Emails are not from Clinton's server

It is a crime if you meant to deceive the government. If the accountant used improper accounting techniques in the preparation of the tax return and you sign it, you are as guilty as the accountant. However, I am not accusing Trump of anything inappropriate.

I believe intent is the determining factor in Clinton's guilt or innocence. As Comey stated:

"Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.
However, he called Clinton’s email setup "extremely careless.""


Comey is a man who prior to his decision was very well-regarded by both Republicans and Democrats. An ex-Republican who supported the Republican candidates that ran against Obama. The day he made his decision, which was not made by him alone, he instantly became a traitor to Americans and someone who was on the Clinton payroll.



If you are a Republican, you likely think Clinton is guilty of a crime worthy of prosecution. If you are a Democrat, you likely believe otherwise. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would defer to LexusLover on any legal matter, since I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe intent is an element of the crime when someone is grossly negligent in their handling of highly classified documents.

"In criminal law, criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is not, strictly speaking, a mens rea because it refers to an objective standard of behaviour expected of the defendant and does not refer to his mental state.[1]" - Wikipedia

I would defer to LexusLover on any legal matter, since I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe intent is an element of the crime when someone is grossly negligent in their handling of highly classified documents.

"In criminal law, criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is not, strictly speaking, a mens rea because it refers to an objective standard of behaviour expected of the defendant and does not refer to his mental state.[1]" - Wikipedia Originally Posted by DSK

I, thankfully, am not a lawyer either. My statement on intent was based on what Comey said:

"Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.
However, he called Clinton’s email setup "extremely careless.""

I, thankfully, am not a lawyer either. My statement on intent was based on what Comey said:

"Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.
However, he called Clinton’s email setup "extremely careless."" Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'm willing to concede she had no intent to mishandle classified documents, and if it is necessary to prove a crime, then she looks to skate on the issue.

However, many a drunk is in jail from killing someone without intent. Also, many a drunk is in jail for multiple DWI's without intent to harm or any actual harm.

The actor "ought to have been aware of a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death" is enough to get a conviction for criminally negligent homicide. Perhaps in this case, considering she was undoubtedly fully briefed on handling classified documents, and affixed her signature to a document attesting to that training, she ought to have been aware of a substantial risk that her reckless action would compromise US security, and put lives at risk.

That seems like a reasonable standard to me.

P.S. Is it conceivable that Comey intended to pull a fast one on Clinton at the very end, knowing if he didn't prosecute, the Democrats would love him and give his statements credibility at the time, but that in reality, he always believed intent was not necessary, and tricked everyone?

I'm willing to concede she had no intent to mishandle classified documents, and if it is necessary to prove a crime, then she looks to skate on the issue. Originally Posted by DSK

Hildebeest showed 'intent' the moment she wilfully violate CFRs governing the handling of classified documents -- more so since her lying ass was told that she could not set up a private server.

Deleting documents under subpoena is clear evidence of knowing intent. Hillary should be in jail awaiting trial, instead of melting down on the campaign trail.

P.S. Is it conceivable that Comey intended to pull a fast one on Clinton at the very end, knowing if he didn't prosecute, the Democrats would love him and give his statements credibility at the time, but that in reality, he always believed intent was not necessary, and tricked everyone? Originally Posted by DSK

Very interesting thought.