(02-27-2018 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but that's just a load of bullsh.
Hillary was Secretary of State. It was her job to know better than to do this. If she didn't know, then she was derelict in her duty. And the intent required by the statute is not the intent to share it with the Russians, but the intent to put the information into the non-secure environment.
I agree that this is the kind of reasoning in which Comey engaged. I don't agree that doing so was any more appropriate than the kinds of flippant comments that you yourself decried in another recent post.

I agree fully with your statement (underlined). My points was that I don't think the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she understood the technology well enough to know/intend that the environment was not sufficiently secured.

I think that's what Comey would say. And if I were her defense counsel, that's what I would argue. But I think that's a load of hogwash. Hillary was Secretary of State, it was her job to know this. If you apply a subjective knowledge standard, maybe this flies. But if the standard is an objective "knew or should have known," no way it works.

And as Trey Gowdy pointed out, two primary indicia of intent are repeated occurrence and destruction of evidence, and both are present on these facts.

It's absolutely hogwash. Again, we are talking about Hillary Clinton -- one of the most thoroughly calculating people in modern history. As I stated earlier, there is no fact-finder in the world who would conclude that Hillary Clinton did not have the requisite intent -- which is why such extreme contortions were made to prevent it from going to a fact-finder.