Ponderable

Bruddah IZ said:
Comey laid out a case for criminal charges against Hillary but chooses not to prosecute her. I can't speak for 30 other agents. They appear to have done a job that supports prosecution of Hillary according to the law:

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
Click to expand...
But not one of the agents have come out to disagree with his statements that :

“The appropriate resolution of this case was not to bring a criminal prosecution.”
“We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information,”
 
Andy Dukes said:
“We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information,”
Click to expand...

Ignorantia juris non excusat

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
Andy Dukes said:
He said the exact opposite. He said the law was applicable but her actions and her staffs actions did not rise to the level of criminal.
Click to expand...

Ignorantia juris non excusat

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.



 
Andy Dukes said:
He said the exact opposite. He said the law was applicable but her actions and her staffs actions did not rise to the level of criminal.
Click to expand...
True believers. Not liars.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

violating 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

In criminal law, unless strict liability applies, a statute can require four distinct mental states (“mens rea”) to commit a crime: (i) purpose, (ii) knowledge, (iii) recklessness, and (iv) criminal/gross negligence.
 
espola said:
Why would anyone think that is not true?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone think it was true?
You hack into the Pentagons or any official computers from Sweden or any other country and your caught, you think they're gonna just say good job, but because you were out of the country, you get to skate on this little intrusion?
So again, who told that?
 
Andy Dukes said:
They have as much status as you and I in this matter. They also have as much information.

Either Comey did what he thought was legally correct or he lied and was derelict in his duty. No third option available.
Click to expand...

What are you smokin'?
Decisions to prosecute are made daily. The correct decisions are obviously not made in all cases.
Doesn't make one a liar or derelict, more like political chicken shit....he punted.
The former prosecutors have way more status than you or I.
I gotta believe most of these folks have forgotten more about the law that you and I together ever knew.
They are saying they would have prosecuted going with just what the FBI director stated in his presentation.
Some even said they had successfully prosecuted cases going on less information than Comey presented...
Comey should have presented the evidence to the AG.
When the police investigate crime, they gather the evidence and give it to the prosecutor (AG).
The AG decides whether or not to pursue the case.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Why would anyone think it was true?
You hack into the Pentagons or any official computers from Sweden or any other country and your caught, you think they're gonna just say good job, but because you were out of the country, you get to skate on this little intrusion?
So again, who told that?
Click to expand...

So you got nothing other than your personal feelings again?
 
Lion Eyes said:
What are you smokin'?
Decisions to prosecute are made daily. The correct decisions are obviously not made in all cases.
Doesn't make one a liar or derelict, more like political chicken shit....he punted.
The former prosecutors have way more status than you or I.
I gotta believe most of these folks have forgotten more about the law that you and I together ever knew.
They are saying they would have prosecuted going with just what the FBI director stated in his presentation.
Some even said they had successfully prosecuted cases going on less information than Comey presented...
Comey should have presented the evidence to the AG.
When the police investigate crime, they gather the evidence and give it to the prosecutor (AG).
The AG decides whether or not to pursue the case.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors do no have any more status than you or I, otherwise they would have indicted.
Comey has never been a chicken shit and no case has had more thought put into it than this one in the last year.
I am sure Comey discussed the FBI finding with the AG.
The FBI is different than local police. Different responsibilities and authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top