It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Clinton Defense: Legal Minds, Help A Brother Out Here...

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Last evening I watched Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) interview with James Comey from September 28 and am particularly interested in the segment from 5:00 to 6:30. Link here or see the full video below.)

Rep. Collins asked Comey if he believed that Clinton was not "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts." Comey's reply was "...what evidence do I have to establish that state of mind? And I don't believe I have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Rep. Collins was, in my opinion, much too easy on Comey given his ludicrious answer.

1. There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent. Negligence does not require a "state of mind" beyond a negligent state of mind and that is evident in the acts. Clinton was clearly negligent.

2. I have been told all of my life that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I am ticketed for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone, will the judge except my innoncent plea based on the fact that I had not noticed the posted speed limit and that I had no malintent in driving 70mph?

If there are any legal minds here that might be able to shed some insight, please tell me if this sets a legal precedent of some sort that enables me to claim ignorance of the law and lack of malintent as a legitimate defense.

Collins said that he is already hearing people in the military talking about invokind the "Clinton Defense" if ever prosecuted for any offenses involving secuirty (or anything else, I'd imagine).

Comey's answers were beyond ludicrious and it seemed to me that Rep. Collins softballed the man by failing to hold his stupid response up to reasonable scrutiny.





posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=21314810]incoserv


I'll play lawyer here for you.

Question:


Rep. Collins asked Comey if he believed that Clinton was not "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts."


He didn't ask about "Criminal Negligence"



"...what evidence do I have to establish that state of mind? And I don't believe I have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt."


This was in answer to "Criminal in her acts"



There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent.


Here you remove the "OR" in the question and invent a new question around the conflation Grossly Negligent AND Criminal.

As far as a definition of your invented/interjected/conflated charge..



Criminal negligence is a statutory offense that arises primarily in situations involving the death of an innocent party as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who is under the influence of Drugs and Narcotics or alcohol.



edit on 30-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv



1. There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent. Negligence does not require a "state of mind" beyond a negligent state of mind and that is evident in the acts. Clinton was clearly negligent.


The Supreme Court ruled on this aspect in 1941, stating that intent is required to determine gross negligence. State of mind is very important.



2. I have been told all of my life that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I am ticketed for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone, will the judge except my innoncent plea based on the fact that I had not noticed the posted speed limit and that I had no malintent in driving 70mph?


Not a very good comparison.

Take a look at this link. It gives you some insight in to how the legal community looks at issues like this and how previous rulings have gone.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: [post=21314810]incoserv


I'll play lawyer here for you.

Question:


Rep. Collins asked Comey if he believed that Clinton was not "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts."


He didn't ask about "Criminal Negligence"



"...what evidence do I have to establish that state of mind? And I don't believe I have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt."

This was in answer to "Criminal in her acts"


There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent.

Here you remove the "OR" in the question and invent a new question around the conflation Grossly Negligent AND Criminal.
As far as a definition of your invented/interjected/conflated charge..


Criminal negligence is a statutory offense that arises primarily in situations involving the death of an innocent party as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who is under the influence of Drugs and Narcotics or alcohol.


He asked if she was criminal or negligent. And the phrase "criminal negligence" never appears in my original post. I said "criminally negligent." That's not the same thing.

The law prescribes certain protocols and practices to be used in handling classified date, does it not?
If one fails to follow the prescribed protocols, then this is a breach of the law. It is, therefore, criminal negligence in that is negligence that breaks the law.

Again, intent be damned. I've been written a couple of speeding tickets in my life. No police officer, no judge ever asked me if I had intended to break the law, neither did they ask me if I had been aware of the speed limit. It didn't matter to them. There was a legally prescribed speed limit and I was expected - as a driver who was using the public roads - to make myself aware of it and adhere to it. My intent meant nothing, what matters was whether I had obeyed what the law prescribed.

Collins asked if she'd been "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts." Either one.

She was obviously negligent. In being negligent she was broke laws, so she was also clearly criminal. Her "state of mind" had no more to do with whether she was criminal and/or negligent than my state of mind had to do with whether I had to pay that speeding ticket.
edit on 2016 9 30 by incoserv because: I could



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So, the folks at the top are governed by a different set of rules.

That's no news.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

Intent plays a big part in what charges are brought against someone or any at all. Protocols and practices are not laws, generally.
edit on 30-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: introvert

So, the folks at the top are governed by a different set of rules.

That's no news.


That is not correct.

If you look at this issue, 80% of cases regarding violations of security protocols are never prosecuted. Those that are involve purposeful intent to circumvent those rules.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

James Comey is himself complicit in a way or another in this Hillarious scam. He has something there which makes him go along with Clintons every demand.

And for that, he makes himself accessory to the treason, which Hillary has conducted, by protecting her facing the legal burden from her actions.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: [post=21314810]incoserv


I'll play lawyer here for you.

Question:


Rep. Collins asked Comey if he believed that Clinton was not "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts."


He didn't ask about "Criminal Negligence"



"...what evidence do I have to establish that state of mind? And I don't believe I have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt."

This was in answer to "Criminal in her acts"


There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent.

Here you remove the "OR" in the question and invent a new question around the conflation Grossly Negligent AND Criminal.
As far as a definition of your invented/interjected/conflated charge..


Criminal negligence is a statutory offense that arises primarily in situations involving the death of an innocent party as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who is under the influence of Drugs and Narcotics or alcohol.


He asked if she was criminal or negligent. And the phrase "criminal negligence" never appears in my original post. I said "criminally negligent." That's not the same thing.


Right...and on "grossly negligent" he has said she was hasn't he?
On.."Criminal"...that requires criminal intent, so he explains he had no evidence of a state of mind implying that.

What are you missing?



The law prescribes certain protocols and practices to be used in handling classified date, does it not?
If one fails to follow the prescribed protocols, then this is a breach of the law. It is, therefore, criminal negligence in that is negligence that breaks the law.


No...you just made that up..."Criminal" is a legal term...Criminal acts do not include accidental speeding for example..although the "law has been broken"..

You must know this?

What you are claiming is that any departure from the law is a Criminal Act.

Criminal Negligence: Driving Drunk is not "Criminal Negligence"...Driving drunk and killing someone is.

Not sure how else to help you out here.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Aaah reminds me of this little gem: "the road to hell, is paved.. ."




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: incoserv

James Comey is himself complicit in a way or another in this Hillarious scam. He has something there which makes him go along with Clintons every demand.

And for that, he makes himself accessory to the treason, which Hillary has conducted, by protecting her facing the legal burden from her actions.


Treason does not fit here. Surprised you didn't add no high crimes and misdemeanors for effect.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
So, essentially the protocols that she broke were just suggestions and not rules or laws?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
Last evening I watched Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) interview with James Comey from September 28 and am particularly interested in the segment from 5:00 to 6:30. Link here or see the full video below.)

Rep. Collins asked Comey if he believed that Clinton was not "grossly negligent or criminal in her acts." Comey's reply was "...what evidence do I have to establish that state of mind? And I don't believe I have evidence to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Rep. Collins was, in my opinion, much too easy on Comey given his ludicrious answer.

1. There is no "state of mind" necessary to prove that one has been criminally negligent. Negligence does not require a "state of mind" beyond a negligent state of mind and that is evident in the acts. Clinton was clearly negligent.

2. I have been told all of my life that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." If I am ticketed for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone, will the judge except my innoncent plea based on the fact that I had not noticed the posted speed limit and that I had no malintent in driving 70mph?

If there are any legal minds here that might be able to shed some insight, please tell me if this sets a legal precedent of some sort that enables me to claim ignorance of the law and lack of malintent as a legitimate defense.

Collins said that he is already hearing people in the military talking about invokind the "Clinton Defense" if ever prosecuted for any offenses involving secuirty (or anything else, I'd imagine).

Comey's answers were beyond ludicrious and it seemed to me that Rep. Collins softballed the man by failing to hold his stupid response up to reasonable scrutiny.



You misunderstand.

If your transcript of the interview is accurate, Collins was asking Comey if Comey believed that Clinton had been negligent or criminal.

Comey answers "What evidence do I have to establish that state of mind (belief)", and (even if he did have such evidence) he did not have sufficient evidence to establish it (the belief) beyond a reasonable doubt".



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: incoserv

Intent plays a big part in what charges are brought against someone or any at all. Protocols and practices are not laws, generally.


Did she INTEND to delete the emails thereby destroying evidence? Yes. Therefore she knew what she did was wrong.

She INTENDED to use an unsecure server.... unless you can show me how she ACCIDENTALLY used an unsecure email server? I would love to see that argument.

This next part is speculation however anyone with an IQ over 60 can see that this is the case...

(She advised the people involved to buck the congressional subpoenas and plead the fifth in order to cover up and obstruct justice. That is a whole set of other charges.)

/End speculation.

She lied to congress....another charge. She is an evil, sorry sack of $5!T.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Its a pity our FBI Director doesnt have the required IQ mentioned, because everything you stated is spot on, and frankly a 4 year old should arrive to the same conclusion.

Its such an obvious miscarriage of justice, its insanely angering.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Its a pity our FBI Director doesnt have the required IQ mentioned, because everything you stated is spot on, and frankly a 4 year old should arrive to the same conclusion.

Its such an obvious miscarriage of justice, its insanely angering.


Obviously, it's you, now, who does not understand. It's now much clearer to me.

These protocols that Clinton broke were not laws, just suggestions, good ideas that she didn't have to follow. If there is no penalty for not doing something, then that something is only a suggestion. One can decide whether to do it or not.

Protecting the integrity of matters of national security is a matter of suggestions that people in places of power can choose to do or not.

Speed limits are not suggestions, they are laws. There are well defined consequences to that will be brought to bear if one does not follow the speed limits. National security protocols, not so much.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join