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.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert
Intent is not a requirement and constantly repeating it doesnt make it true.
The standard is gross negligence. The intent bs was used to get her out of charges.
Some argue that prosecution was warranted because not all of the relevant laws require intent (an important potentially applicable one, 18 USC 793(f), requires only “gross negligence”), and because the government needs to send a strong signal to protect the integrity of the classified information system. I do not view this as an unreasonable position, at least based on the information Comey provided yesterday. On the other hand, there are many hurdles to a successful prosecution even assuming the “gross negligence” standard is the right one here.
The prosecution would be entirely novel, and would turn in part on very tricky questions about how email exchanges fit into language written with physical removal of classified information in mind. Though he did not say so explicitly, Comey might have concluded that a conviction in this context was, for many reasons, unlikely—a clear reason not to prosecute. He probably also considered broader public policy considerations that prosecutors often take into account—considerations that cut in many different directions, to be sure. It’s unclear whether Comey was right to say that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton—it is just hard to say, one way or another, based on the information he provided yesterday. But Comey explained the general basis for his decision and took full responsibility for it.
[I]t's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert
I'd like to know why Obama's short form birth certificate bears a fraudulent debossed seal instead of the requisite official embossed seal. But I am never going to get that answer because...well, it was *cough* racist to even want an answer.
He was protected from scrutiny.
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gandalf77
For what, those that are blind to their believes will never accept anything.
So I don't even bother.
(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both;
Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785
Intent is considered in minor violations. What she did was a major breach of national security. And as I stated, intent was obvious because it's just not realistic that someone with her extensive experience, including holding a security clearance in the Senate to receive classified briefings, would not know she couldn't do that. It's not nuanced, it's not easy to make a mistake just misunderstanding some obscure clause, it's black and white that what she did was highly illegal and there's no way she wasn't aware of it.
I'll ask the same of you as I did another. Please provide an example as precedence.
And yes I know you're still here, despite 2 proclamations that you couldn't continue to argue with me because of my immaturity or something, another *gasp* personal attack that you found so offensive when I did it to you. So you are not only a hypocrite but a liar as well because you do indeed continue to argue and continue to be wrong.
I wasn't offended. You're wasting my time. Your debate approach is not only logically-fallacious, but immature.
Grow up and come talk to me with some maturity. We can agree or disagree and that's fine, but don't waste my time with such nonsense.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Good to see you posting, J&C!
The Stonetear incident was painful to behold!
Simply griping about Trump for the sake of griping is not productive, but I would like to know why he did what he did.
I don't think that is unreasonable.
Comey is not a legislator... or even a prosecutor.
Petraeus