The General Election

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Can someone tell me how not following a department's protocol all of a sudden becomes a crime so bad that the person should be in prison?

 

OK...I could see it if it could be proven that she did it for the purpose of allowing foreign spies to access the information. However, I haven't ever seen a report that the information was even hacked into without her intending it to be.

 

Was it poor judgement for her, Rice and Powell to do it? I would think so. Should any of them be in prison for it???? I can't imagine why.

In that position.....as Secretary of State....yeah, it should be a prison worthy crime. Security and confidentiality of that level of information requires following protocol and not circumventing it. I'm not claiming she was any worse than the others, hell I don't know a lot of the particulars but, damn our SoS can't operate that way without ramifications. Rice and Powell, if they also engaged in this behavior, should've been dragged over the coals too. You can understand this, can't you? I mean it's not like some average person screwing up at their job. That IS their job.

 

I fully understand dragging them over the coals and giving them all criticism that is deserved of basically sucking at their job of doing what is necessary to keep this information private. However, still, I don't see how it's a prison worthy offense unless it is proven she did it with the intent of letting the information out.

 

Intent is not the only thing that would make something like that criminal behavior. In fact, intent has very little to do with most crimes. Hell, in that position, even if it was purely accidental, it still could rise to the level of prison time IMO. Personally I don't know what did or didn't happen as regards this but, if it is anywhere near as bad as some (no matter their motives) make it out to be, even if it was just plain laziness or stupidity, it still might be deserving of prison. But I'm going to back off of it now because it has very little to do with why I won't vote for her. And I understand Knapp's point of some people raising hell about it unfairly. I don't know enough about the specifics to keep hammering on it. I'll let others handle that until hopefully the full truth finally comes out.

[AR Husker Fan]

Actually, intent is almost ALWAYS a required element of any crime. You get some cases, like manslaughter, where the concept can be murky, but only on the surface. In manslaughter, for example, you may not have intended to kill the person - but you intended to strike him. It's difficult, actually, to name more than a handful of crimes where intent is not a necessary element.

[BigRedBuster]

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

[JJ Husker]

The correct answer, of course, is "none". In May of 2015 the State Department began releasing several thousand pages of Clinton's emails, many of them partly redacted. The releases continued until the last of the roughly 30,000 messages were made public in February of 2016. In other words, all the email (with the exception of 22 emails that contained “top secret” material - and that were classified as such AFTER they had been sent) from the server have been turned over.

Good, I hope that is the case. It doesn't sway my opinion of her in the least but it would be reassuring to know our former SoS and likely next President had enough common sense to not risk the security of "top secret" material. We might have to disagree about the appropriateness of her sending 22 unsecured emails containing information that later rose to the level of being classified top secret. I guess that would get her off the hook for criminal behavior but it does little to bolster perception of her judgment.

[JJ Husker]

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

[AR Husker Fan]

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

[AR Husker Fan]

 

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

 

Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving).

 

You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age.

 

You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits.

 

Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

[BigRedBuster]

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Al Capone was investigated multiple times without being convicted of anything either......Until he screwed up on his taxes.

 

That doesn't mean he didn't do those other crimes the authorities thought he did.

[JJ Husker]

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

[AR Husker Fan]

Capone had the benefit of "investigators" that were susceptible to influence - whether monetary or physical or "higher command". In other words, they weren't motivated to actually seek the truth. Hillary's investigators? Precisely the opposite.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

 

Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same.

[Danny Bateman]

Intent is crucial in this particular instance. I think the ability of them to actually charge Clinton with anything rests on their ability to prove she willfully disseminated classified information through improper means. That's a very tough case to make. She was just doing her job at home instead of through official, secured channels, but there's no evidence that A) sensitive information was accessed by anyone that it should've been via hacking or B) that she SENT sensitive information to anyone she shouldn't have. Thus, she didn't willfully send classified information to improper persons, and classified information was not obtained through nefarious means. Also, it's unclear if Clinton knew if any of the emails were classified or not, which makes it difficult to build a case she was intentionally doing something wrong.

 

AR also made a good point when he mentioned that these emails were classified after the were turned over. That matters as well. As I understand it, the State Department and the Intelligence community have differing standards when it comes to how they classify things, with the Intelligence community being much more stringent and cautious. This helps clarify why things were classified after the fact-- two different standards.

 

I do tire of the "If anyone else did this, they'd be in JAIL!!!1!" argument. It's a farce. She's not getting preferential treatment in any way. Here's an article that breaks down people charged with classified information related offenses, and at most they were fined and lost security clearance. Not jail.

 

Ted Cruz got in a bit of hot water when they thought he let slip classified info out loud during a debate for cripes sakes.

 

I just think the whole thing is a big, convoluted, confusing mess and I'm glad I don't have to deal with any of it.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

 

Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving).

 

You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age.

 

You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits.

 

Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

 

Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service.

 

That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

 

Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same.

 

I agree, I dislike Trump for a whole list of other reasons but mostly because he is a flip-flopping pompous ass. I like that he seems to say whatever is on his mind without benefit of any filter. I just wish when he did that though that it wasn't some totally asinine comment.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

 

I shoot a person on accident, it's a horrible accidental death.

 

I shoot a person because I'm mad at him, I'm going to prison.

 

intent matters.

Manslaughter can have jail time.

 

It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket.

 

It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape.

 

There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others.

 

Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

 

Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving).

 

You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age.

 

You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits.

 

Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

 

Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB.

 

The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS.