4 ms·

Nice propaganda. Hillary's intentions were in no way to break the law. That was very clearly declared false by the FBI.

by ztratar 10y ago

stonogo 10y ago
This is what intent to break the law looks like: http://i.imgur.com/NneHu1w.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NneHu1w.jpg I don't know what the right answer is here, but I am certain that I don't find incompetence a better excuse than malfeasance.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  > I don't know what the right answer is here, but I am certain that I don't find incompetence a better excuse than malfeasance. In the United States there are laws regarding criminal negligence, and hypothetically speaking, if someone died as a result of her criminal negligence, it would be considered criminally negligent homicide in most states and could result in prosecution and a real prison sentence. Would she ever be tried or found guilty of it? Based on the outcome so far, I doubt it; the powerful and connected rarely fall. But the standard does exist.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  1) Talking points don't contain classified information--that's why they are "talking" points. 2) Other evidence showed that this particular set of talking points ended up being sent by secure fax anyway.
  - stonogo 10y ago
    1) This is not true. 2) That's why I said this is what intent looks like -- I'm not making any claims about whether she did in fact break any laws. I have no way of knowing that.
- joering2 10y ago
  > This is what intent to break the law looks like: No it is not. "nonpaper" means scrap off all sensitive data and send it nonsecure. Comey explained what she meant in this email; long version would be: "okay, remove all the sensitive information from this note so that you can lawfully send it via non-secure line; then go ahead and do it". No intent here.
  - geofft 10y ago
    This is correct, and I'm confused that HN seems to find it downvote-worthy.
  - stonogo 10y ago
    When I worked for the State Department, that phrase meant 'digitize it'. When did the meaning change?
weaksauce 10y ago
In the evidence they found, they couldn't find sufficient intent that she intended to violate the law to suggest persecution to the DA. That's quite different than what you stated and what you posit the FBI stated. Basically the FBI wasn't a mind reader and there wasn't an email that said "hey we should do this to circumvent the foia"
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  So what is the evidence that she did have criminal intent?
  - weaksauce 10y ago
    That's actually fairly hard to prove, and it's not really the FBI's job to make that accusation. Both the Clintons are lawyers so they know what line to not cross apparently. I don't care for her and I don't care for trump either so this election is unfortunate.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- AckSyn 10y ago
  > they couldn't find sufficient intent that she intended to violate the law This is the problem. It's not their job to find intent but that a crime had been committed and she should have been prosecuted. There are literally THOUSANDS of examples where someone hadn't intended to commit a crime and were punished regardless of that citing the often quoted "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Hillary knew the law. She should have known better being in her position but she chose to circumvent the rules (for a number of reasons) and as a result the law was broken. Her escape from prosecution is nothing more than a blatant public travesty of justice.
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    "should have known better"? C'mon, it's not like she's a lawyer or anything...oh wait.
pessimizer 10y ago
The FBI was very clear: it "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them." That's not at all what you're saying. The FBI isn't full of psychics, and has no ability to detect intention or read emails that have been permanently deleted.
- comex 10y ago
  The "additional work-related emails" referred to in that statement are the "thousands" the FBI did, in fact, recover; that's how they knew they were work-related.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
I would argue that her circumvently the freedom of information laws has illegal intent. Government documents must be oreserved, and she weaseled around that. Politions' actions should be transparent, at least in a better world.
rrggrr 10y ago
Anyone who believes Hillary had no self serving design in the email scandal is not paying attention.
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
You are completely wrong about the findings about Hillary. She was not trying to break the law. She made a stupid decision, she should suffer criminal penalties for it, but she was just an idiot. Let's compare that to something that was found to have occurred with criminal intent:when the Bush administration outed the cia agent, Valerie Plame, that was a clearly intentional illegal action.

Nice propaganda. Hillary's intentions were in no way to break the law. That was very clearly declared false by the FBI.

by ztratar 10y ago

Nice propaganda. Hillary's intentions were in no way to break the law. That was very clearly declared false by the FBI.

This is what intent to break the law looks like: http://i.imgur.com/NneHu1w.jpg http://i.imgur.com/NneHu1w.jpg I don't know what the right answer is here, but I am certain that I don't find incompetence a better excuse than malfeasance.

morganvachon 10y ago
> I don't know what the right answer is here, but I am certain that I don't find incompetence a better excuse than malfeasance. In the United States there are laws regarding criminal negligence, and hypothetically speaking, if someone died as a result of her criminal negligence, it would be considered criminally negligent homicide in most states and could result in prosecution and a real prison sentence. Would she ever be tried or found guilty of it? Based on the outcome so far, I doubt it; the powerful and connected rarely fall. But the standard does exist.
snowwrestler 10y ago
1) Talking points don't contain classified information--that's why they are "talking" points. 2) Other evidence showed that this particular set of talking points ended up being sent by secure fax anyway.
- stonogo 10y ago
  1) This is not true. 2) That's why I said this is what intent looks like -- I'm not making any claims about whether she did in fact break any laws. I have no way of knowing that.
joering2 10y ago
> This is what intent to break the law looks like: No it is not. "nonpaper" means scrap off all sensitive data and send it nonsecure. Comey explained what she meant in this email; long version would be: "okay, remove all the sensitive information from this note so that you can lawfully send it via non-secure line; then go ahead and do it". No intent here.
- geofft 10y ago
  This is correct, and I'm confused that HN seems to find it downvote-worthy.
- stonogo 10y ago
  When I worked for the State Department, that phrase meant 'digitize it'. When did the meaning change?

weaksauce 10y ago

In the evidence they found, they couldn't find sufficient intent that she intended to violate the law to suggest persecution to the DA. That's quite different than what you stated and what you posit the FBI stated. Basically the FBI wasn't a mind reader and there wasn't an email that said "hey we should do this to circumvent the foia"

snowwrestler 10y ago
So what is the evidence that she did have criminal intent?
- weaksauce 10y ago
  That's actually fairly hard to prove, and it's not really the FBI's job to make that accusation. Both the Clintons are lawyers so they know what line to not cross apparently. I don't care for her and I don't care for trump either so this election is unfortunate.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
AckSyn 10y ago
> they couldn't find sufficient intent that she intended to violate the law This is the problem. It's not their job to find intent but that a crime had been committed and she should have been prosecuted. There are literally THOUSANDS of examples where someone hadn't intended to commit a crime and were punished regardless of that citing the often quoted "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Hillary knew the law. She should have known better being in her position but she chose to circumvent the rules (for a number of reasons) and as a result the law was broken. Her escape from prosecution is nothing more than a blatant public travesty of justice.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  "should have known better"? C'mon, it's not like she's a lawyer or anything...oh wait.

pessimizer 10y ago

The FBI was very clear: it "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them." That's not at all what you're saying. The FBI isn't full of psychics, and has no ability to detect intention or read emails that have been permanently deleted.

comex 10y ago
The "additional work-related emails" referred to in that statement are the "thousands" the FBI did, in fact, recover; that's how they knew they were work-related.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

I would argue that her circumvently the freedom of information laws has illegal intent. Government documents must be oreserved, and she weaseled around that. Politions' actions should be transparent, at least in a better world.

rrggrr 10y ago

Anyone who believes Hillary had no self serving design in the email scandal is not paying attention.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago

You are completely wrong about the findings about Hillary. She was not trying to break the law. She made a stupid decision, she should suffer criminal penalties for it, but she was just an idiot. Let's compare that to something that was found to have occurred with criminal intent:when the Bush administration outed the cia agent, Valerie Plame, that was a clearly intentional illegal action.