- This topic has 32 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Sorry Mac but the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that for there to be a violation of the Espionage Act there must be a finding that the alleged perpetrator either intended or had reason to believe that the information to be obtained was to be used to the
injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.In many cases the criminal intent to harm a person is presumed such as in a drunk driver who kills another. Such a crime is analogous to civil “strict liability” cases. While the intoxicated driver did not get in his car to go kill someone he or she did act with intent to violate a law by drinking to the point of being intoxicated. In so doing the driver acted with such a conscious disregard for the safety of others the law will find him criminally responsible for injuries caused to another. Simply stated: when you demonstrate a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety and as a direct result of that a person is injured you can be found criminally liable because you intentionally committed an act in violation of the law that was foreseeable to cause injury. “Mens Rea” does not n mean an intent to injure. It simply means one who intentionally sets out to commit a crime such as the person who continues to drink until intoxicated and as a result injures another is criminally responsible.. The term literally -in latin- means a “guilty mind”. … Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.
Many people like yourself look at the words “gross negligence” -such as in the Espionage Act-and believe that means any requirement of mens rea is deleted or to be more plain-something above just being negligent. “Gross negligence” means a conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others which is so great it appears to be a “conscious” violation of other people’s rights to safety. In such a case the actor is knowingly acting in a manner that is likely to injure another. That “state of mind” is mens rea. the actor is presumed to know that someone will more than likely be hurt. That is a long way from “negligence” or “inadvertence”. It is also not the same as “extreme carelessness” whatever the heck Comey meant by those words.
In sum, for her -in the eyes of the FBI-to be guilty of the relevant statutes her conduct would have had to be so terrible that she would be presumed to have known that the United States would be injured. As Levinson wrote: the attorney general looks for the “leakers” not the “bunglers”.
I understand why people who dislike, distrust, and even hate Clinton wish the bar was not as high as it is. As far as whether she is actually “qualified” to be President independent of her record, views, and policies-well that’s an entirely different subject than whether she should be prosecuted. Besides that drawer is not shut-hopefully.
I hear the pressure may be on to remove Hillary’s security clearances. Not like that would prevent her from top clearances as President, but it is interesting to review the security clearances information at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the State Dept:
Guideline K:
Handling Protected Information33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual’s trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.
34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences;
(b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location;
(c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, “palm” or pocket device or other adjunct equipment;
(d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one’s need to know;
(e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings;
(f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual’s need to know;
(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information;
(h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management;
(i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.35. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibilities;
(c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training.Well under Guideline K we know that Hildabeast has not complied with-
33.
34. a,b,c,e,g,h, probably i
35. a,bTerribly pathetic record to be sure but there is no minimum ethical foundation required for president. She could fail every single part of Guideline K and still be president with the highest access supposedly to everything.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
