E-mail server thing looks bad for Hillary

Post Reply New Topic

Doesn't sound like one could use that to convince a jury that Hillary is Benedict Arnold.

Juries traditionally exist at the trial level of court matters (thought they can exist at every level including the review level of the U.S. Supreme Court, too). But, as I wrote, determination of intent can also happen by the appellate and review courts in their examination of the evidence that was discussed or even questioned at the trial level. So, we shouldn't hang our hats only on juries. An appellate judge could easily determine that the question of intent was incorrectly resolved and correct the determination under court rules.

You won't find juries in preliminary hearing-type situations.

Only in criminal or civil trials (at least in the US).

A "grand jury" is the exception. But all they do is indict; they don't convict.

I was mistaken, evidently, intent isn't part of the law.

It is within the federal Logan Act, but the other national-security laws, I dunno.

There may be some statutes for which that is true, but intent to distribute the material to unauthorized persons is not required under subsection (f)(1) of 18 U.S.C. Section 793. That statute prohibits anyone entrusted with information "relating to the national defense" from delivering such information to an unauthorized person OR removing such information "from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence. I don't plan to express any opinion about the topic of this thread, but I thought that was worth pointing out.

I just admitted that two posts above. But thanks so much.

No problem, I just thought mentioning this particular statute would be helpful to the discussion.

That's mighty big of you to admit AspE, so you are agreement she broke the law then! Hillary is above the law, the FBI made it's recommendation because they had no confidence they could get a conviction given the political ramifications. If it was me or you, we'd be in prison for a long long time.

According to the FBI she didn't break any laws. I'm going to take their word over yours.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an investigatory agency, not a court of law. Determination of any violations of law wouldn't come from the FBI, but from a court of law.

No, they didn't recommend prosecution because they didn't think they could get a conviction. They didn't say she didn't break any laws, Comey was quite damning of Hillary's conduct.

Yes, they investigate whether or not laws were broken and according to them she didn't. If a court doesn't rule on it than she is by law considered innocent.

No they didn't recommend charges because they knew no prosecutor would ever be able to successfully try her or anyone else over something like this. All he suggested he would do was bring her up internal sanctions. Not the same thing as breaking the law. Also James Comey is a Republican and was a high ranking official in the Justice department under Bush. I would expect him to flatter her.

And one last thing, no one has claimed she's perfect. You keep trying to point to little things and act like their the huge earth shattering scandals. Sorry it's not going to work. Especially with the amount of baggage Trump is carrying around. Trump has been a public buffoon for a long time. So many of his supposed policy positions are unconstitutional, impractical, bigoted, xenophobic, dangerous and/or flat out impossible.

Obama would just pardon her anyway, so what's the point? And I believe that the witchhunt on the Clintons is basically political and unjust, so f**k them. But it is perplexing why Clinton would do this in the first place. I think the e-mail thing is minor. Prosecuting her for that is a waste of time, and only serves the goals of the GOP. But I would like to know why she did it.

Still better than Trump, by a long shot.

Comey was quite clear in saying that if someone else had done the same thing they wouldn't necessarily be free from prosecution. It's the same as the Whitewater scandal really, there is evidence of wrong doing but it's to much a political mess to ever hope to get a conviction. I find that pretty offensive and wrong, I think our public officials should be held to a higher standard not a lesser one because of partisan politics. I genuinely think Hillary is a criminal, I genuinely think she is corrupt, I really can't say anything good about her. I thought this as a little kid in the 90s, I thought this in 2008, I still do now. I don't think these are little things.

As for Trump's baggage, I really don't see the comparison and don't think you can equate the two. He's a billionaire real estate mogul and socialite, he's been sued and talked about a lot in the tabloids as anyone in his position would be but look at his record in those lawsuits and I think he's clearly a great businessman. I don't believe Trump to be a criminal or corrupt, the only thing he is guilty of is vanity.