https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/...es-but-was

More testimony the Democrats have kept hidden. Even James Baker thought she should be indicted.

“...I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.

Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.”

He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:

“So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end....”

Unless I'm mistaken, intent isn't required. Ignorance isn't a viable excuse when it comes to classified material.

(02-21-2019 11:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Unless I'm mistaken, intent isn't required. Ignorance isn't a viable excuse when it comes to classified material.

Correct. Intent is irrelevant....its more like manslaughter---in that its more about negligence or acting in a way that fails the "reasonable man" test.

So Baker's 'revalation' is more of the same old bullshite. How did it go??? "No reasonable prosecutor, blah, blah, blah, "intent", blah, blah, blah.

Was Baker ever a prosecutor? If he was, then it sounds like Comey lied again when he said "no reasonable prosecutor would....blah blah blah Hillary"

at the end of the day, this is the biggest cover-up based on published evidence in my lifetime...

I'm begging for Bennett to sick the hounds....

this is nothing that we haven't suspected and opined about over the past three years as evidence was released....

"we're all gonna hang if that sum-biatch wins" - HRC

one can only hope for value vs. line 1b)

Since when has intent mattered??

You forget your concealed carry and take it into a bank or a school, it wont matter a hill of beans that you didnt intend any harm

Intent as I understand it should only change the charge.

Intent matters if no one got hurt. If she was intentionally reckless with classified information in a manner which could have gotten Americans hurt (it’s pretty obvious she was, but proving she was is another matter), then she can be charged. If she was merely careless and no one got hurt, then the trial wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury. With the profile that case would have and the kind of lawyers that would be brought to bear in her defense, you better be certain of a conviction before that trial ever begins.

(02-21-2019 05:10 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Intent matters if no one got hurt. If she was intentionally reckless with classified information in a manner which could have gotten Americans hurt (it’s pretty obvious she was, but proving she was is another matter), then she can be charged. If she was merely careless and no one got hurt, then the trial wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury. With the profile that case would have and the kind of lawyers that would be brought to bear in her defense, you better be certain of a conviction before that trial ever begins.

I suggest you actually read the law in question.

18 U.S.C. §793(f).

Come back to us with your book report.

(02-21-2019 03:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Since when has intent mattered??

You forget your concealed carry and take it into a bank or a school, it wont matter a hill of beans that you didnt intend any harm

or worst yet into Mexico. You'd be in a world of shiate. Even a bullet will get you time in prison...no shiate.

(02-21-2019 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:10 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Intent matters if no one got hurt. If she was intentionally reckless with classified information in a manner which could have gotten Americans hurt (it’s pretty obvious she was, but proving she was is another matter), then she can be charged. If she was merely careless and no one got hurt, then the trial wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury. With the profile that case would have and the kind of lawyers that would be brought to bear in her defense, you better be certain of a conviction before that trial ever begins.

I suggest you actually read the law in question.

18 U.S.C. §793(f).

Come back to us with your book report.

I can hardly wait for his book report.

Her intent was established when she stopped using her protected govt email and started using the private server. Everything else is add on charges.

(02-21-2019 05:10 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Intent matters if no one got hurt. If she was intentionally reckless with classified information in a manner which could have gotten Americans hurt (it’s pretty obvious she was, but proving she was is another matter), then she can be charged. If she was merely careless and no one got hurt, then the trial wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury. With the profile that case would have and the kind of lawyers that would be brought to bear in her defense, you better be certain of a conviction before that trial ever begins.

What is the highest security clearance that you have ever held? My guess is none, because you badly misstate applicable law.

And by the way, you might want to check out the difference between intent and recklessness. What blog did you get your law degree from?

(02-21-2019 11:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What is the highest security clearance that you have ever held? My guess is none, because you badly misstate applicable law.

And by the way, you might want to check out the difference between intent and recklessness. What blog did you get your law degree from?

Maybe he got it from Costco. I hear that if your parents graduated from there they'll consider you legacy let you in.

(02-21-2019 08:40 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:10 PM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Intent matters if no one got hurt. If she was intentionally reckless with classified information in a manner which could have gotten Americans hurt (it’s pretty obvious she was, but proving she was is another matter), then she can be charged. If she was merely careless and no one got hurt, then the trial wouldn’t even make it past the grand jury. With the profile that case would have and the kind of lawyers that would be brought to bear in her defense, you better be certain of a conviction before that trial ever begins.

I suggest you actually read the law in question.

18 U.S.C. §793(f).

Come back to us with your book report.

I can hardly wait for his book report.

I wouldnt set the event as an alarm for anything above 'pick your ear wax out appointment' importance...... but that's just me.....