Peter Strzok gets exposed

[Sparko]

fwiw, if there is no intent in a statute, courts have 3 options:

1. Strict liability, no intent required - typical for regulatory crimes (like gun regulation, that sort of thing)
2. Read intent into the statute - for the Model Penal Code, this means subjective recklessness, which is a much, much lower level of intent than what Comey was apparently reading (he read a purpose+ intent, which is an uber-high, uber-rare level of intent*); the Model Penal Code isn't law, but most states adopt it to some degree.
3. Read no intent and strike it down as unconstitutional


*See Cheek v. United States - Cheek was let off on tax evasion because the court decided to use this almost unknown level of intent; their reasoning was basically that they wanted to avoid severely penalizing people who make honest mistakes in filing their taxes, because tax law is hopelessly complicated

Also:

18 US Code §793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having 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 to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


It mentions gross negligence, which would by definition exclude "intent" since nobody intends to be grossly negligent. So Hillary being grossly negligent with confidential information is enough. No intent needed. Comey was wrong. Not to mention he isn't a lawyer and doesn't have the authority to even make such a decision.

[Sparko]

Based on everything we know about this case, it's clear that Comey was looking for any reason at all to not indict Hillary even though people have been convicted for less.

such as that poor kid who took photos on a nuclear sub without thinking. He was prosecuted and he had zero intent.

[thewriteranon]

Also:

18 US Code §793
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having 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 to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


It mentions gross negligence, which would by definition exclude "intent" since nobody intends to be grossly negligent. So Hillary being grossly negligent with confidential information is enough. No intent needed. Comey was wrong. Not to mention he isn't a lawyer and doesn't have the authority to even make such a decision.

Negligence is a level of intent for the purposes of criminal law. It's just the lowest level, if you don't count strict liability (since strict liability really only applies to a narrow subset of crimes and the MPC and others disfavor it) However, you wouldn't be able to prosecute an attempted crime of negligence, because that is logically contradictory. Negligence only requires that it be something where the person should have known the risk.

Purpose -> "I know I am doing the thing. I want to do the thing. It is my goal to do the thing."
Knowledge -> "It is not my sole purpose to do the thing, but I know what I am doing will accomplish the thing with certainty."
Recklessness -> "I don't intend to do the thing, but I recognize there is a substantial, unacceptable chance the thing will happen [subjective], or a reasonable person would recognize the risk [objective]."
Negligence -> "I don't intend to do the thing, but I probably should know there is an unacceptable risk of the thing."

Keep them coming. I could use a review on causation.

Also, if anyone has any questions about contracts, I have that exam Friday.

[Cow Poke]

Hillary probably made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Like allowing him to remain breathing?

[Sparko]

Negligence is a level of intent for the purposes of criminal law. It's just the lowest level, if you don't count strict liability (since strict liability really only applies to a narrow subset of crimes and the MPC and others disfavor it) However, you wouldn't be able to prosecute an attempted crime of negligence, because that is logically contradictory. Negligence only requires that it be something where the person should have known the risk.

Purpose -> "I know I am doing the thing. I want to do the thing. It is my goal to do the thing."
Knowledge -> "It is not my sole purpose to do the thing, but I know what I am doing will accomplish the thing with certainty."
Recklessness -> "I don't intend to do the thing, but I recognize there is a substantial, unacceptable chance the thing will happen [subjective], or a reasonable person would recognize the risk [objective]."
Negligence -> "I don't intend to do the thing, but I probably should know there is an unacceptable risk of the thing."

Keep them coming. I could use a review on causation.

Also, if anyone has any questions about contracts, I have that exam Friday.

gotcha. Well in this case Hillary clearly was trained on how to handle classified information and she intentionally sent the emails with the classified information on them and intentionally used a private server without government level protection and she just didn't care. None of it was accidental so it falls under gross negligence. She should have known better.

[Mountain Man]

gotcha. Well in this case Hillary clearly was trained on how to handle classified information and she intentionally sent the emails with the classified information on them and intentionally used a private server without government level protection and she just didn't care. None of it was accidental so it falls under gross negligence. She should have known better.

Didn't she claim that she "forgot" her training? Is that even a plausible defense?

[Sparko]

Didn't she claim that she "forgot" her training? Is that even a plausible defense?

nope because it was her duty to remember it and keep current. Part of her job as a leader of the freaking country.

[Mountain Man]

nope because it was her duty to remember it and keep current. Part of her job as a leader of the freaking country.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ue-concussion/

She claims that a head injury essentially erased the training from her memory, and so she was unaware that she had forgotten it.

[thewriteranon]

Ah, here it is:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ue-concussion/

She claims that a head injury essentially erased the training from her memory, and so she was unaware that she had forgotten it.

I would think that would essentially be an "I didn't know" defense. Seems like mistake of governing law to me, which is actually no defense at all. Particularly when the mens rea is negligence or recklessness ("gross" negligence might conceivably be read as really recklessness).

Then again, she could be going for lack of ability to formulate mens rea. Still seem pretty tenuous, particularly with a lower standard of intent. She wasn't rendered an automaton. It would be up to the court to figure out how to read a reasonable person standard here.

[Sparko]

Ah, here it is:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ue-concussion/

She claims that a head injury essentially erased the training from her memory, and so she was unaware that she had forgotten it.

ah so she is saying she is mentally unfit to run this country.

[Sparko]

I would think that would essentially be an "I didn't know" defense. Seems like mistake of governing law to me, which is actually no defense at all. Particularly when the mens rea is negligence or recklessness ("gross" negligence might conceivably be read as really recklessness).

Then again, she could be going for lack of ability to formulate mens rea. Still seem pretty tenuous, particularly with a lower standard of intent. She wasn't rendered an automaton. It would be up to the court to figure out how to read a reasonable person standard here.

Look at you, talking all lawyery-like!

[thewriteranon]

Look at you, talking all lawyery-like!

Crimlaw final 1 week from today at 9 AM.

Lord, have mercy.

[rogue06]

ah so she is saying she is mentally unfit to run this country.

Convenient how her memory loss was so precise and happened to cover what she just happened to want to do.

[Mountain Man]

Convenient how her memory loss was so precise and happened to cover what she just happened to want to do.

It's basically Hollywood amnesia.

[Starlight]

Convenient how her memory loss was so precise and happened to cover what she just happened to want to do.

Pretty sure I've seen conservatives claiming she had massive brain damage to the point where she was completely impaired.

So your view is that she had no memory loss at all, and was lying when she herself made claims of memory loss?

Can you guys maybe discuss between yourselves and get back to me when you've made up your minds about how much memory loss / brain damage / strokes / falls etc Hillary actually had, and whether she was Definitely In No Way Impaired Or Forgetful And Totally Liable For All Actions And To Be Given No Quarter or whether she was So Impaired That She Had Massive Brain Damage And Couldn't Even Do Basic Things...

I hate Hillary as much as anyone (I loathed her during her campaign, wanted to see her locked up, and my opinion of her hasn't improved since seeing her lose to Dementia Criminal Trump given that Bernie would have easily won nor since finding out she had control of the entire DNC during the primaries and was money laundering electoral donations using it), but can we at least pretend some consistency in the claims made against her? Also, can we now proceed to wipe Hillary from our own memories and never ever talk about her or remember her again?