4 ms·

What "law" are you talking about? Because I was referring to the general, long established rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

by dmfdmf 10y ago

What "law" are you talking about? Because I was referring to the general, long established rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law. Try your "knowingly and willfully" argument with a cop or with the IRS and see how far that gets you. It doesn't work that way and you know it, they proceed with the ticket or the tax + penalties and the courts back this procedure up. The point of my comment is that Clinton broke the law and mishandled classified information. Anyone who accepts that responsibility has to accept the consequences, even if they "didn't mean it", of failing to protect the info.

archgoon 10y ago
The laws that would be used to classify Clinton as a criminal for leaking classified information. What other laws would be relevant? The one I've heard cited is this one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
djur 10y ago
Some crimes are defined by intent. Look up "mens rea". It's what distinguishes manslaughter from murder, for instance. Federal law distinguishes between accidental mishandling and intentional leaking of classified material. The former is what Hillary Clinton did. The latter is what Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
- dmfdmf 10y ago
  I am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car in the rain on bald tires you don't get a pass because you "didn't mean it". Comey made a recent speech and basically said the evidence shows that Clinton violated the laws regarding the handling of classified material but we aren't going to charge her. If it was due to incompetence or brain seizures or an honest mistake or selling out her country for financial gain, these are separate questions apart from the fact that a crime was committed and that she did it (or was complicit).
  - djur 10y ago
    That isn't true. Most crimes require mens rea of some kind. This can include intent (I'm going to kill that guy with this brick), recklessness (I'm going to toss this brick out the window, who cares if it hits anyone), negligence (I'm going to put this teetering pile of bricks on the windowsill over a busy street, hope nobody knocks it over), and some others. This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind". "Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
    - ascagnel_ 10y ago
      Another important caveat is that Clinton, as far as we know, hadn't intended to leak or otherwise share classified information. While the server may not have been up to State Department security standards, it was not there with the intent to disseminate classified material to anyone without clearance.

by dmfdmf 10y ago

archgoon 10y ago

The laws that would be used to classify Clinton as a criminal for leaking classified information. What other laws would be relevant? The one I've heard cited is this one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

djur 10y ago

Some crimes are defined by intent. Look up "mens rea". It's what distinguishes manslaughter from murder, for instance. Federal law distinguishes between accidental mishandling and intentional leaking of classified material. The former is what Hillary Clinton did. The latter is what Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

dmfdmf 10y ago
I am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car in the rain on bald tires you don't get a pass because you "didn't mean it". Comey made a recent speech and basically said the evidence shows that Clinton violated the laws regarding the handling of classified material but we aren't going to charge her. If it was due to incompetence or brain seizures or an honest mistake or selling out her country for financial gain, these are separate questions apart from the fact that a crime was committed and that she did it (or was complicit).
- djur 10y ago
  That isn't true. Most crimes require mens rea of some kind. This can include intent (I'm going to kill that guy with this brick), recklessness (I'm going to toss this brick out the window, who cares if it hits anyone), negligence (I'm going to put this teetering pile of bricks on the windowsill over a busy street, hope nobody knocks it over), and some others. This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind". "Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    Another important caveat is that Clinton, as far as we know, hadn't intended to leak or otherwise share classified information. While the server may not have been up to State Department security standards, it was not there with the intent to disseminate classified material to anyone without clearance.