2 ms·
Unclear why the parent deserves downvotes for the post. One of the points of criminalizing gross negligence with respect to the handling of classified informati
by phd514 10y ago
Unclear why the parent deserves downvotes for the post. One of the points of criminalizing gross negligence with respect to the handling of classified information is to remove the element of intent -- just negligence is sufficient to convict. The FBI totally side-stepped the issue in its haste to exonerate Clinton when "lesser" people have been charged for less egregious handling of classified information. I don't see how anyone can claim there was no special treatment of Clinton in this case.
- zzalpha 10y agoSee your sibling post for why the GP is not, itself, a terribly insightful comment. As for yours (which raises a very legitimate question), Vice has an article that mentions that element: http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-the-fbi-for-her-emails http://www.vice.com/read/why-clinton-isnt-being-charged-by-t... Basically, the key is that it must be deemed "intentional" or "gross" negligence, and nothing they found rose to that level (in their opinion). Of course, when mens rea is part of the sentencing criteria, there's lots of room for interpretation, which will ensure there will be a limitless source of fodder for Clinton's opponents and proponents to argue about for years to come...