1
-1

[–] 8Hz_WAN_IP 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

0
0

[–] laikaislost ago 

Saucier had intentions of sharing them. Big difference.

0
0

[–] 8Hz_WAN_IP ago 

I believe Hillary sent classified information to people without the required clearance.

1
-1

[–] intrepiddemise 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Under 18 USC 793:

"(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."

She set up a private e-mail server to do her official (and unofficial) work while acting as Secretary of State, despite knowing that there was an official option (government servers, which are required). Her use of an unsecured server to conduct official business, knowing that some of the information she received might be classified, constitutes gross negligence: by default, those classified documents were "removed from [their] proper place of custody".

If there's one thing that flies in the face of what you've said here, it's the the FBI director said that she was "extremely careless" with classified information (his exact words). However, somehow that does not qualify as "gross negligence" under 18 USC 793. He did not explain how that could be the case, and his conclusion that she should not be prosecuted seemed in direct opposition to what he had said about her right before his stated decision not to indict.

0
0

[–] laikaislost ago 

knowing that some of the information she received might be classified, constitutes gross negligence

No it doesn't. Gross negligence is a different standard. Go read up on it. Wiki has some good starting points. Cornell has good archives and a fully functional search feature.

However, somehow that does not qualify as "gross negligence" under 18 USC 793.

See above.

He did not explain how that could be the case

He did address it indirectly if you paid attention. He referenced a case that had gross negligence. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

1
-1

[–] intrepiddemise 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The FBI said in court filings that Smith carried classified documents and other sensitive records in his briefcase and sometimes left the case open and unattended while he visited her residence.

If you know anything about cybersecurity, then you know that having any classified material on an unprotected server constitutes gross negligence. To me, these two cases are very similar. Having that material on an unprotected server is the same as leaving those documents out in an unprotected room.

edit: and btw, murder does require intent. Without intent, the charge is manslaughter.