Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "No Intention" Defense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "No Intention" Defense

    It appears no one will be punished for Hillary's private server and deleted emails. The common defense that is getting everyone off the hook is the "no intent" defense. Hillary got off with this line of defense and now her IT team will get away with it too.

    This is bull!

    FBI Director Comey said Hillary's IT guy's suspected post to Reddit asking for assistance in deleting the email address of a “very VIP” does not constitute an attempt to destroy evidence.


    Hillary's computer tech Paul Combetta was suspected of posting a question to Reddit in 2014 under the username “Stonetear” which asked users how to delete the contact information on a private email server describing “a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file.”

    Comey decided that the deletion of these emails is still not considered an attempt to delete evidence. He said, “It would depend what his intention was and why he wanted to do it.”

    "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

    "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

  • #2
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #3
      So, it'll get interesting when some low level flunky gets hauled in for poor use of e-mail and uses this same exact defense... I just hope those cases stay in the public eye.

      Comment


      • #4
        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

        Comment


        • #5
          So "I misspoke" isn't a legitimate defence then ?
          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
          Samuel Johnson.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, Hillary has made it where if you say you're sorry and can appear to mean it, you get off on whatever felony you committed...

            "I'm sorry for being a serial killer. I really, really am sorry and I'll stop killing people. I promise! I'll even pinkie swear to it!"

            Comment


            • #7
              First off, using a private server was NOT illegal at the time that Hillary was Sec of State. Secondly, many state department people were using private emails before and after her appointment. Colin Powell recommended personally to Hillary that she use private email. You can read his email to her about the issue at http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12846988...-clinton-email

              RE: Hillary losing 33,000 emails, the Bush Administration lost millions. http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonwe...e-house-emails

              If Hillary was to be prosecuted for email misuse, would the government have to prosecute many Bush Administration people? Is there a statute of limitations on email misuse?

              I think the email scandal resulted from bad or no policies within the government about using a relatively new technology. Government bureaucracy is notorious for running years behind in technology of all sorts and then paying three prices for it when they do update. Have the laws been updated to cover future misuse of new technologies? Have the laws been updated to cover highup government employee’s misusage even now?

              Remember an unstated Murphy’s law: The lower on the totem pole you are placed the more punishment you get for any transgression.
              Homo homini lupus

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                First off, using a private server was NOT illegal.
                But sending and receiving classified documents on one is highly illegal, it's a CRIME!

                RE: Hillary losing 33,000 emails, the Bush Administration lost millions.
                They weren't lost, they were deliberately destroyed under the guise that they were private.
                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                  First off, using a private server was NOT illegal at the time that Hillary was Sec of State. Secondly, many state department people were using private emails before and after her appointment. Colin Powell recommended personally to Hillary that she use private email. You can read his email to her about the issue at http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12846988...-clinton-email

                  RE: Hillary losing 33,000 emails, the Bush Administration lost millions. http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonwe...e-house-emails

                  If Hillary was to be prosecuted for email misuse, would the government have to prosecute many Bush Administration people? Is there a statute of limitations on email misuse?

                  I think the email scandal resulted from bad or no policies within the government about using a relatively new technology. Government bureaucracy is notorious for running years behind in technology of all sorts and then paying three prices for it when they do update. Have the laws been updated to cover future misuse of new technologies? Have the laws been updated to cover highup government employee’s misusage even now?

                  Remember an unstated Murphy’s law: The lower on the totem pole you are placed the more punishment you get for any transgression.
                  The standard of the law for obstructing justice doesn't require that there actually have been a crime committed in the first place. Just the simple act of obstructing the FBI in an investigation, even if what they are investigating would ultimately have found no crime was committed, is still obstruction of justice...which is a crime when committed by everyone else in this country not named Clinton.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post


                    nope intent was formed when the driver failed to stop drinking before going over the limit.

                    or the driver knowing he may drink to much should of arranged to not have to drive

                    just pointing out how intent is used
                    Last edited by craven; 02 Oct 16, 10:02.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                      First off, using a private server was NOT illegal at the time that Hillary was Sec of State. Secondly, many state department people were using private emails before and after her appointment. Colin Powell recommended personally to Hillary that she use private email. You can read his email to her about the issue at http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12846988...-clinton-email

                      RE: Hillary losing 33,000 emails, the Bush Administration lost millions. http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonwe...e-house-emails

                      If Hillary was to be prosecuted for email misuse, would the government have to prosecute many Bush Administration people? Is there a statute of limitations on email misuse?

                      I think the email scandal resulted from bad or no policies within the government about using a relatively new technology. Government bureaucracy is notorious for running years behind in technology of all sorts and then paying three prices for it when they do update. Have the laws been updated to cover future misuse of new technologies? Have the laws been updated to cover highup government employee’s misusage even now?

                      Remember an unstated Murphy’s law: The lower on the totem pole you are placed the more punishment you get for any transgression.

