Should Hillary Clinton be Indicted For Violation of Federal Record-Keeping Law?

[Abbazorkzog]

Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.

Lol... an keyboard warrior.

 

[mike2810]

Trump won fair and square. Hillary was trust upon a bunch of morons who will vote for anyone with a 'D' besides their name.

yes, Trump won the nomination. Doesn't matter, I don't believe he would be a good leader. (I am a registered Republican).
imo, we could have and should have done better.

Basically, I am not that impressed with either Hillary or Trump.

 

[TurtleDude]

Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.

Comey is hardly a partisan republican. HE broke with the GOP back in -05 or so when he resigned from the Bush DOJ. Do you have ANY evidence CA is not an attorney? He sure appears to be to this attorney

 

[coldjoint]

I understand where you are coming from, cj...but Hillary Clinton is by far the better choice this election.

Do what ya gotta do. I know I will be voting for her...and hoping a vast majority of the others voters do also.

I think the vast majority will stay home. Hopefully the "haters" you speak of will turn out in force, so the next time we see Hillary will be on "Dancing with the Stars".

 

[Frank Apisa]

I think the vast majority will stay home. Hopefully the "haters" you speak of will turn out in force, so the next time we see Hillary will be on "Dancing with the Stars".

We'll see.

In November.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yes. And, by all means necessary. I tried to make this point in another thread, but was basically ignored. I'm very happy to see you making it here. Maybe people will pay attention to it here, and learn the truth.

She broke the law. She is not above the law. She must be held responsible for her actions.

If not, then I want the FBI, the President, the Congress, and the US Supreme Court, to tell me and everyone else - Which laws actually matter so I know which ones to obey, and which laws are just suggestions that I can ignore if wish?

And with these, among her peers, it has never been more than a hand slapping. To do differently now would be to treat her differently. Laws are often weighted, for them and for us. technically anyone going 5 miles over the speed limit is speeding, but rarely are they pulled over and ticketed. While some see a clear violation, this is to be seen in terms of precedence and in terms of what is viable. For her to be prosecuted, there really had to be intent. Nothing less would have ever been bought up on charges.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And with these, among her peers, it has never been more than a hand slapping. To do differently now would be to treat her differently. Laws are often weighted, for them and for us. technically anyone going 5 miles over the speed limit is speeding, but rarely are they pulled over and ticketed. While some see a clear violation, this is to be seen in terms of precedence and in terms of what is viable. For her to be prosecuted, there really had to be intent. Nothing less would have ever been bought up on charges.

Intent is not required to commit the felony and break the law - only gross negligence, which the FBI report describes in detail, and I and others on DP have demonstrated by linking to the laws, the regulations, and the definitions of the terms through law school web sites.

Speeding is not a felony. Speeding doesn't put the country and our national security at risk. There are very few crimes that rise to the level of harm she has done to the entire country.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

She is not going to be indicted so its neither here nor there at this point. If you don't want her to be your next president, then you need to run a qualified, credible candidate on the Republican ticket with mainstream appeal as anyone other than a total nutjob, racist, bigot, or clown should be able to beat her in November.... Oh wait, its kind of too late for that one huh...

 

[Nilly]

Intent is not required to commit the felony and break the law - only gross negligence, which the FBI report describes in detail, and I and others on DP have demonstrated by linking to the laws, the regulations, and the definitions of the terms through law school web sites.

Speeding is not a felony. Speeding doesn't put the country and our national security at risk. There are very few crimes that rise to the level of harm she has done to the entire country.

Except when intent is required, such as tax negligence vs tax fraud. The former would not get you prosecuted whilst the latter would. And this case does not have a precedent.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Except when intent is required, such as tax negligence vs tax fraud. The former would not get you prosecuted whilst the latter would. And this case does not have a precedent.

Look up the law, it specifies "Gross Negligence" and says nothing, not one word or reference, regarding intent.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course she should be indicted if only to make her innocence transparent. As it is, we stand to have a President that most people think a criminal.

While true, it would make her innocence transparent, but it comes at a tremendous risk to her should she not be fond innocent. Hillary knows better than anyone what exactly she did, and by now she knows exactly what the applicable laws state, and where she may have broken those law's and their intent.

Given the torturous process Hillary and her lawyers inflicted on just about everyone, the constant changing of the story from her, the constant hide the weenie with emails, it seems the risk to her are far more than what she was willing to accept, and opted for this torturous process rather than come clear from the git go.

 

[Paperview]

Look up the law, it specifies "Gross Negligence" and says nothing, not one word or reference, regarding intent.

“Extreme carelessness doesn’t necessarily translate into gross negligence,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

“The only times I have seen these statutes used has been situations in which people knew they were disclosing classified, confidential information, or they could show they didn’t really care,” Levenson said.

...

But unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.

The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place,” a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
...
Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said Comey’s decision was “completely consistent” with every case brought for leaking classified government information."

Here's Why Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Didn't Rise To Level Of 'Gross Negligence'

 

[Beaudreaux]

“Extreme carelessness doesn’t necessarily translate into gross negligence,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

“The only times I have seen these statutes used has been situations in which people knew they were disclosing classified, confidential information, or they could show they didn’t really care,” Levenson said.

...

But unlike other cases prosecuted under the Espionage Act, the FBI has not suggested that Clinton intentionally shared government secrets with people not authorized to see them.

The statute for charging gross negligence under the Espionage Act, written in 1917, requires the information be “removed from its proper place,” a tough legal requirement in the digital age, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas.
...
Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said Comey’s decision was “completely consistent” with every case brought for leaking classified government information."

Here's Why Hillary Clinton Email Scandal Didn't Rise To Level Of 'Gross Negligence'

Took a while to find someone that wrote something that fit your needs.

Legal opinions are just that, opinions. The law is the law, and the definitions of legal terminology don't change. We've already covered what the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence in this and many other threads today.

Look, I understand that you wouldn't believe Hillary did anything wrong even if there was video of her running over a Nun and three 12 year old alter boys with her driving a stolen Cadillac while she guzzled a half gallon of Jack Daniels.

 

[Surrealistik]

By and large I agree with Cenk's perspective on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QwZPK62JBo

Per past and recent precedent, there was certainly enough to criminally charge Clinton; Comey predicated his recommendation on impossibly rigourous criteria with respect to intent that verged on requiring Hillary to engage in spycraft.

 

[Paperview]

Took a while to find someone that wrote something that fit your needs.

Legal opinions are just that, opinions. The law is the law, and the definitions of legal terminology don't change. We've already covered what the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence in this and many other threads today.

Look, I understand that you wouldn't believe Hillary did anything wrong even if there was video of her running over a Nun and three 12 year old alter boys with her driving a stolen Cadillac while she guzzled a half gallon of Jack Daniels.

Go cry on GOP Comey's doorstep.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Go cry on GOP Comey's doorstep.

I'm not the one that cannot support my own position without looking for other's opinions to justify my blind support for a proven habitual liar. I made my points and proved my opinions as fact by linking to the laws and the definitions on law school web sites. I made my own argument. I didn't have to rely on others.

This isn't a political, GOP vs DEM, argument for me. This is a legal argument. The argument of whether the law means anything, whether the Constitution means anything, and whether there is a class of people in this country that are above the law unlike the rest of us.

I'm arguing FOR the law, FOR the Constitution, and FOR equality rather than an imperialistic tyranny of Sovereign Immunity for the few.

You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing for the opposite. If you're comfortable with that, then so be it.

 

[Boo Radley]

Intent is not required to commit the felony and break the law - only gross negligence, which the FBI report describes in detail, and I and others on DP have demonstrated by linking to the laws, the regulations, and the definitions of the terms through law school web sites.

Speeding is not a felony. Speeding doesn't put the country and our national security at risk. There are very few crimes that rise to the level of harm she has done to the entire country.

Actually, in this case, it intent is required. I pointed this out months ago. Gross is a highly subjective term. Since there is no evidence of any intel being lost or hacked, gross doesn't likely apply. Careless does. And as many have committed the same carelessness, at her level next to none suffering any charges, and few even getting a hand slap. So, this over the top outrage is just partisan silliness run amok.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, in this case, it intent is required. I pointed this out months ago. Gross is a highly subjective term. Since there is no evidence of any intel being lost or hacked, gross doesn't likely apply. Careless does. And as many have committed the same carelessness, at her level next to none suffering any charges, and few even getting a hand slap. So, this over the top outrage is just partisan silliness run amok.

Please be so good as to point out in the law where the requirement of intent, at least at the level Mr. Comey has suggested, exists. Also, I don't see how it applies to anything you've stated in the rest of this post.

Meanwhile, explain how Hillary's actions in setting up a private, unsecured email server, then using several unsecured methods of accessing it, all clear violations of the regulations cited does not demonstrate willful intent.

Or that she did not lie both about the existence of classified documents on this server and that she did not know she was violating classified security measures when she sent this information to other unsecured servers.

 

[Eric7216]

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. 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 way 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.

Is that supportive of Clinton? That all this stuff that she did, and she lied about doing for years, was not due to intentional mishandling but rather, apparently, basic stupidity? I might prefer someone who at least does something for a reason, not because of a complete lack of competence. Does she understand anything about foreign affairs?

 

[Paperview]

I'm not the one that cannot support my own position without looking for other's opinions to justify my blind support for a proven habitual liar. I made my points and proved my opinions as fact by linking to the laws and the definitions on law school web sites. I made my own argument. I didn't have to rely on others.

This isn't a political, GOP vs DEM, argument for me. This is a legal argument. The argument of whether the law means anything, whether the Constitution means anything, and whether there is a class of people in this country that are above the law unlike the rest of us.

I'm arguing FOR the law, FOR the Constitution, and FOR equality rather than an imperialistic tyranny of Sovereign Immunity for the few.

You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing for the opposite. If you're comfortable with that, then so be it.

Your worthless opinion does not trump the FBI Chief's recommendations.

No charges. Eat it up, pumpkin.

 

[WCH]

yes, Trump won the nomination. Doesn't matter, I don't believe he would be a good leader. (I am a registered Republican).
imo, we could have and should have done better.

Basically, I am not that impressed with either Hillary or Trump.

Hopefully you're not one of those who sees no distinction between the two. IMO there's a world of difference.

 

[mike2810]

Hopefully you're not one of those who sees no distinction between the two. IMO there's a world of difference.

Oh I see differences.

 

[1751Texan]

Please be so good as to point out in the law where the requirement of intent, at least at the level Mr. Comey has suggested, exists. Also, I don't see how it applies to anything you've stated in the rest of this post.

Meanwhile, explain how Hillary's actions in setting up a private, unsecured email server, then using several unsecured methods of accessing it, all clear violations of the regulations cited does not demonstrate willful intent.

Or that she did not lie both about the existence of classified documents on this server and that she did not know she was violating classified security measures when she sent this information to other unsecured servers.

Intent to set up an unsecured server shows that intent. But does not show any other intent.

So the only intent you have demonstrated is Clinton's by passing a secure system with an unsecured system which is a best a violation of State Department rules...not a violation of federal statutes.

 

[shrubnose]

First (As Kobie has said.) we need to complete an investigation of the investigation of the investigation.

That should be finished in 20 or 30 years.

:lol:

The clock is ticking.

 

[Taylor]

Think I'll take the republican head of the FBI's word over an keyboard warrior who fancies himself part of the Internet Bar Association.

But only because he's telling you what you want to believe. Let's be honest.