(10-31-2016 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, the evidence is there. What I said. And the details he recited at length, fulfill the elements of several different crimes.
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges." In other words, prosecutorial discretion. What I said.

No, the evidence was not there to bring charges, as he stated in the second paragraph:
"we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."
You're right that they saw evidence of mishandling classified info, but just mishandling classified information is not enough to break a law. They needed to find evidence of intent, which they couldn't.
I guess both of us see what we want to see.

Actually, no, they don't need to find evidence of intent. There are 4 applicable statutes--18 USC Sections 793, 794, 798, and 2071.

Section 793 is a felony (10 years). It has six separate parts, a) through f), plus g) which is a conspiracy section. Parts a) through c) require "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Hillary probably did not possess that level of intent, but note that it is intent or reason to believe, and she almost certainly met the reason to believe standard. Parts d) and e) require "reason to believe." Part f) has two subparts requiring either "gross negligence" or " 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." I think Comey's "extreme carelessness" fulfills the "gross negligence" standard, and regardless, she clearly would have had knowledge that the information had been illegally removed and she failed to report it.

Section 794 is the big felony (up to life). It does require intent to deliver to the enemy. Hillary is probably not guilty of any part of this section.

Section 798 is a felony (10 years). It requires " knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information." It is limited in scope generally to cryptosecurity and communications intel information. I don't know whether Hillary had access to anything that would constitute communications intel, or any of the other listed types of information to which this statute applies, but I would put the odds of her having communications intel information somewhere well north of 50/50. If so, then placing the information on an non-secure server or communicating it over a non-secure link would clearly fit "knowingly and willingly...transmits or otherwise makes available."

2071 is a felony (up to 3 years). It applies to anyone who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office" or "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same." Here the intent required is simply the intent to remove or destroy the materials. Hillary clearly meets the required elements here. Note also that this is not in the espionage section, and does not require that the information be related to national security, so pretty much everything on the server, classified or not, would be covered here. Note also that the destruction part (part 2) includes a prohibition against holding future US office.

I can see a reason for prosecutorial discretion. Juries don't like to convict or hold liable defendants (other than large corporations) where no showing of intent is made or required. To get a conviction under any of the above sections would require a considerable jury education process. That could provide a legitimate basis for prosecutorial discretion. That doesn't mean she is not guilty, that doesn't mean that the elements required to establish the violation have not all been brought forward. It means it would be hard to win a case with a jury that doesn't understand the statutes. This is not a problem in court martials, because the panel would all clearly understand the applicable statutes and regulations. But I can see it being a big problem with a civilian jury.

Bottom line: RTFS.