Ponderable

[Bruddah IZ]

“We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information,”

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.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

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.

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.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

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.

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.

 

[Andy Dukes]

You don't say?

I did not say. Comey said that.

 

[Andy Dukes]

Do you really want someone who doesn't know when their sending classified info. as POTUS?

Depends on the circumstances and what the alternatives are.

 

[Andy Dukes]

That doesn't make him
Why would they?

They wouldn't if they agreed.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

I did not say. Comey said that.

Newsflash!! He did say that.

 

[Andy Dukes]

Newsflash!! He did say that.

Of course he said that. I posted that about ten posts ago with quotation marks.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Do you really want someone who doesn't know when their sending classified info. as POTUS?

Depends on the circumstances and what the alternatives are.

Thanks, that was fun. Next topic.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Of course he said that. I posted that about ten posts ago with quotation marks.

No you didn't.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

I did not say. Comey said that.

Newsflash!! He did say that.

Of course he said that. I posted that about ten posts ago with quotation marks.

Next topic.

 

[Lion Eyes]

Why would anyone think that is not true?

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?

 

[Lion Eyes]

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.

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.

 

[espola]

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?

So you got nothing other than your personal feelings again?

 

[Andy Dukes]

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.

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.

 

[Lion Eyes]

So you got nothing other than your personal feelings again?

That apparently is all you got Magoo...

 

[Lion Eyes]

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 or I can't prosecute anyone...
The prosecutors that disagree with Comey are former prosecutors.
They are more qualified to comment and judge the merits of what Comey concluded than you or I.
The FBI doesn't prosecute people, never have....
They are a law enforcement, investigative branch of government.
Comey punted, he didn't want to indict the presumptive Democrat nominee for President. Can't blame him.
He should have just turned the evidence over to the Justice Department.
The AG works for the President.
The President stated months ago, during the investigation, that Hillary did nothing wrong. Wonder how he knew that?
I think the last AG that didn't do what they were asked to do by the President resulted in the "Saturday night massacre".
I'm sure espola will fill us all in on that....

 

[espola]

That apparently is all you got Magoo...

Anyone who supports big government involved in secret surveillance against peaceful citizens around the world, especially when those citizens are exposing the level of intensity and questionable legality of that secret surveillance, probably thinks the same way you do.

Read and learn --

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/18...actics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/

 

[Andy Dukes]

You or I can't prosecute anyone...
The prosecutors that disagree with Comey are former prosecutors.
They are more qualified to comment and judge the merits of what Comey concluded than you or I.
The FBI doesn't prosecute people, never have....
They are a law enforcement, investigative branch of government.
Comey punted, he didn't want to indict the presumptive Democrat nominee for President. Can't blame him.
He should have just turned the evidence over to the Justice Department.
The AG works for the President.
The President stated months ago, during the investigation, that Hillary did nothing wrong. Wonder how he knew that?
I think the last AG that didn't do what they were asked to do by the President resulted in the "Saturday night massacre".
I'm sure espola will fill us all in on that....

The prosecutors that disagree with Comey are former prosecutors.
They are more qualified to comment and judge the merits of what Comey concluded than you or I.
They have no more standing than you or I in this case.

The FBI doesn't prosecute people, never have....
They are a law enforcement, investigative branch of government.
But the Justice Department does not prosecute without an FBI referral for prosecution.

Comey punted, he didn't want to indict the presumptive Democrat nominee for President. Can't blame him.
Why would you not blame him if you believe he believed he should have recommended criminal charges?

He should have just turned the evidence over to the Justice Department.
That would have been punting.

Unlike you, I think the professionals did their job.

 

[espola]

You or I can't prosecute anyone...
The prosecutors that disagree with Comey are former prosecutors.
They are more qualified to comment and judge the merits of what Comey concluded than you or I.
The FBI doesn't prosecute people, never have....
They are a law enforcement, investigative branch of government.
Comey punted, he didn't want to indict the presumptive Democrat nominee for President. Can't blame him.
He should have just turned the evidence over to the Justice Department.
The AG works for the President.
The President stated months ago, during the investigation, that Hillary did nothing wrong. Wonder how he knew that?
I think the last AG that didn't do what they were asked to do by the President resulted in the "Saturday night massacre".
I'm sure espola will fill us all in on that....

What makes you think I am a Hillary supporter? Especially on this topic.