Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NSA leaker gets massive sentence

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Intent is not necessary as many other cases prove.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2652586

    I remember a sailor on the Enterprise getting convicted for taking a reactor plant manual (RPM) home to study for qualification. He showed it to no one, and only wanted to qualify to do his job. Removing classified information was sufficient for a charge.

    In Hillary's case there were lots of classified documents found on her server. She didn't notify any government official about it. That means she compromised classified material and had it in her possession outside of areas she was legally allowed to have it.
    We also know that Hillary gave thumb drives to several other people, including one of her lawyers, who had classified information in his possession as a result of that. That too was illegal and Hillary knowingly did it.

    It is simple. Hillary broke numerous federal laws and regulations regarding classified and sensitive material and she is clearly guilty of that. She should have been tried, convicted, and sent to prison. No, if's, and's, or but's about it.
    Intent is a red herring.

    The actual section requires proof of "gross negligence", not intent.

    (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—


    So, the 2 requirements are either they released the information due to:
    1) gross negligence, or
    2) with knowledge.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      Because you say so? Because your version doesn't match any facts that I've seen, and if you still don;t realize that politicians don't obey the same laws as the rest of us, tel us what drug your taking, because I want some, too.
      It is not my word against you. It is the word of the DOJ, FBI, IG in a period when the FBI directors and the AG are republicans!
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

        Intent is a red herring.

        The actual section requires proof of "gross negligence", not intent.

        (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—


        So, the 2 requirements are either they released the information due to:
        1) gross negligence, or
        2) with knowledge.
        We went over this and it became clear that in order for the prosecutors to show gross negligence, they had to show that it was

        so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful

        This comes from the IG report which we discussed i this thread. It is therefore obvious that the bar the prosecutors had to meet in Clinton's case was high. It was also explained there how the prosecutors consistently used the same definition in previous cases when they did not charge other officials with leaking clarifying information (like AG Gonzalez during the Bush years) or when they charged them (like General Petraeus who also provided classified information to his girlfriend who was a write)

        It is obvious that in the cases we discuss we do not have just two conditions of intent and absence of intent. The prosecutors have to evaluate a person's actions and behavior by drawing a red line and it is obvious that when this red line by the law indicates something that almost suggests deliberate intention that the bar is set high!

        To return to this case, when a person contacts a journalist and give classified information, the intent is self-obvious! So, this case has nothing to do with Clinton's when the accusation was that she leaked classified information during her private correspondence with one of her aids!
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #19
          More about gross negligence from the link of the conversation I posted

          Section 793(f)(1) does not define what constitutes “gross negligence,” nor
          have any federal court decisions interpreted this specific provision of the statute. However, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) and identified statements made during the 1917 congressional debate indicating that
          the state of mind required for a violation of Section 793(f)(1) is “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful







          "The elemental idea of negligence is failure or omission the failure or omission to do something which should have been done. Negligence that is gross involves the additional and affirmative element of intent to do or wilfulness with which is done the negligent act. The essence of gross negligence may be gathered from familiar definitions. It is defined to be `the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.' McDonald v. International Ry. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W. 774, 775; Schindler v. Milwaukee Ry. Co., 87 Mich. 400, 49 N.W. 670; `such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the presumption of wilfulness and wantoness,' 2 Thomp.Neg. 1264."


          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            You are right.
            Also the statute in question does not require proof of "intent". Only "gross negligence".
            "Gross negligence" isn't the same thing as an intentional act. It is a step below it.

            But you are also right that intent probably could have been proven by that evidence.
            Her acts in setting up the server were clearly intentional, and the fact that she arranged it to circumvent the government system would constitute evidence of intent.
            Nope!

            Gonzalez act of taking classified information with him when he left the office was also intentional, but this was not enough to show that he intended to leak classified information as it was explained in the link I posted about the IG report. In Clinton's case the use of a private server is certainly intentional but this does not show an almost willful intent to leak classified information. In fact, we were hearing all this time from conservatives that the idea of using a private server was to hide information which does not match with an almost willful intent to leak information of any kind, classified or not! Only internet wannabe lawyers and political hacks see the use of a private server as legal proof of almost willful intent to leak classified information!
            Last edited by pamak; 31 Aug 18, 22:45.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #21

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I take it our pet Turk is arguing the law with a lawyer again?
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                  I take it our pet Turk is arguing the law with a lawyer again?
                  ...with an internet lawyer. This is in contrast to what people do here when they argue the law dismissing real FBI and IG experts who certainly have law degrees !

                  Now, as an internet cop who supposedly respects the law, you still have not told us if you ever reported to the police or even just to the shop-owner the behavior of your wife's friend who tainted the frosting of cakes sold to gays with laxatives! As you know, this is a felony in your state!

                  p.s. An Ignore list used as a cover to take selective cheap shots like when you are talking now about "pet Turks" will not fly with me troll! And I know that with the broken ignore list, you are aware of what I am saying!
                  Last edited by pamak; 01 Sep 18, 08:16.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    We went over this and it became clear that in order for the prosecutors to show gross negligence, they had to show that it was

                    so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful

                    This comes from the IG report which we discussed i this thread. It is therefore obvious that the bar the prosecutors had to meet in Clinton's case was high. It was also explained there how the prosecutors consistently used the same definition in previous cases when they did not charge other officials with leaking clarifying information (like AG Gonzalez during the Bush years) or when they charged them (like General Petraeus who also provided classified information to his girlfriend who was a write)

                    It is obvious that in the cases we discuss we do not have just two conditions of intent and absence of intent. The prosecutors have to evaluate a person's actions and behavior by drawing a red line and it is obvious that when this red line by the law indicates something that almost suggests deliberate intention that the bar is set high!

