FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

Not really.. Intent is not a requirement under the statute. The statute in the scotus ruling you cited is 50 USC and not 18 USC and believe it or not there is a major difference between the 2. Secondly Gorin was a citizen of the USSR so 18 USC 793 would not even apply. Hence the reason title 50 was used instead of title 18.

18 USC applies to people who have lawful authorized access to classified information and, through gross negligence, compromise that information. Since Gorin was not a US citizen he cant be charged with gross negligence since he did not have lawful access to the classified material in question.

Clinton on the other hand did have lawful access to classified information and through gross negligence on her part compromised that information.

Intent is not a requirement.
Gross Negligence is the standard.
50 USC has no bearing on this discussion since we arent dealing with foreign nationals.

Sorry the SCOTUS ruling was about 18 USC.

YOu obviously didn't read the link: It's intent, not gross negligence

a reply to: whywhynot

Apparently you failed to do the research and not me.

Gorin vs. US

This certiorari brings here a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the sentences of the two petitioners who were convicted of violation of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 31 et seq., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 712. As the affirmance turned upon a determination of the scope of the Act and its constitutionality as construed, the petition was allowed because of the questions, important in enforcing this criminal statute.

The joint indictment in three counts charged in the first count violation of section 1(b) by allegations in the words of the statute of obtaining documents 'connected with the national defense'; in the second count violation of section 2(a) in delivering and inducing the delivery of these documents to the petitioner, Gorin, the agent of a foreign nation; and in the third count of section 4 by conspiracy to deliver them to a foreign government and its agent, just named. The pertinent statutory provisions appear below. 1 A third party, the wife of Gorin, was joined in and acquitted on all three counts. The petitioners were found guilty on each count and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment to run concurrently and fines of $10,000 each. The longest term of Gorin is six years and of Salich four years.

The proof indicated that Gorin, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acted as its agent in gathering information. He sought and obtained from Salich for substantial pay the contents of over fifty reports relating chiefly to Japanese activities in the United States. These reports were in the files of the Naval Intelligence branch office at San Pedro, California. Salich, a naturalized, Russian-born citizen, had free access to the records as he was a civilian investigator for that office. Speaking broadly the reports detailed the coming and going on the west coast of Japanese military and civil officials as well as private citizens whose actions were deemed of possible interest to the Intelligence Office.......

I highlighted the parts you are intentionally ignoring.. Also 50 USC 31 was repealed and is no longer valid. As you apparently missed, Gorin was a Soviet Citizen.

18 USC 793 F applies to people who have lawful access to top secret information in the US and who compromise that material through gross negligence.

The standard is gross negligence and does NOT require intent. Clinton violated the statute via her gross negligence.

Next time do your due diligence before making a false claim.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

Apparently you failed to do the research and not me.

Gorin vs. US

This certiorari brings here a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the sentences of the two petitioners who were convicted of violation of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917, 50 U.S.C.A. § 31 et seq., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 712. As the affirmance turned upon a determination of the scope of the Act and its constitutionality as construed, the petition was allowed because of the questions, important in enforcing this criminal statute.

The joint indictment in three counts charged in the first count violation of section 1(b) by allegations in the words of the statute of obtaining documents 'connected with the national defense'; in the second count violation of section 2(a) in delivering and inducing the delivery of these documents to the petitioner, Gorin, the agent of a foreign nation; and in the third count of section 4 by conspiracy to deliver them to a foreign government and its agent, just named. The pertinent statutory provisions appear below. 1 A third party, the wife of Gorin, was joined in and acquitted on all three counts. The petitioners were found guilty on each count and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment to run concurrently and fines of $10,000 each. The longest term of Gorin is six years and of Salich four years.

The proof indicated that Gorin, a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acted as its agent in gathering information. He sought and obtained from Salich for substantial pay the contents of over fifty reports relating chiefly to Japanese activities in the United States. These reports were in the files of the Naval Intelligence branch office at San Pedro, California. Salich, a naturalized, Russian-born citizen, had free access to the records as he was a civilian investigator for that office. Speaking broadly the reports detailed the coming and going on the west coast of Japanese military and civil officials as well as private citizens whose actions were deemed of possible interest to the Intelligence Office.......

I highlighted the parts you are intentionally ignoring.. Also 50 USC 31 was repealed and is no longer valid. As you apparently missed, Gorin was a Soviet Citizen.

18 USC 793 F applies to people who have lawful access to top secret information in the US and who compromise that material through gross negligence.

The standard is gross negligence and does NOT require intent. Clinton violated the statute via her gross negligence.

Next time do your due diligence before making a false claim.

I see that you still refuse to read my previous links.let me paste the key section here:


Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” On its face, the law does not appear to require intent, but it turns out the key phrase in 793(f) is not “gross negligence.” The key phrase is “Relating to the national defense".

Section 793(f) is a subsection of the Espionage Act, a controversial statute enacted during World War I in order to combat efforts by German agents to undermine the American war effort. The Act has been amended and renumbered many times, but its core provisions have not substantively changed. The Espionage Act has only sparingly been used to file criminal charges, but when it has been used it is often in high-profile cases. Eugene Debs was jailed under the Espionage Act for anti-war activities during World War I. The Rosenbergs were charged under the Espionage Act when they sold nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. More recently, both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act for providing classified material to WikiLeaks.


The Director of the FBI recognized that as did the Dept of Justice in the past Administration. The Trump DOJ has failed to file charges also. The previous link and this post explain to you why. The attorney who wrote the analysis explained why intent was required. Do you just choose to ignore the conclusion of these well qualified individuals or are you just too stubborn and partisan to admit it?

