4 ms·

No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all. (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with

No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all. (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense 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, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;

sbuttgereit 10y ago
Gross negligence doesn't require intent. My original quote was, in fact, one of the parts of the law that mattered, but there was another: 18 U.S.C. § 1924. In July of 2015, the DoJ pursued another case, bearing similarity to Clinton's, against Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy Reservist. Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel. In this case there was also a finding of no intent, and yet they pursued the case. And there were conseqences: U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance. Really the main difference is that my original posting was for a felony charge and 1924 is a misdemeanor. For reference: DoJ Announcement https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-na... The Charges https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/641316/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/641316/download

sbuttgereit 10y ago

Gross negligence doesn't require intent. My original quote was, in fact, one of the parts of the law that mattered, but there was another: 18 U.S.C. § 1924. In July of 2015, the DoJ pursued another case, bearing similarity to Clinton's, against Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy Reservist. Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel. In this case there was also a finding of no intent, and yet they pursued the case. And there were conseqences: U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance. Really the main difference is that my original posting was for a felony charge and 1924 is a misdemeanor. For reference: DoJ Announcement https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-na... The Charges https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/641316/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/641316/download