent" does NOT factor into 18 U.S.C. 793 (f), showing Comey to be in error in

Also, this article from LawNewz...

- (Comey)"declared that she and the close personal aides under her direct supervision “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but somehow not “grossly negligent” in doing so. For those who might wonder (be they attorneys or not) exactly how someone can be “extremely careless” without being “grossly negligent,” Mr. Comey offered little satisfying explanation..."

- "In fact, he did not even attempt to somehow draw an analytical line between the two terms.  Rather, he spoke indulgently of Secretary Clinton’s professed “unsophistication” with classified matters, [...] of the nature and history of Section 793(f), and of the perceived rarity of her case in relation to any other national security prosecution under a “gross negligence” standard.  It was as if he were saying that her email scheme, unprecedented as it was, was simply too novel for such a high-level prosecution.  (On this latter point, several prosecuted criminal defendants such as former CIA Director John M. Deutch, FBI Special Agent James Jay Smith, Army Major Jason Brezler, Marine Corps Sergeant Ricki Roller, Air Force Staff Sergeants Arthur Gonzales and Arthur Gaffney, Navy code technician Scott J. Chattin, former Navy radio operator Henry Spade, Navy Chief Petty Officer James McGuiness, Naval Reservist Bryan Nishimura, former NSA analysts David W. Griffith and his wife, and even former Justice Department attorney Thomas Drake doubtless would take issue with him.)"

Just want to add that this article is written by a Democrat who teaches Law and who voted for Hillary...

- "Dan Metcalfe is a registered Democrat who has long said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.”  He served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, during which time he handled information-disclosure policy issues on the dozens of Clinton Administration scandals that arose within public view, as well as two that did not.  Since retiring in 2007, he has taught secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law."

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-dodges-email-shrapnel-a-look-at-the-pieces/

Also, to point out, that in the list of people named above in Metcalfe's article, only 2 of them, Rick Roller and Arthur Gonzales, were charged outright with 18 U.S.C. 793, subsection (f) specifically and neither case was due to "Intent", instead they were convicted because of "gross negligence".

Some of the others were charged under different subsections, or Codes, or in the case of John Deutch, not even charged(he was given a PRE-Pardon... get this... by then-President Bill Clinton).

In the case of Arthur Gonzales, who was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) the same as Roller, his trial was behind closed doors...

- "United States v. Gonzalez, 12 M.J. 747 (A.F.C.M.R. 1981) aff'd. 16 M.J. 428 (C.M.A. 1983) (Trial held in a security facility where access to the public was restricted and all visitors required escorts). 392."

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a451221.pdf

There's not much about his case out there as a result, but if I remember correctly, he had a few documents accidentally mixed in with his own letters and envelopes, and forgot them at a friend's house and that was that.

He got 5 or 6 months in jail, but it was reduced to a little over a month in the end.
But that makes it 2 people now charged and convicted under  18 U.S.C. 793 (f) on "gross negligence", and not "intent". Both much more recent than 1941.

 

18 U.S.C. 2701 (b) - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

- "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

From Comey's own statement...

- "The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

18 U.S.C. 2701 makes NO mention of materials having to be "classified".

Comey states clearly that "several thousand work-related emails" NOT handed in were found, and of that "some had been deleted over the years".

That is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2701 (b)... "unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same"

How many did she remove? How many classified emails did she not hand over? How many were scrubbed with BleachBit?

Charges under this are warranted as well.

 

18 U.S.C. 641 - Public money, property or records

- "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both..."

I imagine no one can argue that the Secretary Of State's emails and documents are public records. Classified or not, they are the property of the people of the United States of America, not Hillary Clinton.

How many records did she "dispose" of? You could argue "purloins" as well, considering she was still in possession of them for 2 years AFTER she left public office and was a private citizen, with NO authorization to be in possession of classified materials.

And what's worse, is that she refused to hand them over when first asked by Congress.. Which is surprising in itself.

Congress "asked" for the records???

In John Deutch's case, the records were properly seized... and rightly so.

For some reason, Hillary was allowed to keep them for an extra 6 months... and delete 33,000 emails with ZERO oversight whatsoever.

 

It's quite plain to see that there were in fact a bunch of laws broken.

She definitely should be charged under 18 U.S.C. 1924 (a), 18 U.S.C. 2701 (b), 18 U.S.C. 641... And I would argue by virtue of being Secretary Of State, 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) also applies, unless as stated, she never once had an email, any email, that related to National Defense in some way. Something I find extremely difficult to believe.

Equally plain to see is that the conflict of interests and "partisan-politics" most certainly played a role in declaring no charges would be brought forth.

James Comey and Loretta Lynch, among others, should be indicted on Obstruction Of Justice charges, probably including Obama himself... at least questioned on his role of not appointing an IG to the State Dept. for Clinton's entire term in Office, thus leaving the "acting" one in place, one who would not be qualified and therefore not be approved for nomination by the Senate. Something Obama would have known. Not to mention the fact that Obama knew Clinton had a private set up as we now know he was emailing with her back and forth under an alias even though he told the public that he knew nothing about it all until it was in the news. Proves him to be a liar at the least.

Anyways, those are some of the laws that I believe she broke and should have to answer for. They're pretty plain as day, and even though her set-up and situation is rather unique to itself(and rather LARGE) there in fact are precedents set to follow as well that would lead to convictions under "gross negligence".

Just because the corrupted media won't inform the public about the real truth of things, or the fact that Comey and Lynch(Clinton cronies) say she did nothing wrong, doesn't mean laws weren't broken.

