3 ms·
It's really not conceivable to you that, given the way the law is written, her actions are not clearly illegal, while Snowden's were? The laws in question are w
by daughart 10y ago
It's really not conceivable to you that, given the way the law is written, her actions are not clearly illegal, while Snowden's were? The laws in question are written around intent, and Snowden's intent was clearly different than Clinton's.
- DominikR 10y agoI'm citing section (f) of the law: "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Gross negligence is sufficient, intent is not required.
- cookingrobot 10y agoFrom discussion about this outcome: "Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-email-scandal_us_577d08f8e4b09b4c43c1a785 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-email-sc...
- tn13 10y agoSure, poop is not same as shit as per the same lawyer.