Is Hillary Clinton In Violation Of The Espionage Act Regarding Her Private Servers And Devices In Handling "Top Secret" Information?

Arcangl86 · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
Please post the case name and it's ruling in opinion regarding the espionage act you have claimed multiple times, waiting?

Sure.

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.

"The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. "

The scienter requirement in general is a major part of criminal law.

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
Sure.

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.

"The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. "

The scienter requirement in general is a major part of criminal law.

Thanks for the response, the case you provide has a "specific" ruling and opinion surrounding the "dissemination or distribution" of classified info to unauthorized agents, where "intent" is taken into account

In the case of Hillary Clinton the case surrounded her "Handling" of classified information outside its proper place of custody, and no "Intent" is needed to violate the law seen below

Once again, Hillary Clinton (removed/handled) classified top secret information (outside its proper place of custody) on her unsecured private server and devices of communication, that should have been in secure government servers and devices of communication that are the proper place of custody

Conclusion: Distribution And Handling, Apples And Oranges

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) 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.

Arcangl86 · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
Thanks for the response, the case you provide has a "specific" ruling and opinion surrounding the "dissemination or distribution" of classified info to unauthorized agents, where "intent" is taken into account

In the case of Hillary Clinton the case surrounded her "Handling" of classified information outside its proper place of custody, and no "Intent" is needed to violate the law seen below

Once again, Hillary Clinton (removed/handled) classified top secret information (outside its proper place of custody) on her unsecured private server and devices of communication, that should have been in secure government servers and devices of communication that are the proper place of custody

Conclusion: Distribution And Handling, Apples And Oranges

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f) 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.

There is no case law on section (f) because nobody has ever been convicted on it. But it's quite clear that the espionage act as a whole has a scienter requirement, otherwise the whole idea of "national defense information" would be considered to be unconstitutionally vague.

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
There is no case law on section (f) because nobody has ever been convicted on it. But it's quite clear that the espionage act as a whole has a scienter requirement, otherwise the whole idea of "national defense information" would be considered to be unconstitutionally vague.

There isn't a requirement for "intent" regarding handling of classified information, it's either mishandled or not, it's that simple

Hillary Clinton "handled" top secret information outside of its proper place of custody on her private server as explained several times

James Comey in his investigation never once used the word "Intent" because it didn't apply, he used the words "Gross Negligence" as it's written exactly in the law, and he then downgraded this to "Extremely Careless" to let Hillary off the hook without charge or prosecution, in the two tiered injustice system in America (Just4Us)

"Gross Negligence" In "Handling" no "Intent" needed

We have run about the bush several times, the horse is dead, thanks for the conversation

The Hill

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

BY JOHN SOLOMON - 11/06/17

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been “grossly negligent” in handling classified information, newly reported memos to Congress show.

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

The change is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.

Arcangl86 · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
There isn't a requirement for "intent" regarding handling of classified information, it's either mishandled or not, it's that simple

Hillary Clinton "handled" top secret information outside of its proper place of custody on her private server as explained several times

James Comey in his investigation never once used the word "Intent" because it didn't apply, he used the words "Gross Negligence" as it's written exactly in the law, and he then downgraded this to "Extremely Careless" to let Hillary off the hook without charge or prosecution, in the two tiered injustice system in America (Just4Us)

"Gross Negligence" In "Handling" no "Intent" needed

We have run about the bush several times, the horse is dead, thanks for the conversation

No really, it's not that simple and I you why it's not. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean it's legal. The SCOTUS has found that the term "national defense information" would be unconstitutionally vague with out a intent requirement. It's like if Congress passed a law saying that Christianity was illegal. The text would be clear, but that doesn't mean that's how the law would be implied because it would be against the constitution.

If you can show me some legal experts that agree with you, I'll take a look at it but everyone I've found points to Gorin.

And of course, there is also the question of why staunch conservatives such as Comey and Barr didn't pursue this if it was as clear cut as you seem to think.

