Hillary wins FBI primary

[Wulfey]

Mishandling charges are very hard to bring if the mishandling only ever resulted in intended and valid targets of secret informaiton receiving said secret informaiton. The key is distinguishing between targets and channels. Compare HRC to Patreaus.

HRC:
Targets = State subordinates who were entitled to receive secret messages from HRC (Secretary of State)
Channel = insecure private server

Patreaus:
Targets = biographer/mistress who had no right to the black book of special operations in Afghanistan
Channel = handed the book of secrets to her physically

HRC's targets were legitimate. No way you can prosecute a mishandling charge on the basis that the channel wasn't very secure. You need some kind of mishandling where the intent was to move secret info to someone who it wouldn't be legal to send it to. HRC's underlings were all valid targets. Paula Broadwell wasn't.

[Narwal]

But that's exactly what the FBI is saying - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hill...linton-n603926

The FBI "did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information," James Comey said. But "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

He said that, but the intent was only partially what he was driving the decision on it seemed. In that last topic, didn't he also mention that he was using precedent to not charge her? He mentioned looking over past cases, not able to find anything similar where charges were presented? To me that sounds like he doesn't want to set a precedent in this case. That if he was going to recommend charges, he was going to have to give an example of a past case that set the precedent for doing so. And if he didn't have a slam dunk example that could be picked apart he would have issues on his hands.

What this means to me is that he was more afraid of charging her without a good public argument, than simply following the word of the law. He started out his statement saying a misdemeanor version of mishandling sensitive information where the intent to do so or not does not matter. He was contradictory by those 2 statements to me.

[triplesdsu]

Sure intending to do a crime can get you a harsher punishment, but it does not mean you are not breaking the law even if you don't intend to.



I see what he is saying, and heard it, but that does not mean that you have to intend to break the law for the law to be broken.

Not true. Most crimes are specific intent crimes. Lacking intent is a viable defense. In some cases, you can show intent via the acts committed (ie. if you shoot someone, that shows you intended to hurt them, if you rip a woman's clothes off and penetrate her, that shows your intent to rape her). In contrast, setting up a private email server for communication doesnt show you intended to compromise national security. Especially since it had been done by Sec of States before her.

[Torgent]

And YOU have totally forgot what started this argument. You started this whole thing off by comparing Trump University to what she did. We were never arguing about whether she should be charged or not (even though she should be), you made an incredibly ignorant statement, and that's what we were arguing about. You must have been responding so much in this thread that you got your wires crossed.

All you need to do is admit that using the server for top secret emails and risking lives is unarguably worse than swindling people out of thousands of dollars. I think any sane person would think that so I'm given you a chance to go back on your original statement. Then there's literally nothing we are arguing about.

You don't know what was in those top secret emails. You're assuming that they are about military or about spy activity. You don't know that. So no, I would say that using a private server for emails (similar to what those in the past have done), is not worse than intentionally scamming thousands of people out of money. IF it turns out that those emails directly placed people in harms way (including gps coordinates of troops, identities of spies, etc) I would say that it is dangerous to handle them that way. I would still not place it over making a deliberate action to scam thousands of people. It would be a separate thing. My original statement was to show that one was negligent, the other acted intentionally. But yet Trump supporters want to call her crooked, even though he scammed people intentionally.

[Tyrianth]

This is retarded, this woman PLAYS a school teacher on a television show also most of that shit it outright wrong.

The picture is retarded and so is anyone who seriously posts it is as well.

http://www.snopes.com/denmark-socialism-brutal-meme/

[apepi]

Someone who got charged with misuse of classified information without intent.

The dude kept it on his home computer and got charged for it, because the dude was just lazy. Isn't that basically Clinton's excuse? This is a precedent here.

[Moggie]

Hillary wasn't the only one to have ever used an unsecured email server, so until those others are brought up evenly, then there's zero point to put tinfoil hats on.

[Cosmic Janitor]

People need to listen to the press conference first hand, not read media 'reporting' on what he said, which was that:

1. Mishandling classified information is a crime even if done unintentionally
2. Classified information was clearly mishandled in this case

The way he structured the statements sounded like the FBI was going to ask for an indictment, right up to the point where he said they would not be pursuing an indictment.

And how exactly did he justify that? There seems to be a bit of a leap in logic there.