                    To return to this case, when a person contacts a journalist and give classified information, the intent is self-obvious! So, this case has nothing to do with Clinton's when the accusation was that she leaked classified information during her private correspondence with one of her aids!


                    Your ignorance is astounding, but I guess that won't stop you from lecturing on a subject you don't understand.
                    If you understood the subject, you would not have posted that quote. If you understood what the quote said you would have looked for something else.
                    Ironically, you base your argument on language that proves my point.

                    Your quote:
                    so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful

                    The important language in your quote consists of the words "almost" and "a little short".

                    The point being "gross negligence" is not an intentional act, it is something a step below that. In other words, your quote is entirely consistent with what I have said, but you didn't realize that because you don't understand what you are reading.

                    Next, review of the actual statute reveals the phrase "gross negligence". If the statute required an "intentional act" the language in the statue would have no meaning. In fact, the language in the actual statute would be inconsistent with what you think it means. That is precisely the opposite way statutes are interpreted in the real world.

                    Bottom line. If a statute requires that "intent" be proven as an element of the offense, it will not use the word "negligence".

                    What is amusing is my point is entirely based on the actual words in the statute and yours is a convoluted mess that tries to argue that the word "negligence" does not have its common meaning in just this statute.


                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      Nope!

                      Gonzalez act of taking classified information with him when he left the office was also intentional, but this was not enough to show that he intended to leak classified information as it was explained in the link I posted about the IG report. In Clinton's case the use of a private server is certainly intentional but this does not show an almost willful intent to leak classified information. In fact, we were hearing all this time from conservatives that the idea of using a private server was to hide information which does not match with an almost willful intent to leak information of any kind, classified or not! Only internet wannabe lawyers and political hacks see the use of a private server as legal proof of almost willful intent to leak classified information!
                      Sigh.
                      I won't waste my time responding as those carts in the parking lot aren't going to collect themselves.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        Sigh.
                        I won't waste my time responding as those carts in the parking lot aren't going to collect themselves.
                        I do not want to interrupt you from your work!
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                          Your ignorance is astounding, but I guess that won't stop you from lecturing on a subject you don't understand.
                          If you understood the subject, you would not have posted that quote. If you understood what the quote said you would have looked for something else.
                          Ironically, you base your argument on language that proves my point.

                          Your quote:
                          so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful

                          The important language in your quote consists of the words "almost" and "a little short".

                          The point being "gross negligence" is not an intentional act, it is something a step below that. In other words, your quote is entirely consistent with what I have said, but you didn't realize that because you don't understand what you are reading.


                          Next, review of the actual statute reveals the phrase "gross negligence". If the statute required an "intentional act" the language in the statue would have no meaning. In fact, the language in the actual statute would be inconsistent with what you think it means. That is precisely the opposite way statutes are interpreted in the real world.

                          Bottom line. If a statute requires that "intent" be proven as an element of the offense, it will not use the word "negligence".

                          What is amusing is my point is entirely based on the actual words in the statute and yours is a convoluted mess that tries to argue that the word "negligence" does not have its common meaning in just this statute.

                          Bold mine

                          Nope!

                          You are not consistent with what the law says and with how professional prosecutors and the IG have interpreted the law and I explained why. If the law talks about an action that is "short of " or "almost" willful, it is obvious that the prosecutors will have to draw a red line and evaluate the action of a person. Just because an action is not willful it does NOT automatically make it an example of "gross negligence." So, you like or not, the state of mind is important and the prosecutors have to PROVE that the person was little short of being willful.-little short of crossing this red line of an intentional act! How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt such thing when a person like Clinton established a server to AVOID the exposure of her secrets as conservatives say?

                          Bottom line is leave the law to the experts. Last time you told me you are in the bonds business, and if I am not mistaken this business does not even require a law degree...
                          Last edited by pamak; 01 Sep 18, 09:47.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            Ignore the troll.

                            My worst jump story:
                            My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                            As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                            No lie.

                            ~
                            "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                            -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Reality Winner (who would name their kid that, really? ) got a five year sentence, the longest ever imposed, for leaking documents related to the Russian hacking of US elections. Hillary got nada for a massive leak called her e-mail server.

                              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reality...ied-documents/
                              She probably had her named changed, a big red flag under sanity, but you know the story behind the Barry Obama administration.
                              My worst jump story:
                              My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                              As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                              No lie.

                              ~
                              "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                              -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

                                I take it our pet Turk is arguing the law with a lawyer again?
                                No lawyer would waste time on him even with the retainer up front.
                                My worst jump story:
                                My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                                As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                                No lie.

                                ~
                                "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                                -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X