BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

You dont seem to be talking about the post you quoted, because as I said, it doesnt contain anything you can call opinion. Are you maybe talking about an earlier post, and just quoted the wrong one?

 

Show us the words intent or "intent to do harm to the Nation or the national defense. Please, the link is there for the whole regulation.

 

Not to bring up charges that requires a higher standard which is probable cause but it is enough to open an investigation all that is required is reasonable suspicion

 

you just wasted all that time cut and pasting all that when none of it pertains to the portion of the law she broke what she broke was (F)

what you gave us was all about (a)(b)(c)(d)and (e)
very telling they left off (f) reason why because there is no mention or even implied the requirement of intent just gross negligence
now lets pretend for a second that intent was required
committing an act knowing that act was illegal but committing it anyways is considered intent to commit an illegal act it is self explanatory
Comeys excuse was she didn't know what she was doing was illegal
now you need to use what is called a reasonable person standard that is often used to establish intent
this standard keeps people form making unreasonable claims they didn't know they was breaking the law to keep from being charged with doing so
for example some one taking a car left on the side of the road then claiming he thought it didn't belong to anyone so to avoid being charged with theft when any reasonable person would know that car would have belonged to some one there for it would be theft
OK would a reasonable person discern that someone in Aiden's position with the training she received would know sending classified information to someone with no classified clearance be breaking the law?
Dam right a reasonable person would

 

"any.information, relating to the national defense,” is a ridiculous phrase. It would include a recipe. This is exactly why the Supreme Court required intention to do harm to the nation along with neglect. It also bumps up against freedom of the press. Any information related to the national defense even story about the Navy’s newest Aircraft Carrier is “related to the National Defense. “

But guess what. Comey and past courts were using the Espionage Act to decide if someone was guilty of betraying our country. You're not even looking in the right place.

The term "connected to the national defense is vague".

"The Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statute to require intent to sustain a conviction".

"In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States.


Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Comey was acting as a prosecutor using precedent from previous espionage court cases. He was not mindlessly reciting U.S.codes with vague terminology.

 

Which means it's bullshit Republican noise.

 

will you just stop posting that irrelevant crap the case you keep posting over and over doesn't even pertain

In Gorin v US the charge was violation of (a) and (b) of 18 U.S. Code § 793 which intent is required
the law we saying she violated is (f) no intent is required just proof of gross negligence

 

warontherocks.com

Registrant Contact
Name: Registration Private
Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC

https://www.whois.com/whois/warontherocks.com

Oh my another anonymous kook blog passed off as legitimate news.

 

Nothing here has anything to do with what Comey stated

Wow so you would blow off a Supreme Court Ruling and the Espionage Act in order to twist the truth.

The Supreme Court ruling refered to the phrase in the Espionage Act "“connected with the national defense” not any specific code." It rewrote the entirety of the Espionage act.

"The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest.


In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” . Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction.

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/
Comey uused precedent from past espionage cases and from the Supreme Court ruling I posted.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

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”
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton20

 

Duh! I'm not quoting the codes I'm refering to the last clause "“connected with the national defense” Not everybody knows what that phrase means or how it's interpreted which is why the Supreme Court coupled intent along with negligence for a conviction. Ever hear of precedent. The U.S. supreme court ruling of 1941 requires intent And so do other espionage rullings. You don't know what precedent means and you don't know how it's used.
"
"In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States".

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States." the courts ruling was on the whole espionage act


https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/



"The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest.

This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction"

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

 

Lol so you lost the debate and you have lowered yourself to attacking the Supreme Court Ruling itself.

 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

 

Hard to "illegally protect" someone who in Comey's words..."no reasonable prosecutor" would charge

 

You guys act like Benghazi wasnt a clear example of terrible leadership. People see through the repetitive down playing of the whole situation. They know it was handled ridiculously bad.

 

Sigh it was not his role to charge her or anyone with anything that is the role of the DOJ, what did do was make his specious and fallacious statement that no federal prosecutor would have prosecuted her. But do tell me when it comes to handling classified information what is this line between extreme carelessness and gross negligence you are attempting to make?

Correct AS I SAID, policies can be and certainly polices concerning the protection of classified information are EMBODIED in the law, the policies are there to make sure the people do not violate the law, violate the policy and you have violated the law on which it is based.

Now once again tell me who at the DOS approved of and told her her sever met all the roles and policies and the law as she claimed?

 

Except it was a totally fallacious statement. Reasonable prosecutors and clearly stated the would have and she would have been convicted.

 

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
cant figure out how to delete an entire post

 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

 

Right Wing prosecutors with an ax to Grind.

 

Yea, really. All of your "extensive" answers lack any actual knowledge or experience so you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, you are continually being corrected on things you get wrong.

So why would anyone take you seriously? All of your answers have been debunked.

 

Simply asserting my answers have been debunked does not actually debunk them.

I'm happy to let my posts stand on their own, and let people decide for themselves if they have been "debunked".

 

Well that would be called the Peppermint TWIST!

Oh man you'll find the old and young twistin' the night away


Come on Baby, lets do the twist!

 

I agree.

 

Nope only in current events

 

I'd still like to know why nobody has been prosecuted for sending classified information to Anthony Weiner. Anybody know why that is?