But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

Fair enough, perhaps the truth is that you really are that feeble minded. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you were a liar given that I spelled things out to where a child could have followed along....but apparently you are telling me that you managed to fail. It is what it is kiddo.

 

I notice when someone calls you out on spreading misinformation, you never responded with any nuance that discredits the post but rather platitudes about the person not being able to comprehend your impeccable logic.

Like, it's a habitual pattern at this point.

 

It is what it is kiddo, you are trying to argue with an imbecile.

 

No doubt, but that's why I've pretty much given up on it. I can only spell things out for him so many times before I just have to assume he'll never get it.

 

Predictable response.

 

Like money. You run like clock work sir.

 

Awww, you ran out of even attempts at argument and tossed out yet another insult. Predictable.

You suggested I was a liar because I accurately told you that I vote Libertarian. Then, when you called me a liar, I proved you wrong, yet again.

Given your assumptions, you mean.

I saw your attempt at logic, I refuted it by pointing out your assumptions, and you started tossing out insults, as usual.

Yes, it is, boy.

 

Yes, you spelled out your assumption repeatedly, never bothering to even begin to question it, despite being called out repeatedly.

One of us will never get it, I posit that it is the one who has resorted to insults.

 

I posted the actual statute, not my assumptions, and you have no intelligent response to that. You were slapped in the face with facts and all you had to respond with was essentially "nuh uh". You insult yourself by continuing this nonsense.

 

Quoted for imploring @GladiatoRowdy to do so.

 

In order to interpret the statute the way you do, you have to make a major assumption. You're not admitting to the assumption, but you've made it.

Since you're not clear on the concept, you're assuming that the only thing which is applicable is the language of the statute itself. You're ignoring the plain fact that the courts have interpreted that statue in a different way.

Keep flailing, I love watching you twist in the wind like this!

 

To interpret the statute the way I do, you have to make the assumption that the words in the statue have meaning and they mean what they say....and that statute means what courts have ruled that it means.....all of which I've spelled out to you already.

To interpret the statute the way you do, and the way Comey suggested was proper, you have to assume that the words in the statue mean nothing and that the standard spelled out in the statue isn't the proper standard to use and that you should instead use a completely different standard and go against precedent.

It's pretty funny that you think siding with precedent and what the words actually say is improper.....but ridiculous is starting to become your thing.

 

You're not siding with precedent. Court precedent has clearly shown that intent is required to prosecute cases like this. I'm not the one ignoring precedent, you have done nothing but ignore precedent based on your interpretation of the language in the statute.

 

BtG got his law degree from Bozo’s Big Top Clown and Law school, doncha know?

 

You can repeat a lie as often as you like, it won't make that lie true. The "one time" a person was charged is only if you ignore all of the times military members have been charged with that crime......and all of the times that the charge is on the table before being removed as part of a plea bargain.

Here's 3 fairly recent cases (there are more) where people were convicted of violating this statute without intent and sent to prison.

United States v. Rickie L. Roller

United States v. Arthur E. Gonzalez

United States v. McGuinness

The US v McGuinness case is especially interesting because they appealed that conviction on the grounds that intent should be proven and not merely willfulness (he was being charged under a different section of the statute).....and the judge ruled against them spelling out how intent didn't matter when it came to that statute and he went further saying "Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials."

Both judges that tried McGuinness ruled that intent didn't matter as did the judges in numerous other cases where it has come up.....so since I've cited specific precedent yet again maybe stop parroting propaganda because you are embarrassing yourself. Either that or cite specific precedent to refute it instead of just going on the talking points you've been given.

 

Looks like your ability to research is limited, from the McGuinness case...

"Importantly, Appellant’s awareness of the potential for harm through the unauthorized release of the data is evidenced by the clandestine manner in which he distributed this classified information. Appellant’s conduct therefore satisfies the mens rea requirement of § 793(e), as that element is correctly defined in law."

He knew that what he was doing was illegal and that the material shouldn't be released. His actions proved that he did indeed have the required intent. If you were to actually look into the details of the cases you cite rather than the opinion pieces where you likely found them, you will find that there are major differences between the people convicted under the statute and what Clinton did. That's why you can't look merely at the language in the statute, but must look at precedent. You're ignoring the precedent and claiming, falsely, that McGuinness and others did not exhibit intent when they did, according to court documents.

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2009SepTerm/09-0535.pdf

 

I'm not sure what you think you were quoting, but the link you gave was of a different case that merely referenced the McGuinness case.....did you bother to actually read it? The only reference to the McGuinness case was

"The statute in question is part of the Espionage Act of 1917, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950. When a statute is a part of a larger Act . . . the starting point for ascertaining legislative intent is to look to other sections of the Act in pari materia with the statute under review. Sections 793(a) and 794(a) require that the act be done, with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. Sections 793(d) and (e), however, require only that the accused act “willfully.” The current version of § 793(e), as amended in 1950, criminalizes willful retention of classified materials by someone not authorized to retain them. Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through “gross negligence” and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials. While § 794 covers “classic spying,” § 793(e) covers a much lesser offense than that of “spying.” Based on our analysis of the statute in question and a review of its legislative history, we conclude that there is no basis in the legislative record for finding that Congress intended to limit prosecutions for violation of § 793(e) to classic spying. To the contrary, it is clear that Congress intended to create a hierarchy of offenses against national security, ranging from “classic spying” to mere losing classified materials through gross negligence."

Your own link disproves what you were trying to say and further makes my case....it was a completely different case citing the McGuinness case as precedent when it comes to the manner in which they should interpret the statue Hillary was guilty of violating.... and they spell out why it should be interpreted in a manner that wouldn't require intent for guilt under § 793(f). Now sure, when it comes to US vs DIaz, there was intent proven, but that has nothing to do with the McGuinness case or how the court interpreted the law.

In short, try again rookie.

 

Your own quote clearly indicates what is necessary. It hasn't even been alleged that any classified material was "lost" or in any other way acquired by any third party. As such, the "gross negligence" standard doesn't apply.

You're citing cases that just aren't applicable, which isn't surprising given your willingness to discard precedent in your Quixotic attempt to see Clinton locked up. The truly telling part is that the only places where the cases you cite come up in a search are opinion pieces. If you'd like to discuss the actual details of the cases, perhaps you should provide links to the applicable material. If you'd like to discuss the actual opinions in the cases, perhaps you should post links to those decisions rather than merely believing the opinions of the pundits who seem to have convinced you that they are applicable.

 

Dear god kid, you are still trying to spin this? Haven't you been embarrassed enough?

The classified information was removed from their proper place of custody and stored on an unclassified private server that is believed to have been compromised....and on top of that was sent to others via unclassified means. That's a violation of that statute.

Here's the statute once agian

I just sent you examples of people being imprisoned for violations of this statute without intent....and in one of those cases the judge spelled out exactly how every section of that statue should be interpreted.....and you posted a different case citing and agreeing with that interpretation.

So basically the ONLY thing we've found is judges agreeing with the interpretation I suggested....you know, when I said that words have meaning and those words were used intentionally. Either find something to refute that or find some precedent suggesting a different standard be used when it comes to the relevant section of that statute. Ironically, you keep talking about pundits, but it is abundantly clear that's where you got 100% of your opinion and all I've done is cite actual relevant precedent....in which you accidentally provided further evidence for by posting a link to another court agreeing with that interpretation.

Step your game up or bow out.