In any event it been real.

a reply to: whywhynot

She sent classified material to a non government non secure server that she owned. That server was compromised, allowing non friendly governments to gain access to top secret information, including SAP programs and the names of some of our spies, one of which was killed because of the breach. Clinton went through the required training on handling classified info and she still sent it to her server.

Gross negligence is in fact the key phrase and she meets that criteria perfectly. Intent is not required to violate the statute. The Obama DOJ used intent as an excuse to not prosecute Clinton.

The Trump DOJ just filed charges against the IT company Clinton used.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

The Trump DOJ just filed charges against the IT company Clinton used.

Lol

Kind of proves my point. The US Dept of Justice will not file based upon gross negligence. They know that will not stand. However if they can prove intent, well that's all they need to complete the charges. There could be intent shown in Hillary's dealings with the IT firm. So far they have clammed up and the Obama DOJ didn't push it. It's now getting pushed.

When faced with jail time as a real possibility I'm betting that the IT company employees will cough up their data and testimony. Of course they run the risk of being suicided with a couple bullets in the back of their heads and then flinging themselves from a building but that's what witness protection is for.

a reply to: whywhynot

Again, intent is not a requirement. The Obama DOJ created that element in order to avoid charging Clinton. The standard is gross negligence and Comey laid that case out when he addressed the media.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your opinion not mine or others.

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again, your opinion not mine or others.

Not opinion but fact.. both with regards to the statute and the actions of the Obama DOJ. If Clinton and her cronies did nothing wrong then the Obama DOJ had no reason to hand out immunity agreements like candy at a grade school.

The Obama DOJ protected Clinton from charges by their actions. Trump has to fix it, among many other things the Obama admin screwed up.

Bogus Immunity + false intent requirement = where we are right now.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You haven't established fact only speculation based upon your interpretation of events.

I agree Trump's DOJ is trying to fix it. If intent wasn't required they could charge her now. It appears that they would like to. However, they haven't charged her because they are searching to establish intent. No worries, they will find intent if they look hard enough.

When they do file and that filing includes intent in its basis I will expect an apology.

a reply to: whywhynot

I provided you the statute and told you to point out where intent is needed to violate it. You failed to answer because intent is not required, just gross negligence.

But hey, you stick to the false intent defense.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

I provided you the statute and told you to point out where intent is needed to violate it. You failed to answer because intent is not required, just gross negligence.

But hey, you stick to the false intent defense.

I pointed to a) the SC decision that required intent, b) the analysis by a highly qualified attorney specifically addressing the question of intent and finally, c) the observation that the Director of the FBI, a highly trained and qualified source who is appointed for 10 year terms to specifically keep him out of political pressure, states that intent is required.

lets just see if the DOJ is looking for intent and if it files charges after finding it then you will be getting a message of "told ya so"

a reply to: whywhynot

The Scotus ruling you pointed out does not apply and I explained to you why that was. Comey added intent to the statute on his own in order to justify no charges for Clinton. "Highly trained and qualified" in this instance means he had to tow the obama admins line with regards to not prosecuting Clinton.

Maybe you and Comey can point out in the statute where intent is required. Gross negligence is the standard and for good reason. An equivalent would be involuntary manslaughter. That is where a person kills another person without an intent to do so. The persons actions can be categorized as gross negligence resulting in the death of another person.

If you want to go down the "intent" road though all one has to do is look at the training Clinton received as a Senator and Secretary of State with regards to handling classified information. She knows full well classified info is not to be removed from the dedicated servers and yet she did it anyways. When she got caught she lied about it.

Like I said though you stick to the bogus intent argument...

Intent is not required to violate the law in question and the law in question states that.

Gross negligence is the standard.

a reply to: Xcathdra
It must be wonderful to know more about this law than highly trained and very experienced professionals.

Just sit back and watch the current DOJ look for the missing intent, but of course you know more than them too, if they do find it she will then be charged. I'll send you a message then.

a reply to: whywhynot

It is at times yes... Your failed sarcasm aside I presented the facts. You chose to ignore them and instead relied on a failed argument put out by the obama administration.

Since intent is not required to prosecute they dont have to look for it.. Since gross negligence is the required standard in the law they dont have to look very far to find it since its been provided by Comey during his press conference as well as statements by Clinton herself.

a reply to: whywhynot

Anyone else think it is funny after all the "Hillary's private server stuff".

That the government emails get hacked and leaked, but appearently Hillary's private server stayed air tight..

Lol

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Why would Russia release emails from Clinton after she signed over 20% of US uranium to them all the while Russia paid bill for speeches and made pay for play donations to the Clinton Foundation?

REVEALED: FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:

I don’t think he’s just talking about the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton. It sounds like she boxed him in – in more ways that just that meeting. If that new email is any indication, she very likely coerced him directly, pushing him to play the ‘no intent’ defense for Clinton and her aides.

click link for article...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nice find!

Comey looked surprised that the congressman brought it up and the fact that Comey couldn't answer indicates that there still is a strong ongoing investigation of some sort.

Also, more than anything, if it is as factual as it looks, is clear indication that there was some very close collusion between the DoJ and a presidential nominee (like we don't know already), which should have everyone up in arms.

ETA: And here I was thinking, "damn, that would be a great thread!"

originally posted by: JinMI

ETA: And here I was thinking, "damn, that would be a great thread!"

After I posted it here I had the same thought lol.

A new thread was created for the new article - www.abovetopsecret.com...