Laws were indeed broken, but like Iran/Contra, and so many other scandals since, no one will have to pay the price... except us... the little people, serfs, peons... we have to pay the price of having the same people, who are behind all these scandals, always remaining in positions of power and influence generation after generation(a thread I will have to post about one day). :tu:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz Dane
7 hours ago, Claire. said:

I will keep this short. First, the Supreme Court interprets law. Judicial decisions may become common (or case) law, which is enforceable, but different from enacted law.  I did not mean the Supreme Court literally re-wrote the statute. Second, with respect to citing various other cases,  it's important to recognize that each is unique, making comparisons difficult.  Specifically, you cited United States v. Rickie L. Roller. We can tear it apart if you want, but just so you know, it in no way provides a close precedent.

As for Gorin v. United States, it challenged whether the phrase relating to the national defense in the Espionage Act was too vague. The Supreme Court's answer was no because:

[W]e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not envision a prosecution under the Espionage Act without intent to injure the United States.

Regardless, it's Department of Justice policy anyway, not to prosecute civilians at the State Department (or other federal agencies) for mishandling classified documents as long as there's no evidence of criminal intent. Is there a bit of a double standard when it comes to military personnel? Yes, there is.

As for what else Hillary could have been charged with, I really don't care. I come to this site to get away from this stuff, not get embroiled in it.

 

The only precedent to be concerned about is the fact that Roller was convicted specifically under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f) and there was NO "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

He was convicted specifically for "gross negligence" under said Code. Subsection (f)

So was Arthur Gonzales, who was also charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f).

Neither had "Intent" and both rulings came well after the 1941 Gorin case.


Not only that, but in the Gorin case you cite...

- "[W]e find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith."

This case was in 1941, as noted above. They are talking about the Espionage Act as it was at that time. Here's what it says...

- "Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, c. 30, 40 Stat. 217:

- "Title 1. Espionage. Section 1. That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, coaling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, or other place connected with the national defense, * * * or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, or stored * * *; or (b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; * * * shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both."
 

It's right there... The "obvious delimiting" words being, "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation" which is taken right from "Title 1. Espionage. Section 1." Which shows the subsection they were referring to, as well as to which "statute"... A now outdated one. Thus rendering their decision inapplicable in this case under the newer 18 U.S.C. 793.

In the late 1940's... well after the Gorin case... the 18 U.S.C. was re-organized to include most of Title 50, which included Title 1 Espionage. Section 1 which was re-organized into different subsections under 18 U.S.C. 793.

This is why "intent" is now found in 18 U.S. Code § 793 (a) and (b) ...

(a)

- "Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon..."

(b)

- "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent..."

Meanwhile "gross negligence" is separate and found in (f) ... WITHOUT "Intent"... because none is needed.

This is further evidenced by the two more recent cases as I've posted above. Prosecuted and convicted both on "gross negligence" and not "intent", under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f)

The bottom line is information you are citing is outdated and irrelevant. 

You say...

- "In other words, the Supreme Court did not envision a prosecution under the Espionage Act without intent to injure the United States."

And in 1941, that was indeed the case, under the laws as they were written, at that time. Which is why they stated "This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." That was applicable back then, under Title 1. Espionage. Section 1, when it was under Title 50, to which they were referring to, and is also WHY, back then "intent" was needed under the statute, as it was written at that time.

But since 1949, after the Gorin case, those statutes, which they were referring to, have been changed and rewritten. That's all there is to it.

Also, if that weren't the case, both Roller and Gonzales would not have been found guilty under 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). Neither had intent. :tu:

Just like Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Bwahahahaha This is AWESOME .......

What's Mike Pence hiding in his emails?

Now that the presidential campaign and most of the furor over Hillary Clinton's email scandal are behind us, the Pence administration is going to court to argue for its own brand of email secrecy.

The administration is fighting to conceal the contents of an email sent to Gov. Mike Pence by a political ally. That email is being sought by a prominent Democratic labor lawyer who says he wants to expose waste in the Republican administration.

Our nation is so screwed. Stuck in a perpetual quagmire of moral relativism 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Bwahahahaha This is AWESOME .......

 

Hollywood at its best ...

~

Edited by third_eye
page break
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Thanks Lemieux for the details. It is made abundantly clear to myself and coworkers that under no circumstances can there be any chance that anything at all is connected to a government system. That means no other computers, tablets, laptops, thumb drives, external drives, etc. That means no cell phones, ear pieces, no blue tooth, no wireless devices, etc. are allowed at the work sites.

As soon as someone decides to transfer from a secure system to a non-secure system every bell and whistle should go off in their heads. The very act of transfer of documents in computer systems is a copy action. Reproduction of documents is heavily discussed in the courses that are mandatory and need to taken on a regular basis.

Anyone with a basic understanding of government document handling knows that the instant the private server was used for government work that the act was in violation of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Intent is not a requirement in that law because the law is designed to punish negligence as well as espionage. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

That's more predictable than telling. The foundations entire being was based on the Clinton's political power and Hillary's climb to the top. They're finished now. Bill's an ex-president of nearly two decades now and Hillary's aspirations have ceased. While I'm sure they will always maintain connections there really isn't anything players on their level or up need or can get from them. 

Ya know I've always thought that altruism being the driving force behind the foundation was a ruse. I could see some hefty donations being possible in that case but when we are talking millions to tens of millions of dollars in single donations it's absurd to think that kind of money would be donated as charity out of the kindness of hearts. It was always about influence and favors.

Edited by F3SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Would President Trump pardon his old pals the Clintons?...

I,I,I don't want to hurt them...They are good people.

Just a thought to ponder ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.