Trump declares James Comey 'should have never exonerated' Hillary Clinton

Hey, bravs - SCOTUS has talked about "intent" almost every time they have had to rule on a case dealing w/ the Espionage Act.

Do you think they forgot to consider the whole "speeding" example?
 
So you are saying that Hillary did not intend to set up an illegal server, which means that she hired someone to do this by accident. Then you are saying that she did not intend to delete 33,000 emails AFTER Congress requested them. All these things happened without intent?

Seriously only a schizophrenic could assume that to be true.

Have you ever accidentally hired someone to set up a computer server in your basement?

You are a fucking moron.

The intent to harm national security has to involve purposely mishandling classified information by knowingly stealing it with the intent to turn it over to some unauthorized person or persons who represent a foreign government or foreign interest or domestic person or group who are working gainst US interests or looking to expose top secret inner workings of our government.

It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

If you're really having that much trouble with it, go find a 5th grader to explain it to you.
 
A useful idiot like you, don't understand how politics works....

David Petraeus saw his career come to an end for mishandling classified information.


Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser guilty of Destroying Documents in National Archives: “Sandy Berger … pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”


Scooter Libby got it worst of all. And he did virtually nothing.

Libby was the Bush aide who went to prison for having a bad memory. He was hunted down and persecuted by Peter Fitzgerald who was looking for the scalp of the person who allegedly leaked the name of Valerie Plame, which he already knew because Richard Armitage admitted he outed Palme....

Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”

John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.

“An FBI search of Nishimura’s home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.” The exact words used to clear Hillary of her misdeeds. Instead, Nishimura was sentenced to two years probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance.

Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier allegedly used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation. He was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. (Hillary destroyed 30,000 email under congressional subpoena...)

Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”

Patreus knowingly turned over classified information to a female reporter he was screwing, you dumbass.

Hardly the same thing.

You wing nuts are just dirt stupid.

Really.
 
Hey, bravs - SCOTUS has talked about "intent" almost every time they have had to rule on a case dealing w/ the Espionage Act.

Do you think they forgot to consider the whole "speeding" example?

Of course they forgot.

They're just a bunch of Joe Blows who wandered in off the street and don't know the law from squat.

Too bad some of these redneck Einsteins around here aren't on the SCOTUS.

They'd show us all a thing or two, dagnabbit!!!!!
 
Neither you & Trump understand the law, then. It centers around intent, and there wasn't compelling evidence for intent. As much as you want there to be.
Crap, military personnel have been sent to jail for far less. She exhibited a truly cavalier attitude to security.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
I remember when the Hamburgler got caught stealing the documents from the National Archives. That was truly hilarious!
 
The one that's most frequently cited as precedent is Gorin vs. U.S.

Gorin was a Soviet spy, Salich, a civilian employee of the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Salich SOLD classified information from ONI covering US monitoring of Japanese officials and also private persons (Japanese-American citizens and resident aliens) to the Soviet spy.
Their guilt is obvious....
How is this case in any way related to what we're talking about ?

The jury rejected all defense arguments and convicted Gorin and Salich on all three counts.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all of defense counsel's arguments.

The case then went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and rejected all of defense counsel's arguments.
===================================================

No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US.
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

Courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intend to injure the US. That intent has not been required since at least 1941.

Bradley Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy but he was convicted of espionage.
Classified material, whether marked or unmarked, should make it clear to anyone holding a high political position in government and well versed in
the handling classified material should 'have reason to believe' this classified material could be used to injure the United States....
 
I remember when the Hamburgler got caught stealing the documents from the National Archives. That was truly hilarious!

Was intent to harm the US a requirement in his case where no foreign government was even involved ?

Comey's excuse of intent is bullshit from the get go....its
clear that someone like Manning (or Assange, or Snowden) could commit espionage even if he was, in fact, motivated by the noblest of intentions (or no intentions).
 
Gorin was a Soviet spy, Salich, a civilian employee of the Office of Naval Intelligence.
Salich SOLD classified information from ONI covering US monitoring of Japanese officials and also private persons (Japanese-American citizens and resident aliens) to the Soviet spy.
Their guilt is obvious....
How is this case in any way related to what we're talking about ?

The jury rejected all defense arguments and convicted Gorin and Salich on all three counts.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all of defense counsel's arguments.

The case then went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and rejected all of defense counsel's arguments.
===================================================

No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US.
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

Courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intend to injure the US. That intent has not been required since at least 1941.

Bradley Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy but he was convicted of espionage.
Classified material, whether marked or unmarked, should make it clear to anyone holding a high political position in government and well versed in
the handling classified material should 'have reason to believe' this classified material could be used to injure the United States....

It was a case related to the Espionage Act, and SCOTUS talked about (wait for it):

INTENT

You know, that thing that you thought was for "idiots"? Because you compared espionage to speeding?

It's clear you have no clue whatsoever about the law, outside of what you hear on talk radio. You have been thoroughly schooled here, and this debate is now over.
 
It was a case related to the Espionage Act, and SCOTUS talked about (wait for it):

INTENT

You know, that thing that you thought was for "idiots"? Because you compared espionage to speeding?

It's clear you have no clue whatsoever about the law, outside of what you hear on talk radio. You have been thoroughly schooled here, and this debate is now over.

Have someone explain this to you...or keep your head stuck up your ass...whatever

No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US.
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

Courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intend to injure the US. That intent has not been required since at least 1941.

Hillary could have faced many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment.
She didn't have to be charged with a criminal offense....Comey used that excuse to let her off the hook for any consequences at all....thats what pisses most
people off the most.....
 
Last edited:
Have someone explain this to you...or keep your head stuck up your ass...whatever

No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US.
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

Courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intend to injure the US. That intent has not been required since at least 1941.

Hillary could have faced many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment.
She didn't have to be charged with a criminal offense....Comey used that excuse to let her off the hook for any consequences at all....thats what pisses most
people off the most.....

Shove your head back up your ass and go back to sleep.
 
Hillary could have faced many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment.
She didn't have to be charged with a criminal offense....Comey used that excuse to let her off the hook for any consequences at all....thats what pisses people off the most.....
Not being privy to what classified or secret material she exposed to others means I can not say she committed espionage and don't recommend that route...but she was without doubt guilty of mishandling this material and should have be held responsible for it....
 
You can argue intent right up until Hillary gets convicted. To quote her at her most prescient, "If that cocksucker wins we'll all hang from nooses."
 
Hillary could have faced many consequences for negligently mishandling classified material, including the loss of their clearance and probably with it their employment.
She didn't have to be charged with a criminal offense....Comey used that excuse to let her off the hook for any consequences at all....thats what pisses people off the most.....
Not being privy to what classified or secret material she exposed to others means I can not say she committed espionage and don't recommend that route...but she was without doubt guilty of mishandling this material and should have be held responsible for it....

You mean like Ronald Reagan was held responsible for Iran Contra?

Like W. Bush was held responsible for his gross negligence in prosecuting the Iraq war?

High level politicians get let off the hook all the time, usually for a helluva lot worse than the way they sent and received emails.
 
The old 'but look at what the other side did 35 years ago' defense and of course no mention of Obama's giving birth to ISIS costing the deaths of thousands and fucking up in Libya or allowing the Mexican invasion of the country or 19 hijackers entering the country under Bill Clinton's nose....

I expected it a lot sooner....and its all totally irrelevant now.

I'm not surprised to hear you're ok with "High level politicians get let off the hook all the time"....
 
Back
Top