Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Well, considering IGreenwal’m not likely to debate him it’s somewhat pointless to deal in hypotheticals.
I didn't "intend" to deal with the notion. I said that I would like to see it--which was inspired by your "not sure what he's thinking" comment re Greenwald's article. He knows more about the subject than you do.
In all the cases he cites though there is evidence on intent to harm the US, willful hoarding of sensitive data or behavior with sensitive data that is contrary to the job that gave access to the information. With Clinton you have none of those. She wasn’t prosecuted because according to a Republican there wasn’t a prosecutable case. They tightened up the rules around use of email regardless after the fact...the investigation clearly found the protocols were not in step with the times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
He cited two cases where there was no evidence of intent to distribute the info, and there was a case afterwards of the young submarine sailor who was prosecuted for taking photos of his ship even though there was no evidence that he intended to harm the U.S.
In all cases, there was the mishandling of classified information. Intent to distribute or harm was not necessary for prosecution. Those would be the motivation for mishandling. The negligent mishandling was the common thread. And it was all that was necessary for conviction.
Clinton dangerously mishandled classified information. Her motivation or intent were irrelevant. She put the U.S. in far greater danger than the two Naval officers that Greenwald cited, and than the young submarine sailor. And who were all convicted for their inappropriate handling of information and who had no "intent" to distribute it in any way that would harm the country.