(02-06-2018 08:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 04:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  it *can* be via the 'conscious disregard'; but not necessarily so.

That is simply incorrect. The difference between gross and ordinary negligence is "conscious disregard".

The real question is, did Clinton know she was violating protocol, and could it be proven that she did so knowingly?

An example in Federal law is in tax code - honest mistake on a tax return vs. deliberate miscalculation. One means you owe more money, the other is a felony.

all you have done with your example is show a difference based on scienter. deliberate == intent to.

sorry but to conflate gross negligence with intentional disregard of a standard is to say that there is no difference between an intentional standard and that of gross negligence.

you certainly can get to gross negligence through that, but it is not a fundamental necessary path. just ask any plaintiff's attorney....

I'll leave the parsing to you and the attorneys.

The fact remains that intent is a necessary element of the crime. The defense attorney would certainly argue that.

Since the word “intent” or any of its forms do not appear in the statutes, it is a difficult argument to make that intent is required. But the facts are pretty clear that the requisite intent was there. The offenses were repeated over a lengthy period of time, and there were efforts to cover them up, two primary indices of intent. And keep in mind that the requisite intent would be intent to put the information into the nonsecure environment. There is no required showing of intent to deliver the material to the enemy, or that any such material was in fact delivered.