                      1st) Colin Powell has said he never told her to set up a private server.
                      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2760605
                      2nd) Use of a private server that exposed government secrets was a violation of the law.
                      3rd) Failure to retain the work emails on that server was also a violation of numerous laws.
                      4th) Your own link about Bush losing emails states that it was a violation of the law.
                      The fact that the Bush administration may have violated the law under different circumstances isn't proof hillary is free from guilt.
                      Hillary destroyed emails after they had been subpoenaed which is a different scenario from what the Bush people did.

                      If the email scandals was the result of bad government policy or new technology, then Hilalry should have gone public and demanded a better more secure system. But she didn't. Instead, she set up a secret system that was less secure.
                      Her primary goal was to protect herself, not us.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                        1st) Colin Powell has said he never told her to set up a private server.
                        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2760605
                        Also, it doesn't matter even if he told her. She is still held to obey State Department regulations and federal law regardless of bad advice she got from a retired SoS. His advice is not legally binding or valid.

                        2nd) Use of a private server that exposed government secrets was a violation of the law.
                        It was also a violation of federal law as well as state department regulations to use a private server for official government business. As SoS, Hillary had a duty to maintain a government e-mail for official business she conducted as part of federal records laws. The use of a private server for that purpose is prima facie evidence of an attempt to circumvent those laws.

                        3rd) Failure to retain the work emails on that server was also a violation of numerous laws.
                        Not only that, but having classified information on it was illegal. In addition, Hillary's failure to take required training in handling classified information was a rules violation and should have been sufficient to revoke her security clearance until she completed the training.
                        So, she shouldn't have even been looking at classified information. Also, ignorance is rarely, if ever, an excuse for breaking the law... In her case, repeatedly over a long period of time.

                        4th) Your own link about Bush losing emails states that it was a violation of the law.
                        The fact that the Bush administration may have violated the law under different circumstances isn't proof hillary is free from guilt.
                        Hillary destroyed emails after they had been subpoenaed which is a different scenario from what the Bush people did.
                        The "well so-and-so did it too!" is no defense whatsoever for breaking a law. So, this defense is irrelevant in the whole.

                        If the email scandals was the result of bad government policy or new technology, then Hilalry should have gone public and demanded a better more secure system. But she didn't. Instead, she set up a secret system that was less secure.
                        Her primary goal was to protect herself, not us.
                        Hillary's goal was clearly one of self-serving secrecy. What she did was illegal. She did it knowingly too. I also bet if she is elected she'll do it again. Career criminals rarely stop committing crimes, particularly when they walk on previous charges like Hillary's done. They get a aura of invincibility about them.
                        So, impeachment is likely at some point with a Hillary administration because she's going to break lots of laws thinking she can get away with it, just like she's always done.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Persephone View Post
                          (...) Comey decided that the deletion of these emails is still not considered an attempt to delete evidence. He said, “It would depend what his intention was and why he wanted to do it.”
                          In fact - assuming the private server and address was a breach of security, the deletion would have been necessary to prevent further exposure of sensitive information.

                          Once she realized her mistake, she took all necessary measures to limit the consequences.

                          At least that's what I'd say
                          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am not defending Hillary by any means.

                            But what they are talking about is an element of the offense, any offense, which the State must prove to convict for a crime.

                            An offender must have had one (or more) of the following mental states when committing a crime:

                            Intentionally
                            Knowingly
                            Recklessly
                            With criminal neglect


                            An example: BassMan attends a reunion of his Navy buddies, and they drink beer and reminisce about sailing pointlessly in circles. He then tries to drive home, but runs over a mail box. The police show up, and he is arrested for DWI. He clearly knew that he had been drinking and driving, or you could say he was reckless in getting into a vehicle after drinking all night. Either way, the State's obligation to meet a culpable mental state has been met.


                            This is the argument Hillary's people are using: that she lacked a culpable mental state.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              I am not defending Hillary by any means.

                              But what they are talking about is an element of the offense, any offense, which the State must prove to convict for a crime.

                              An offender must have had one (or more) of the following mental states when committing a crime:

                              Intentionally
                              Knowingly
                              Recklessly
                              With criminal neglect


                              An example: BassMan attends a reunion of his Navy buddies, and they drink beer and reminisce about sailing pointlessly in circles. He then tries to drive home, but runs over a mail box. The police show up, and he is arrested for DWI. He clearly knew that he had been drinking and driving, or you could say he was reckless in getting into a vehicle after drinking all night. Either way, the State's obligation to meet a culpable mental state has been met.


                              This is the argument Hillary's people are using: that she lacked a culpable mental state.

                              I agree, but the statute in question apparently only requires "gross negligence", not intent.
                              As a result, I have been confused by Comey's focus on the issue of intent.

                              I would also dispute the issue of intent.
                              Hillary "intended" to set up her server.
                              She "intended" to store and transmit government secrets on it.
                              She just might not have "intended" to share them with the rest of the world.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X