Skip to comments.
Investigators: Scant evidence Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails
Washington Post ^
| May 5, 2016
| Matt Zapotosky
Posted on 05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT by Fasceto
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 next last
1
posted on
05/05/2016 8:17:51 PM PDT
by
Fasceto
To: Fasceto
How about simple intent?
Does the law really require malice? Does it require specific intent?
2
posted on
05/05/2016 8:19:53 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: Fasceto
That makes no difference. Willful removal of classified markings so as to send the info via insecure channels is a crime. It doesn’t matter whether it was malicious or not.
3
posted on
05/05/2016 8:20:04 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
To: Fasceto
The law doesn't require intent in order to convict; just the failure to properly protect and safeguard the classified materials.
At least, that's how it works for everybody else.
4
posted on
05/05/2016 8:20:20 PM PDT
by
Interesting Times
(WinterSoldier.com. SwiftVets.com. ToSetTheRecordStraight.com.)
To: Fasceto
Does not matter, can’t have secure info on non-secure devices. Trying to deflect.
To: BenLurkin
No intent required under the law.
6
posted on
05/05/2016 8:21:21 PM PDT
by
Newbomb Turk
(Hey Newbomb, where's your brothers ElCamino ?)
To: Fasceto
Ok, fine then. We’ll just send her to jail for being such a dumbazz.
Or give her a lobotomy. Makes no difference to me.
To: Fasceto
Uh, did she have classified data on her personal server? Yes.
Two options at that point. Either too stupid or too dishonest to be trusted with classified material. Too stupid isn't an excuse for breaking the law. Either explanation disqualifies her from ever holding office again.
8
posted on
05/05/2016 8:21:47 PM PDT
by
USNBandit
(Sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: Interesting Times
Intent is required.
It’s called mens rea.
9
posted on
05/05/2016 8:22:09 PM PDT
by
Fasceto
To: BenLurkin
I had no malice when I ran red lights and sped and went around double yellows when i was a lad.
Cop didn’t seem to give a @#$@#.
And if I had hurt a person doing one of those things, he REALLY wouldn’t have given a @#$@.
10
posted on
05/05/2016 8:22:27 PM PDT
by
dp0622
(The only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
To: Fasceto
“According to U.S. officials”
That could be Bob the janitor.
11
posted on
05/05/2016 8:22:38 PM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: Fasceto
Malice has nothing to do with it.
When it comes to classified info, making a stupid mistake is enough to put you in serious trouble.
And Hillary didn’t make a “stupid mistake”. The action was deliberate. Clearly. The malice is harder to determine — but again: malice doesn’t matter.
12
posted on
05/05/2016 8:22:40 PM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Democrats are mean-spirited racists who don't care about our children.)
To: Fasceto
No malicious intent is required. Under the Espionage Act ( Section 793 ) applies to anyone who has been entrusted with information relating to the national defense, and to a federal official who through gross negligence permits information to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.
13
posted on
05/05/2016 8:22:58 PM PDT
by
TheCipher
(Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
To: Fasceto
Uh, where to begin?? She was the Secretary of State and she was briefed on proper handling of classified information; she gave underlings instructions on removing classification markings of documents ... it doesn’t matter what her intentions were, she committed criminal acts and needs to be jailed for it!
14
posted on
05/05/2016 8:23:18 PM PDT
by
Ken522
To: Fasceto
Negligent Homicide also does not carry malicious intent, but it is a felony and you go to jail, and you sure as hell are not fit to be president.
15
posted on
05/05/2016 8:23:24 PM PDT
by
tinyowl
(A equals A)
To: USNBandit
Yes!!! Of course they’ll not do a damn thing to her!
16
posted on
05/05/2016 8:23:44 PM PDT
by
Dawgreg
(Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
To: BenLurkin
It doesn’t. Does anyone thing Gen. Petraeus was malicious in his mishandling?
17
posted on
05/05/2016 8:23:58 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: Newbomb Turk
Interesting.
I’m not surprised though that the Washington Post is trying to confuse the issue.
18
posted on
05/05/2016 8:24:16 PM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: ClearCase_guy
Petraeus got in trouble because he did it intentionally.
19
posted on
05/05/2016 8:24:16 PM PDT
by
Fasceto
To: Fasceto
uh...I’m quite sure General Petraeus had no malicious intent when he shared information with one person who happened to be an intelligence officer with a security clearance.
So maybe Petraeus should get his 100k fine back?
20
posted on
05/05/2016 8:24:25 PM PDT
by
ladyjane
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson