Lack of intent or the ignorance of not being tech savy doesn't save her from being guilty as i understand it.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793



This post was edited by remco6 on May 19 2016 06:04pm

depends on what the precedent for gross negligence is. DO we have confirmed that information ended in enemy hands as a result? I would agree 100% if that were the case, i havent heard that. She caused a fracus that could have compromised information but to my understanding didnt. It is also very muddy waters to say she did in knowingly at all. I understand you;re referencing a negligence clause but its never as strong as a clear intent as a case. Congress's interview and the FBI's investigation not seeming to gain much traction seem to corroborate this. Unless we're donning some tinfoil.

What i saying is the intent or how it happened would be irrelevant. If it happened is the only question, if it did shes guilty no matter the circumstances.
But ya proving that it ended up in enemy hands doesn't seem likely. There is an argument that putting it in a position that it could have fallen into enemy hands is a crime because her private server isn't the "proper place of custody" but that's a fairly weak argument i think.

But is criminal intent established? For a crime to be committed it has to be there. I think this is where the ambiguity is.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 19 2016 06:47pm

Thats exactly my point, no criminal intent needs to be established.

Only was she negligent or not.

Think of it this way.

Guy with folder goes to meet someone in coffee shop, he leaves folder. Did he just forgot , or did he leave it intentionally for someone to pick up. Either way guilty.

Hillary is rich and white, she obviously did not commit a crime, it literally has to be murder and red handed for it to be a crime.

Guilty of what? What the fuck are you talking about with folders and coffee. You people have the hardest time paying attention lol.

IMO thats not how the legal definition of negligence works in this instance. at all. "through gross negligence" isn't a distinct action, its subjective based on precedent that i dont know but wouldnt assume. Im mainly basing this judgement on the GOP run congress's lack of major problems found leading to any indictment to try her.

You have problems reading? Or is this just how you stick your head in the sand when someone points out the actual issue with her email scandal?

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

She was entrusted with sensitive defense information which there is a chance fell into the wrong peoples hands, if it didn't fall into enemies hands it was put in a place where it was certainly very likely too.

How was it likely to?
Did she have a billboard with her email address on it?