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
And of course, there is also the question of why staunch conservatives such as Comey and Barr didn't pursue this if it was as clear cut as you seem to think.

James Comey and Bill Barr let Hillary off the hook without charge or prosecution, in the two tiered injustice system in America (Just4Us)

We Disagree

Gregory Thompson · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
They are consistently applied, "They" get a ticket to freedom, and "We" get a ride to jail

Two tier (Injustice ) or (Just4Us)

And yes I also believe in justice applied consistently, something intangible in our present world

So back to my original comment, I can agree if Donald and Hillary be convicted for the same crime. I would rather wait until Biden is no longer shielded by the presidency to be convicted.

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

Michael Collum said:
So back to my original comment, I can agree if Donald and Hillary be convicted for the same crime. I would rather wait until Biden is no longer shielded by the presidency to be convicted.

I desire to see Donald J. Trump in the white house in Jan 20th 2025, I believe his charges are a political hit job, to remove him from the 2024 election

No different than Georgia or New York, a clear biased platform to remove him from the 2024 election

Amazing how they waited for his announcement on his running for the 2024 presidential bid, then all these charges came out of the wood work, smiles!

The favored republican candidate for President by far, and they wait years to prosecute, timed perfectly with his announcement for his Presedential bid, Banana Republic

Arcangl86 · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
James Comey and Bill Barr let Hillary off the hook without charge or prosecution, in the two tiered injustice system in America (Just4Us)

We Disagree

Why? Why would they let her off the hook? Especially with a large part of Donald Trump's campaign being "Lock her up"?

SimplyMe · Jul 13, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
No really, it's not that simple and I you why it's not. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean it's legal. The SCOTUS has found that the term "national defense information" would be unconstitutionally vague with out a intent requirement. It's like if Congress passed a law saying that Christianity was illegal. The text would be clear, but that doesn't mean that's how the law would be implied because it would be against the constitution.

If you can show me some legal experts that agree with you, I'll take a look at it but everyone I've found points to Gorin.

And of course, there is also the question of why staunch conservatives such as Comey and Barr didn't pursue this if it was as clear cut as you seem to think.

Don't forget Sessions in that list -- since he was Trump's first AG. It is odd how Pres. Trump only appoints the "best people" and yet Trump ends up calling them dumb and worthless when thy leave or are fired. It is also reported by those in Trump's administration that he was frequently telling his AGs to prosecute Hillary; odd that they never did, if they really thought she was guilty and it would be easy to get a conviction.

Truth7t7 said:
I desire to see Donald J. Trump in the white house in Jan 20th 2025, I believe his charges are a political hit job, to remove him from the 2024 election

No different than Georgia or New York, a clear biased platform to remove him from the 2024 election

Amazing how they waited for his announcement on his running for the 2024 presidential bid, then all these charges came out of the wood work, smiles!

The favored republican candidate for President by far, and they wait years to prosecute, timed perfectly with his announcement for his Presedential bid, Banana Republic

Actually, you have that backwards. Trump declared his campaign much earlier than normal, earlier than anyone else, precisely so that he knew the indictments were coming. The investigations didn't start as soon as he declared, they essentially started around the time he left the Presidency.

DaisyDay · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
You forgot Joe Biden, he's in the classified documents ringer to?

Do we have a two democrats for one republican deal this week?

On one count, there is Biden who physically possessed documents outside his term of office as did Trump (who went a few steps further and denied that he had them) and Pence and on another, there are Clinton, Powell and Rice who conducted government business on a private server (and to a lesser extent, Ivanka and Kushner who used private email for government business. By my count, we have two Democrats to 4 or more Republicans.

That is silly anyway because what Donald has been arrested for is not mere possession - and you know this

Pommer · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
James Comey and Bill Barr let Hillary off the hook without charge or prosecution, in the two tiered injustice system in America (Just4Us)

We Disagree

I get it.
You’re concerned because you disagree with how “the system works”.

