Trump/Biden/Pence Classified Document cases

[Jay59]

"First question: Did Secretary Clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate Federal law? Mr. Comey.

Intent is not required. Why do you ask?

We did not develop clear evidence of that."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg21323/html/CHRG-114hhrg21323.htm

Nor do we need to develop it.

Intent is not an element of the statute.

Maybe because they didn't intentionally break the law...

It does not matter.

People are routinely prosecuted for one violation and there are many tens of thousands of occasions. Even if negligence was a partial defense, it would be a big deal.

 

[mrjurrs]

Intent is not required. Why do you ask?


Nor do we need to develop it.

Intent is not an element of the statute.


It does not matter.

People are routinely prosecuted for one violation and there are many tens of thousands of occasions. Even if negligence was a partial defense, it would be a big deal.

I didn't ask, that is what the question of Congress was to FBI Director Comey.

While intent is not required for the crime to take place, intent is a part of all prosecutorial decisions. What is it you believe that Sec. Clinton should be prosecuted for?

 

[Jay59]

I didn't ask, that is what the question of Congress was to FBI Director Comey.

Which is one indication that Director Comey was making things up.

While intent is not required for the crime to take place, intent is a part of all prosecutorial decisions.

False.

Even if it were, a reasonable prosecutor does not ignore serial activity.

What is it you believe that Sec. Clinton should be prosecuted for?

The Espionage Act, multiple sections, several tens of thousands of individual crimes. Each emai, each day, receiving, modifying, transmitting, and deleting. It would be reasonable to prosecute for obstruction but that one does require intent.

One such event is sufficient to ruin a career.

 

[mrjurrs]

Which is one indication that Director Comey was making things up.


False.

Even if it were, a reasonable prosecutor does not ignore serial activity.


The Espionage Act, multiple sections, several tens of thousands of individual crimes. Each emai, each day, receiving, modifying, transmitting, and deleting. It would be reasonable to prosecute for obstruction but that one does require intent.

One such event is sufficient to ruin a career.

I disagree with your conclusions. Please source your claim of "...tens of thousands of individual crimes."

 

[Athanasius68]

"First question: Did Secretary Clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate Federal law? Mr. Comey. We did not develop clear evidence of that."

- OVERSIGHT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

Maybe because they didn't intentionally break the law...

the standard is 'gross negligence" not intent.

 

[mrjurrs]

the standard is 'gross negligence" not intent.

And so you believe she was not charged because the FBI is in the D's pocket?

And in spite of everything, elected R's couldn't get her for Benghazi either. Maybe the djt DoJ was just lying to you? Again.

Details expose Barr’s Durham probe as a law enforcement scandal

John Durham's probe set out to uncover a scandal. New details help prove that Bill Barr's partisan investigation actually became a scandal.

www.msnbc.com