General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Simple Hillary Clinton Email Defense
Intent.
The whole story revolves around intent. There is no evidence what-so-ever that Hillary mishandled classified emails with the intent to leak them to the press or any other unauthorized personnel. Although the personal server may have been ill advised (something she admits to), it was not a crime. In addition, could somebody please point to the harm this caused. Not potential harm, real harm. Even in that case, a mistake is not a crime. It's all about intent and the intentional leaking of information. That's the major difference in the Patreaus case and this one. Intentionally passing along classified information to an unauthorized person.
Case closed. Now can we move on to more important matters, like making sure we don't put the United States Government into the hands of an unhinged, incoherent, narcissistic demagogue. After all, that's the real threat to the Republic.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Stupidity/carelessneess might actually be worse than intent when it comes to voters deciding whether they should proactively put her in a position with even more access to sensitive information.
What that said, I think this will be a non-issue within a few months.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Indeed!
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)
specific intent.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-email-scandal_us_577d08f8e4b09b4c43c1a785
treestar
(82,383 posts)any office of the government or any office, subjected to the same scrutiny, would reveal errors.
sangfroid
(212 posts)The hearing and the Republican argument is not based on intent. It is based on Gross Negligence as defined in the Espionage Act of 1917, which does not require intent to transmit
spanone
(135,843 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)they are devils with silver tongues.