Gregory Thompson · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
I desire to see Donald J. Trump in the white house in Jan 20th 2025, I believe his charges are a political hit job, to remove him from the 2024 election

No different than Georgia or New York, a clear biased platform to remove him from the 2024 election

Amazing how they waited for his announcement on his running for the 2024 presidential bid, then all these charges came out of the wood work, smiles!

The favored republican candidate for President by far, and they wait years to prosecute, timed perfectly with his announcement for his Presedential bid, Banana Republic

Odds are, based on polls, that if someone resides in the USA, they have a strong leaning towards one of the parties and a strong hate towards the other one.

I'm sure the Democrats just as strongly support their candidates in all their blunders also.

SimplyMe · Jul 13, 2023

Michael Collum said:
Odds are, based on polls, that if someone resides in the USA, they have a strong leaning towards one of the parties and a strong hate towards the other one.

I'm sure the Democrats just as strongly support their candidates in all their blunders also.

Eh.. it seems like roughly a third of us are disillusioned with both parties and their candidates and want better choices (but end up being forced to pick the 'lesser of two evils').

Gregory Thompson · Jul 13, 2023

SimplyMe said:
Eh.. it seems like roughly a third of us are disillusioned with both parties and their candidates and want better choices (but end up being forced to pick the 'lesser of two evils').

Exactly, those who don't vote don't appear in the dichotomy.

SimplyMe · Jul 13, 2023

Michael Collum said:
Exactly, those who don't vote don't appear in the dichotomy.

Not sure what makes you think people like me don't vote. I vote, even though it tends to be, as I mentioned, for the lesser of two evils.

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
Why? Why would they let her off the hook? Especially with a large part of Donald Trump's campaign being "Lock her up"?

We Disagree, The Horse Is Dead

Truth7t7 · Jul 13, 2023

SimplyMe said:
Actually, you have that backwards. Trump declared his campaign much earlier than normal, earlier than anyone else, precisely so that he knew the indictments were coming. The investigations didn't start as soon as he declared, they essentially started around the time he left the Presidency.

"False"

DA Alvin Bragg in New York to mention one denied to prosecute Trump prior to his presidential run announced Nov 15, 2022

Alvin Bragg in Mar 2023 announced his prosecution of Donald J. Trump, after Nov 15, 2022 in a direct attempt to stop his bid for president, it's that simple

SimplyMe · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
"False"

DA Alvin Bragg in New York to mention one denied to prosecute Trump prior to his presidential run announced Nov 15, 2022

Alvin Bragg in Mar 2023 announced his prosecution of Donald J. Trump, after Nov 15, 2022 in a direct attempt to stop his bid for president, it's that simple

Not quite. Trump brought a case against the Trump Organization in 2021 but said that a second case, likely one that would have focused on Donald specifically, was not ready for prosecution. As Bragg stated at the time, “I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed.” He did not, however, close the case.

Per a Reuter's timeline, shows that Pomerantz resigned in February 2022 -- but Bragg's office stated the investigation was still ongoing. The Trump Organization was found guilty of fraud in December of 2022, right afterward is when Bragg presented his case against Trump to a grand jury. As I stated, all of these investigations pre-date Trump's announcement -- Trump announced his run early (Nov, 2022) rather than spring or summer 2023 because he knew the indictments were coming.

NxNW · Jul 13, 2023

Truth7t7 said:
Obviously she wasn't charged or prosecuted, she was let off the hook based upon a two tier system of justice and favoritism, (injustice) or (Just4Us) take your pick

I don't see anything about gross negligence in the official version. Try again.

Is Hillary Clinton In Violation Of The Espionage Act Regarding Her Private Servers And Devices In Handling "Top Secret" Information?

Newbie

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.​

Newbie

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.​

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information​

Newbie

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information​

Newbie

The Hill​

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails​

Newbie

​

Newbie

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Senior Veteran

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.

Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) 27-28.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

The Hill

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails