Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
Thu Jul 7, 2016, 07:56 AM Jul 2016

A Simple Hillary Clinton Email Defense

Intent.

The whole story revolves around intent. There is no evidence what-so-ever that Hillary mishandled classified emails with the intent to leak them to the press or any other unauthorized personnel. Although the personal server may have been ill advised (something she admits to), it was not a crime. In addition, could somebody please point to the harm this caused. Not potential harm, real harm. Even in that case, a mistake is not a crime. It's all about intent and the intentional leaking of information. That's the major difference in the Patreaus case and this one. Intentionally passing along classified information to an unauthorized person.

Case closed. Now can we move on to more important matters, like making sure we don't put the United States Government into the hands of an unhinged, incoherent, narcissistic demagogue. After all, that's the real threat to the Republic.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Simple Hillary Clinton Email Defense (Original Post) louis c Jul 2016 OP
Republicans aren't really looking for prosecution. They want to damage her candidacy. MadDAsHell Jul 2016 #1
Stupidity/carelessneess might actually be worse than intent AlbertCat Jul 2016 #2
The law doesn't require intent. DesMoinesDem Jul 2016 #3
This one does louis c Jul 2016 #8
I agree - another witch hunt treestar Jul 2016 #4
I am watching sangfroid Jul 2016 #5
that's exactly what comey said when he exonerated her the other day spanone Jul 2016 #6
you didn't just watch a Repub lawyer in Congress twist intent into a noose librechik Jul 2016 #7
 

MadDAsHell

(2,067 posts)
1. Republicans aren't really looking for prosecution. They want to damage her candidacy.
Thu Jul 7, 2016, 09:45 AM
Jul 2016

Stupidity/carelessneess might actually be worse than intent when it comes to voters deciding whether they should proactively put her in a position with even more access to sensitive information.

What that said, I think this will be a non-issue within a few months.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
4. I agree - another witch hunt
Thu Jul 7, 2016, 10:31 AM
Jul 2016

any office of the government or any office, subjected to the same scrutiny, would reveal errors.

 

sangfroid

(212 posts)
5. I am watching
Thu Jul 7, 2016, 11:01 AM
Jul 2016

The hearing and the Republican argument is not based on intent. It is based on Gross Negligence as defined in the Espionage Act of 1917, which does not require intent to transmit

librechik

(30,674 posts)
7. you didn't just watch a Repub lawyer in Congress twist intent into a noose
Thu Jul 7, 2016, 11:26 AM
Jul 2016

they are devils with silver tongues.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Simple Hillary Clinton ...