(02-06-2018 06:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's the problem with all the discussion of intent. Read the statute. You're missing a key point.
Under 793f, the criminal act is causing the material to be placed into an unsecure environment. If you want to postulate that "intent" is implied by "gross negligence" (which is not settled), then the only intent that is required is the intent to commit the illegal act, i.e., to put the classified material into the unsecure environment. You don't have to intend for it to be hacked by the Russians or anyone else.
Was the material classified?
Did you know, or should you have known, that it was classified?
Did you put, or cause it to be put, into an unsecure environment?
Did you intend to put, or cause it to be put, into that unsecure environment?
That's it. Slam dunk guilty. I don't see how the answer to any of those questions can be "no." Do you?
And even if Hillary could answer "no" to any of those questions, there is clearly someone on her staff who could not. Send that person away to Leavenworth for 40.

793f is a bit different. It never mentions "unsecure" storage places. Instead it mentions a "proper place of custody" as well as being "illegally remove" from said proper place. So the question would be whether there could be intent to show that Clinton was intentionally trying to store classified material in an improper place.
IIRC, when she became SOS, the law had not caught up about the inability to use a private server when she started her role. And it also wasn't as if all of the emails she received were classified (especially at the time of receiving them). Had she developed a separate server just for classified documents, I think you would see that intent was obvious. Instead, it's likely classified emails were caught up in a wide net - a negligent action, but as Comey said, not a grossly negeligent one.
I also came across this article that digs into this issue a bit more. It references a 1941 Supreme Court case which deals with this section. And in that decision, Justice Reed basically stated that one needs to intend to get sensitive material into the hands of others, and simply mishandling sensitive material was not sufficient to charge someone with a crime.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-in...nton-case/

By definition an unsecure server would not be a "proper place of custody" so your question would be whether Clinton intended to remove it from a secure place to an unsecure server.

As far as Gorin, the issue raised by the defense was that the statue was vague because Gorin could not determine whether the material was harmful to the US or not. And the scienter argument referenced in the article is addressed to the issue of vagueness. Without scienter the person could not be held with knowledge that the material was harmful to the US.

Here's where that training I mentioned comes in. You get extensive training on what is and is not detrimental to the interests of the US, and to what extent. Therefore the vagueness argument does not apply. That gets to the question I raised earlier, if Hillary blew off the training, do we hold her to the standard of someone who completed it? I don't know the answer to that.

if she blew off training that seems to be a concious disregard of a standard in and of itself