FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lmao... did you really just say you don't care about others opinions... as you give your opinion . On a forum specifically build on people trading their opinions?!?!?

So glad you got a chuckle. Laugh it up!!!

But, of course, you know that I was speaking to the findings of the grand jury. You also know full well that opinions do not determine guilt or innocence, unlike the topic of the OP, which is a grand jury investigation, and requires facts. Either the grand jury and the larger investigation have them or they don't.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lmao... did you really just say you don't care about others opinions... as you give your opinion . On a forum specifically build on people trading their opinions?!?!?

So glad you got a chuckle. Laugh it up!!!

But, of course, you know that I was speaking to the findings of the grand jury. You also know full well that opinions do not determine guilt or innocence, unlike the topic of the OP, which is a grand jury investigation, and requires facts. Either the grand jury and the larger investigation have them or they don't.

Ditto...

In fact the offical report says innocent, but your personal opinion definately trumps that... not mine nor anyone else's.. just yours ..

All hail queen boadica !!

Lol

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: JinMI

A grand jury did investigate.

But they sure don't last for four months going on five.

The wheels of justice move a hell of a lot faster than that.

The Federal Grand Jury that I sat on was convened for a one year period. The jury that was outgoing at the time was well onto their second year and still had not been dismissed.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

In fact the offical report says innocent...

Which isn't necessarily the grand jury's conclusion...

... but your personal opinion definately trumps that...

I don't have a personal opinion on the grand jury's findings because I don't know what they are! But just for kicks and giggles, I'm not sure what Hillary is really guilty of and what others are just trying to pin on her to protect themselves. For example, I have seen absolutely nothing that connects Hillary to PG, but again and again I see Hillary named as the "ringleader." That just doesn't add up. So it gives me pause... and doubt...

All hail queen boadica !!

Thank you! I may have to take a spin in my chariot now and revel in the glory

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JoshuaCox

In fact the offical report says innocent...

Which isn't necessarily the grand jury's conclusion...

... but your personal opinion definately trumps that...

I don't have a personal opinion on the grand jury's findings because I don't know what they are! But just for kicks and giggles, I'm not sure what Hillary is really guilty of and what others are just trying to pin on her to protect themselves. For example, I have seen absolutely nothing that connects Hillary to PG, but again and again I see Hillary named as the "ringleader." That just doesn't add up. So it gives me pause... and doubt...

All hail queen boadica !!

Thank you! I may have to take a spin in my chariot now and revel in the glory

When did grabd jury's start decideing guilt or innocence.. never..

You've also never see hillary connected to santa clause, but time and time again you see stories about him...

Huh??

a reply to: JoshuaCox

When did grabd jury's start decideing guilt or innocence.. never..

At exactly the same time that I said they did: Never.

You've also never see hillary connected to santa clause, but time and time again you see stories about him...

Huh??

Um, yeah, HUH??? That makes absolutely no sense to what I said.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JoshuaCox

When did grabd jury's start decideing guilt or innocence.. never..

At exactly the same time that I said they did: Never.

You've also never see hillary connected to santa clause, but time and time again you see stories about him...

Huh??

Um, yeah, HUH??? That makes absolutely no sense to what I said.

It makes more sense than listening to Alex Jones and worse as a credible news sources ... which is where the "time and time again "stories come from...

They are far less credible than santa.. at least santa doesn't pretend to be real..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Okay. If that makes sense to you, then I guess that's all that counts...

I'll leave you be.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.

With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.

intent is not a required element of the law in question. Gross negligence is the standard.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.

With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.

Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.

But nevertheless intent would be necessary for a prosecution to be successful.

No, it wouldnt. Proving gross negligence would be required as that is the standard. Intent is not a requirement and it is not a part of the law in question.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.

With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.

intent is not a required element of the law in question. Gross negligence is the standard.

Then why didn't they charge the plethora of other politicians who had their own servers???
That's the reason they would need intent...because there is a laundry list of big wigs who did the same.. Cheney, Powell, Ashcroft , both Bush's..

If your going to prosecute some one for what is par for the course, you need intent.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.

With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.

Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.

But nevertheless intent would be necessary for a prosecution to be successful.

No, it wouldnt. Proving gross negligence would be required as that is the standard. Intent is not a requirement and it is not a part of the law in question.

That would mean that Comeys testimony in front of congress was utter BS. He specifically said that the intent element was necessary in the crime he described her committing. IRRC that wasn't the crime most were saying she committed?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Clinton violated the espionage act. The section she violated does not require intent, just gross negligence.

Secondly you have to compare apples to apples. Clinton maintained her own private server. The people you listed did not. They just utilized a private email. Secondly the standards in place for electronic records did not come about until Obama took office.

Comey was wrong when he said intent was required. Gross negligence is required and he demonstrated she met that requirement when he gave his initial press conference.

a reply to: JinMI

Actually he explained that the DOJ policy required intent in order for them to move forward. They are good at using legalese in order to avoid perjury / false testimony.

and yes, I agree, that his testimony was total bs.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What's more was the mysterious tarmac discussion followed by Lynches statement that she would go with whatever the FBI recommended. Such a blatant hosing of the American people.

a reply to: JinMI

Judicial watch has filed several freedom of information requests to obtain any documents that dealt with that meeting. I still think it was a backroom deal to get clinton off. It might also be about Lynch and Bill baking up the "lets spy on Trumps campaign" mess as well.

Dont forget the FISA crap started just after that meeting and Clinton tweeted out on october 31 that there were major developments in the russia trump investigation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.

With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.

Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.

But nevertheless intent would be necessary for a prosecution to be successful.

No, it wouldnt. Proving gross negligence would be required as that is the standard. Intent is not a requirement and it is not a part of the law in question.

I provided a link to backup my opinion. You only provided your opinion. Got a link?

a reply to: whywhynot

18 USC 793 (F)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Feel free to point out where the word intent is used. I bolded the requirement, gross negligence.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

18 USC 793 (F)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Feel free to point out where the word intent is used. I bolded the requirement, gross negligence.

Your link would have been fine except for the ruling of the Supreme Court on the matter:

In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.

Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:

The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.

In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).

Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.

Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.

Link provides interesting reading

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.