I thought ignorance of the law wasn't a defense.

Apparently not since she wasn't prosecuted under those or any other statutes

 

She was not prosecuted because "It was not intentional". Apparently she did not know she had a server or that the documents were classified which is absurd.

 

Negligence is NOT a crime!

 

Wrong on ALL COUNTS again!

You are incapable of PROVING INTENT which means she did NOT violate those laws which REQUIRE INTENT in order to prosecute.

 

That asinine STRAWMAN has zero merit.

 

Gross Negligence is a felony when applied to this situation. Strzok convinced Comey to change the report from Gross Negligence to Extremely Careless.

Are you saying she put that uncertified server in her closet by accident and never realized it was sending, receiving and storing classified information for years? Maybe they should change it to "Extremely Stupid".

There is nothing in those laws which say "intent:".

 

Absurd?

Not at all. In the first place the server itself broke rules...not laws.

As far as classsified. Out of the tens of thousands of e-mails sent and received...something like three were AT THE TIME marked classified and over classification is a well known phenomenon . Stuff that is in the public record is often marked classified.

Other than those few items , everything else that was classified was done so AFTER the fact

 

Plenty of intent surfaced recently. The FBI found classified docs sent from Hilda's server on an oval office computer. They were emails Hilda deleted, though the State dept. emails were ordered preserved. So the destruction of her devices proves obstruction took place and the intent is clear. Conceal the crimes alleged, and plead incompetence where denial wouldn't hold up. That's perjury BTW.

 

The server did not break a law. Handling classified in devices not certified for that purpose breaks the law.

It is the responsibility of the people handling classified information to insure that it is properly classified.
Saying over classification is a well known phenomena is usually a lack of understanding of classified information. A single item of some event may not be important, but when combined with other items of little importance, it reveals important information. For example one military security person being assigned to a particular location is usually of little interest. However, if you find out that security people, missile experts and other related specialty's being assigned to a particular location reveals a highly classified operation.

 

Yes there is!

Look up the meaning of the legal term "KNOWINGLY"!

 

No indication that the classified mat'l Hilda sent to Obama was classified after ANY fact. The 4 classified emails alone contradict what you're trying to sell. These 4 emails were the last(?) remnants of the 33,000 Hilda deleted. What happened after the fact that Hilda sent classified emails to Obama, was that Hilda's emails were subpoenaed, but destroyed anyway, along with every device that would have been Bcc recipients.

 

Are you claiming she did not know she intend to have a server in her closet or did not know about it for years?

The terms are not used interchangeably.

Knowingly means you made a mistake. For instance walking out of a secure area with a classified document in your briefcase. In this case, you might get a reprimand, but not go to prison.

She did not accidentally take some action. She deliberately took an action which could have compromised thousands of classified documents. Whether or not she intended to compromise those documents with her actions is not relevant.

 

Good grief!

Have you even bothered to actually READ the laws that you cited?

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates..."

PROVE that Hillary did that!

You CAN'T because she did NOT do that!

That is why she was NOT prosecuted!

No amount of hissyfit footstomping is going to alter that FACTUAL REALITY!

 

Those are not the only words in the laws.

1. LII
   
2. U.S. Code
   
3. Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
   
4. Part I. CRIMES
   
5. Chapter 37. ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
6. Section 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."

 

All of the above is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT without "KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY" being PROVEN!

You don't have SQUAT because Section 793 DOES NOT APPLY!

 

"(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,"
That describes precisely what she did.

 

#46.

 

But that is NOT the law that applies so it is IRRELEVANT!

 

You will never get kriman to stop believing the earth is flat. Here is a rhetorical satellite image proving it is round.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit

 

1) "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" She was entrusted with classified data. The most highly classified as secretary of state.
2) "through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody" She permitted it to removed from its proper place of custody and stored in the server.

How in God's green earth is that not precisely what she did?

So you believe that she is so stupid that over a period of years, she did not realize that her server was receiving, storing or transmitting classified information. Do you really believe she is that stupid?

 

What does it mean when someone INSISTS upon REPEATING the SAME asinine MISTAKE, like citing the WRONG LAW, over and over and over again?

 

Precisely what part of the law that I quoted was it that she did not violate?

 

Perhaps if I reply to you using the language of a Trumpist it will break through.

Hillary was TOTALLY EXONERATED. NO INTENT MEANS NOTHING ILLEGAL.

Nothing to see here. Time to move on.

 

This. If intent is written into the law, the intent matters.

Funny to see people trot this out to defend Trump, when many of the conservatives on this board refused to accept this argument in relation to Clinton. But that’s how partisanship rots the brain.

 

The law does not say that.