955876 wrote:
This was long but I’ll give you a gift of not following up. Or at least trying to.
But I did all that reading!
955876 wrote:
1) In your opinion, was Hillary grossly negligent in her (mis)handling of classified information? There is so much evidence she was I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.
Oh, let me just see if I can come up with something.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-i ... nton-case/Quote:
McCarthy and others are mistaken. The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent.
Quote:
Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “related to the national defense.”
Quote:
This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statute to require intent to sustain a conviction.
Quote:
Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).
Quote:
Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.
Quote:
Despite what may appear to be the plain meaning of 793(f), the negligent mishandling of classified material is not a civilian criminal offense. A civilian can face many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment, but they would not face criminal charges. For anyone who thinks negligence should be a crime their argument is not with Director Comey but with Justice Reed, the author of the Gorin opinion. Because of that decision, the correct standard is intent, not gross negligence, and the director was right not to recommend a criminal case.
But what about that sub guy?
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... olumn.htmlQuote:
Neither the FBI nor the Navy has discussed what Saucier intended to do with those photos. But after FBI agents and Navy investigators confronted him in March 2012, Saucier returned to his home and destroyed a laptop, a camera, and the camera's memory card.
He was charged with two felony counts, and in May he pleaded guilty to one of them, violating the Espionage Act. Sentencing is set for August, and under federal guidelines he's expected to serve five or six years.
Let's compare that to Clinton's behavior.
FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that Clinton knowingly broke the law. Only a "very small number" of the classified e-mails she sent or received were marked as classified, he noted.
Saucier, by contrast, must have known that taking photographs of the sub's propulsion system was illegal. It's obvious, and it's part of the training all sailors aboard a sub receive.
Clinton also did nothing to obstruct the FBI inquiry, according to Comey. Saucier rushed home as soon as he learned of the investigation to destroy evidence. Pieces of his laptop were later discovered in the woods on a property in Connecticut owned by a family member.
So is that where Comey cut a special deal for Clinton? Did her carelessness rise to the level of criminal negligence?
On that question, Comey relied on precedent. He asked whether prosecutors typically file criminal charges in similar situations, and he found the answer was no:
"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a away as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
Apply that same test to the Saucier case, and criminal charges are perfectly appropriate. He did intentionally break the law, and he did try to obstruct justice.
So where is the special treatment for Clinton? When you use precisely the same standards, as spelled out by Comey, Saucier is the one who belongs in prison.
955876 wrote:
3) In your opinion, did Hillary commit perjury when she lied under oath before Congress? There is ample evidence that shows statements made under oath proved to be false when recovered emails (you know, the ones she couldn’t delete) proved her statements were false. There is so much evidence she did I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.
I won't answer no. I'll let John Dean say no:
https://verdict.justia.com/2016/08/19/o ... ry-clintonQuote:
To prove perjury, it should be noted however, requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was made with “willful intent” and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when the testimony results from “confusion, mistake or faulty memory.” Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness, as the Republicans seek to do with the Goodlatte/Chaffetz letter, and with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony. Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.
The hard evidence, however, shows that Hillary Clinton did not lie, rather those charging her have distorted her testimony, or claimed she had information she simply did not have at the time she testified. It is pretty ugly stuff, made even uglier because it is being promoted by two high ranking Republican chairmen who are, the facts show, trying to frame her.
Quote:
Bottom line: The charges that Secretary Clinton lied to Congress are baseless. While there may be a few technical errors in her testimony, and there may be information that was discovered by the FBI after she testified, there is absolutely no evidence at all that she willfully and knowingly provided false information to Congress.
Ironically, there are more false statements in the letter from chairmen Goodlatte and Chaffetz to the Department of Justice, which are clearly intentional, than the hours upon hours of testimony given by Secretary Clinton. If these men were ordinary citizens, they could be arrested for making false statements to law enforcement. They lied and played it for a one-day headline, and in doing so performed at the level of banana-republic legislators, if not lower. Sadly their actions are consistent with the thinking of the new Republican Party leader, Donald Trump, who would be proud of their effort to “Lock her up, Lock her up.”
955876 wrote:
2) In your opinion, did Hillary commit obstruction of justice when she deleted thousands upon thousands of emails AND had her IT people wipe the server clean? Please note these were not her emails to do as she pleases with. Those emails were yours and mine and she was required BY LAW to maintain records of. We could also toss in destruction of government property while we are at it. There is so much evidence she did these things I can’t even begin to imagine how you’d answer “no” and still maintain a shred of credibility.
No quote for this one. My understanding is that Hillary had the authority to decide which emails were work-related and which were personal, and she then had the authority to delete them so that her mere deletion of the emails itself is not illegal or against State Department policy. WHEN the emails were deleted is the question, and the answer is...we don't know. Those that are inclined to believe Hillary will believe that she requested the emails to be deleted before they were subpoenaed and therefore did nothing wrong. Those not inclined to believe Hillary will believe she ordered the deletion of the emails after the subpoena and committed obstruction of justice. The point is, there is no evidence to prove it.
My final position: Comey did not have the evidence to proceed with charges, knew he could not get a conviction, and correctly did not proceed.
You came on like gangbusters as if the case against Hillary was so iron-clad that only those "sheeple" blinded by party loyalty or loyal to Hillary could possibly be so blind as to defend her. Doesn't look so iron-clad to me. It is certainly possible for reasonable, intelligent people to decide that Comey ought not or could not proceed against Hillary.
Now here's my challenge for Republicans: put up or shut up. Republicans have all the power right now. Spare me the excuses of how they can't find a way to prosecute Hillary. Either put Hillary in prison, or STFU. Republicans do NOT get to run around calling Hillary a criminal on the one hand while not convicting her on the other. Hillary not being in prison = the charges are bogus and Republicans full of crap (as usual). If Trump is going to continue to refer to her as crooked or a criminal, then I insist, I DEMAND that she be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Failure to imprison Hillary means Republicans are full of crap. Imprison Hillary or STFU. Put up or shut up.
)