4 ms·

> she committed a clear crime here False. https://archive.is/FM1US https://archive.is/FM1US > “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmi

by d23 4y ago

> she committed a clear crime here False. https://archive.is/FM1US https://archive.is/FM1US > “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations. There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails-051380 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/state-department-hi... > “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” the report said.

pc_edwin 4y ago
I didn't mean to get into the politics of it, I was using the case as an example where Comey went as far as setting a new precedent of "intent" as the standard of prosection in order to avoid the prosecution and impacting the election. Mishandling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Here's a short summary of chatGPTs take: > This statute does not require that the person transmitting the information have a specific intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government; > Additionally, under 18 U.S. Code § 1924, it is a federal crime to knowingly remove classified material from its proper place of custody or to transmit it to an unauthorized person, regardless of whether there is any intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > a new precedent of "intent" I'm confused by this. Intent is a well considered and discussed topic in the legal system. People are charged for entirely different crimes based upon intent (for example, murder vs homicide) and sometimes won't even be charged (for example, in an instance of a vehicle accident causing death).
  - pc_edwin 4y ago
    The key is "as the standard of prosecution". They could've still prosecuted her and gave her a slap on the wrist. This is what they would've done to anybody a level or two beneath her but Comey set a new precedent that the standard to prosecute would be intent. This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      > This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute. According to most legal experts I've heard from that's not actually the case. Declassification is a process that must be gone through and it's not just an "at-will" activity[1]. I also believe that, if charges do come about, it will be an attempt to prove that the documents Trump hid were repeatedly and willfully withheld, which, given his unwillingness to work with and repeated lying to the government, does seem to be the case. Again, intent. [1] The American Bar Association: "In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said." https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
      - d23 4y ago
        I appreciate the attempt, but this poster has already resorted to posting ChatGPT responses, so I don't think it's worth the effort. They aren't serious responses. And actually, I just noticed they're ban evading and using ChatGPT to write all their responses, because apparently, HN is too PC for their edgy takes.

by d23 4y ago

pc_edwin 4y ago

I didn't mean to get into the politics of it, I was using the case as an example where Comey went as far as setting a new precedent of "intent" as the standard of prosection in order to avoid the prosecution and impacting the election. Mishandling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Here's a short summary of chatGPTs take: > This statute does not require that the person transmitting the information have a specific intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government; > Additionally, under 18 U.S. Code § 1924, it is a federal crime to knowingly remove classified material from its proper place of custody or to transmit it to an unauthorized person, regardless of whether there is any intent to harm the United States or aid a foreign government.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
> a new precedent of "intent" I'm confused by this. Intent is a well considered and discussed topic in the legal system. People are charged for entirely different crimes based upon intent (for example, murder vs homicide) and sometimes won't even be charged (for example, in an instance of a vehicle accident causing death).
- pc_edwin 4y ago
  The key is "as the standard of prosecution". They could've still prosecuted her and gave her a slap on the wrist. This is what they would've done to anybody a level or two beneath her but Comey set a new precedent that the standard to prosecute would be intent. This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > This is why they can't prosecute trump for the files at Mara-lago, besides the (very reaosnable) argument that he was the president so be definition anything he takes home should be deemed unclassified, Comey set the precedent of intent so if they cant prove intent they cant prosecute. According to most legal experts I've heard from that's not actually the case. Declassification is a process that must be gone through and it's not just an "at-will" activity[1]. I also believe that, if charges do come about, it will be an attempt to prove that the documents Trump hid were repeatedly and willfully withheld, which, given his unwillingness to work with and repeated lying to the government, does seem to be the case. Again, intent. [1] The American Bar Association: "In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said." https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
    - d23 4y ago
      I appreciate the attempt, but this poster has already resorted to posting ChatGPT responses, so I don't think it's worth the effort. They aren't serious responses. And actually, I just noticed they're ban evading and using ChatGPT to write all their responses, because apparently, HN is too PC for their edgy takes.