It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: burntheships
originally posted by: introvert
Now what if she is not indicted? Will those that have proclaimed her guilt be honest and admit they were wrong, or are we going to hear about the "conspiracy" for years to come?
My vote is on the conspiracy.
Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?
The FBI just left her house, and you think its time to make a
decision with out the facts? Hmmmm......
Because Clinton campaign says its over so it must be over?
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert
I believe that there is enough evidence publicly available to show that she is guilty of many crimes.
The details are in many other threads on these forums.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: BlueAjah
I was serious. If they charge her you still won't see her in handcuffs for years. If ever.
Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody? ” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.
In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad. Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as: “A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”
As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal: “Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”
originally posted by: introvert
It appears that intent is very important, based on past cases.