Posted on 05/10/2016 9:52:05 AM PDT by Mr. K
Unfortunately for Hillary the National Security statutes that apply to her case don't have an Intentional Clause. Give away State Secrets -> Go To Jail.
And I'm sure that the WP knows that.
doesn’t matter if the point is true or false, only that it provides cover. the fix is in - she ain’t going nowhere
Tell the cops you’re invoking the Hillary defense.
This assertion is categorically false.
++++
And your comment is absolutely CORRECT. Lack of intention is not a defense.
You’re right. she’s going nowhere and that includes the convention and later the oval office.
I believe she could be indicted, especially since not indicting her has real consequences to the sense of justice and the morale of everyone “not a Clinton” or a Clintonite working with classified information.
It’s also a nightmare scenario if she should get elected for the people working in classified areas.
Considering the fact that she used this private server, was seriously investigated, and would after the election have the ultimate oversight over all the national security agencies, the information and the employees, should disqualify her from becoming President.
The “justice” department reports to an America-hating marxist, so hillary will not be prosecuted. There will be a few words, criticizing her for mismanagement of her email. There is no justice any more. The leftists are in control, and persecute their political enemies and favor their friends.
That is ABSOLUTELY false. If I receive unmarked classified...and using my common sense I realize it should have been classified...and if I am on an unclass server...I AM OBLIGATED BY LAW to tell someone...regardless of if I send or receive...or both (which she did).
Yes, but that won’t stop the Federales from using ‘intent’ as the benchmark.
You or I would be headed for prison, but not Hillary or the ruling elite.
I posted on another thread about this, commenting that journalists shouldn't be making this kind of statement without actually doing some research. It would take very little research to determine that "intent" isn't the standard when it comes to handling classified information.
If you are granted a security clearance, you sign an SF-312 form that informs you of your responsibilities -- Clinton's SF-312 is even available online. if you don't uphold your end, you agree that you can be prosecuted. Lack of intent might reduce your sentence, but that's up to a judge -- the law doesn't make a distinction.
However, after some thought... I think this is intentional misdirection. The number of people holding a security clearance now or in the past is relatively small, compared to the population. So, the media can make these statements without fear of being challenged directly, and the average person on the street won't know the difference.
Unless one is a public figure, holders of security clearances are generally less likely to contradict these errors -- to avoid drawing the attention of "undesirable influences". Also, the fact that one holds certain clearances is considered classified information: you can't even put it on a resume or reveal it in a job interview.
Her “Intent” was to avoid FOIA and she was too (Pick one or more)
(1) Careless,
(2) Stupid,
(3) Arrogant,
(4) Traitorous
about America’s secrets.
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules....”
Where is the leak coming from? How about the DOJ who is now involved in the investigation and feeding what is occurring in the investigation to the administration which in turn is manipulating the message through the media.This is a presage of what the DOJ will be doing once they get a criminal referral from the FBI. How do you spell “quash”?
Tiresome good little leftist trooper trotting out the ‘what difference does it make’ meme.
OK, since it doesn’t matter, why keep worrying about it?
This is laying the groundwork for Lynch to decline an FBI recommendation to indict. She will use the term “ not intentional” in her statement multiple times. The article was published to confirm the MSM is on board with this strategy.
The only remaining question is whether FBI insiders leak in protest. With no legal liability, it will become merely a political question focused on Hitlery’s honesty. This problem will be addressed by intensifying media attention on Trump’s business dealings. Media makes money by selling ads. The quid pro quo will be massive ad buys by Hitlery PACS in exchange for articles poo pooing the complaints about the risk to national security.
Something like this should spark a civil war against our federal government, but it won’t. Hey!, I think the Kardashians are on!
“it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked.”
Total croc. The intent is a fact for a jury to decide.
If I’m a courier, leave my bag on a park bench and it’s picked up by someone from the russian embassy, I can certainly claim that I never intended to pass it on - just left it there absent mindedly!
I never held out hope she would answer for her wrongdoings - Vince Foster and a number of others would be happy to testify that she is immune to what would put the rest of us away for life.
Yet ANOTHER BS article that the FBI/DOJ aren’t finding anything. The Clintonistas are in full panic mode, IMO. The lack of Pagliano emails plus other stuff that is coming out isn’t helping Hilly, either. Judicial Watch is after the draft indictment(s) for Hilly from the Whitewater case - in court now. Discovery was granted (including possibly deposing Hilly) in FOI cases where the State Department, with their lies & foot-dragging, has sufficiently pissed off TWO judges who are allowing discovery which is pretty much unheard of in FOIA cases. The noose is tightening .... doubt the lever for the trap door to break her political neck will ever be pulled, but Hilly might find political oxygen in shorter supply.
Correct. Negligence is the legal standard. This article is BS.
Indeed, many, many other people who had no intent to break these same laws have been successfully prosecuted already, so that is no defense. Besides, even if that WERE a defense, it would be a defense they would have to argue in court, not a defense that would preempt prosecution.
There is no avoiding, from what information is publicly available, that she should be recommended for prosecution. Everyone knows this, even the Dems who try to lamely make excuses for her. There’s also no doubt that, if Trump wins, only a last minute pardon from Obama would save her from prosecution.
So the only real question is: how corrupt and elitist will the Democrats be willing to make themselves look in order to try and save Hillary’s behind from the meat grinder?
They had ways out of this before Hillary had wrapped up the nomination, but now there are no appealing options left for them, except to try and push Hillary over the finish line by some miracle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.