[Narwal]

People need to listen to the press conference first hand, not read media 'reporting' on what he said, which was that:

1. Mishandling classified information is a crime even if done unintentionally
2. Classified information was clearly mishandled in this case

The way he structured the statements sounded like the FBI was going to ask for an indictment, right up to the point where he said they would not be pursuing an indictment.

Exactly, it seems that the only point he used to not charge her was that they don't have a precedent set for someone of her position doing such an act. Because there wasn't another person in her position ever charged with this before, they didn't want to set a precedent here.

[apepi]

Not true. Most crimes are specific intent crimes. Lacking intent is a viable defense. In some cases, you can show intent via the acts committed (ie. if you shoot someone, that shows you intended to hurt them, if you rip a woman's clothes off and penetrate her, that shows your intent to rape her). In contrast, setting up a private email server for communication doesnt show you intended to compromise national security. Especially since it had been done by Sec of States before her.

From the FBI director himself, it is a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.

[Narwal]

And how exactly did he justify that? There seems to be a bit of a leap in logic there.

He was clear to state that they don't have evidence she was doing it with mal-intent so regardless it would be a lesser charge of the misdemeanor, and beyond that because they didn't have a past case that set a good precedent of this, they didn't want to set that precedent with this case.

[apepi]

Hillary wasn't the only one to have ever used an unsecured email server, so until those others are brought up evenly, then there's zero point to put tinfoil hats on.

Then lets charge the other who have done it too, this is not hard.

[SidFwuff]

I mean he did say that there is evidence she broke the law:

Yes.

She did. Didn't her husband lied under oath, and didn't get "fired" either.

Trump's also guilty of hate speech, which makes him a criminal too in the eyes of your allies.

I don't envy Americans this November at all.

[Narwal]

I have a feeling we're going to be hearing the FBI Director on Television and Radio a lot over the next 4 months.

[OreoLover]

Someone who got charged with misuse of classified information without intent.

The dude kept it on his home computer and got charged for it, because the dude was just lazy. Isn't that basically Clinton's excuse? This is a precedent here.

"Glaser-Allen did not reduce White's rank. She sentenced him to 60 days confinement at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek and fined him $10,000. But under the terms of the pretrial agreement, White will not have to pay the fine or be confined."

The precedent would be "enter a pretrial agreement, don't pay fines or be confined."

[jackofwind]

If they did something illegal, then they should be investigated and punished as well. This isnt a left and right thing, its a security of our country thing.

It's a good thing that less and less people in the world care about your country every day.

[Ragedaug]

Not true. Most crimes are specific intent crimes. Lacking intent is a viable defense. In some cases, you can show intent via the acts committed (ie. if you shoot someone, that shows you intended to hurt them, if you rip a woman's clothes off and penetrate her, that shows your intent to rape her). In contrast, setting up a private email server for communication doesnt show you intended to compromise national security. Especially since it had been done by Sec of States before her.

1) You don't need intent to make mishandling secret information a criminal offense. So most of what you just said has no bearing.
2) People mishandling secret information in the past does not exonerate you from mishandling secret information in the present. So that removes the relevance of your last sentence.

[Stommped]

You don't know what was in those top secret emails. You're assuming that they are about military or about spy activity. You don't know that. So no, I would say that using a private server for emails (similar to what those in the past have done), is not worse than intentionally scamming thousands of people out of money. IF it turns out that those emails directly placed people in harms way (including gps coordinates of troops, identities of spies, etc) I would say that it is dangerous to handle them that way. I would still not place it over making a deliberate action to scam thousands of people. It would be a separate thing. My original statement was to show that one was negligent, the other acted intentionally. But yet Trump supporters want to call her crooked, even though he scammed people intentionally.

First of all, I would venture to guess that be classified as "Top Secret" (the highest level) then there's something in there that our enemies can use against us. I just can't imagine what would qualify as "Top Secret" that isn't related to national security or overseas operations.

Second of all, I don't understand what you mean by it would be a "separate thing"? Lets frame it this way, if you had two siblings, one was killed in the Middle East specifically because her hacked Top Secret emails led to the location of his/her base, and one lost $15,000 by signing up for Trump University. Would you be more angry with Hillary for her total incompetence leading to death of sibling A, or more angry with Trump for the money lost by sibling B? I honestly can't believe we are even having this discussion...

[AndaliteBandit]

Didn't her husband lied under oath, and didn't get "fired" either.

That depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[primalmatter]

Silly ants.

You think the gods play by your rules?