LIVE: FBI Director testifies before House Oversight Committee at 10am est. Live feed

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.

No its not. That is a policy of the DOJ and again has no bearing on the actual statute.

It is a policy of the DoJ because of the burden of proof aspect regarding intent.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Alright, it is my understanding that Comey was pushing for the (a) section and when questioned by Gowdy and M...something, he stated that it did not apply due to the intent.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.

She doesn't have to prove any " Gross Negligence", in my book, she is a Liar, she perjured herself multiple times, and is a despicable presidential candidate.

People should be ashamed for even defending her, on any level, or any other candidate with these tendencies.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Alright, it is my understanding that Comey was pushing for the (a) section and when questioned by Gowdy and M...something, he stated that it did not apply due to the intent.

That is exactly correct.

Gross negligence, which is part of section (f), must be accompanied by proof of intent.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?

It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.

She doesn't have to prove any " Gross Negligence", in my book, she is a Liar, she perjured herself multiple times, and is a despicable presidential candidate.

People should be ashamed for even defending her, on any level, or any other candidate with these tendencies.

That is your opinion and I respect that. As far as the law goes, opinions are worthless. You have to be able to prove it.

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Shouldn't the fact that the server was operational and had (c) data stored there prove the intent?

I also heard and believe intent is hard to prove.

a reply to: introvert

Prosecutions under 18 USC 793 (F)
* - United States v. Rickie L. Roller (1989)
* - United States v. Arthur E. Gonzalez (1979)
* - United States v. McGuinness


Here are just 3 that are recent.. Ive got more and will post them when I find links explaining them for verification.

a reply to: introvert

again no it does not and I listed 3 more felony cases where 793 f was used.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Alright, it is my understanding that Comey was pushing for the (a) section and when questioned by Gowdy and M...something, he stated that it did not apply due to the intent.

the section in question is 793 f. If Comey was using A then he failed in his due diligence. Even congressman addressed that with Comey.

also just to avoid confusion. If you look at the entire statute you willl notice at the end of each section you will see the word "OR". This means each element stands on its own. Meaning a person does not have to violate A-E in order to be charged with F.

originally posted by: introvert
...
She has plausible deniability.

That being said, cite whatever law, code or statute you like. You guys have no credibility left at all and it is completely reasonable to suggest that it would be illogical to give your opinion any weight whatsoever, when you have already proven to be unable to properly interpret such codes and put them in context with past precedent.

Wow, so you want to claim the rest of us don't have credibility because we are showing the she did break laws... How dishonest on your part... First of all, she is the Secretary of State, as such she had training, or should have had it once a year about how to handle classified information. She didn't follow protocols. She gave classified information to people that had no security clearance to handle that information, and she used servers she knew were not safe. The only credibility in question here is Hillary's and your own in making such asinine claims.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Former First lady, Senator in Congress, Presidential candidate 2008, Secretary of State, Presidential candidate 2016.

She knew what she was doing, she knows what classified is and she knows her server was illegal.

What about gross incompetence? .... Criminal incompetence. ..yes I know there is no such law, but there should be.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Former First lady, Senator in Congress, Presidential candidate 2008, Secretary of State, Presidential candidate 2016.

She knew what she was doing, she knows what classified is and she knows her server was illegal.

Shame on you X.

You know damn well that ignorance of the law, playing dumb, gross negligence of your job position, lying, intimidating, deceiving, and perjury will get you promoted, then put you in a good position to be the next president of the USA.

/sarcasm