"In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
It's pretty silly that intent was ever considered. She went through a lot of training on handling classified information, she should be held accountable for it. It does not matter in any way, shape, or form whether she meant harm or not.
It's also pretty silly that Clinton supporters are celebrating this as if it looks good that their corrupt candidate is "extremely careless". Because that's clearly the type of person who belongs in the White House.
Also consider the FACT that she lied to her supporters and to voters this entire election cycle regarding this whole situation. How do you honestly expect voters to trust someone who isn't even honest to the people who are blindly following her?
Wow, I'm left scratching my head.
So, the problems uncovered during the FBI investigation include:
(1) Hillary says no messages on her server were sensitive in nature and classified at the time, when in fact 110 messages contained information that were classified at the time.
(2) There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.
(3) People in lower-level positions who do things similar to what Hillary Clinton did would at the very least be subject to security or administrative sanctions.
(4) Any
reasonable person sending/receiving these messages should have known better.
Yet what conclusion is reached? No
reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
But why is that? Why is it "unreasonable" for a prosecutor to bring the case? It sure sounds as though a case could be made against Hillary Clinton with regard to 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, subsection F avoiding the need to show intent), involving transmitting and/or retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. A prosecutor's charging document would normally include felony counts under 18 U.S.C. § 793 against each transmitting individual, as well as separate counts against each receiving/retaining individual. A violation of this provision of the U.S.C. is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years. The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.
Ok, I gotta admit, I'm more than a little confused. While he found evidence of problems, Comey
still could find no reason to recommend moving forward with an indictment?
