In the statute you quoted, intent is mentioned several times.
“Mentioned” it is not a required element for prosecution, all that is necessary is “gross negligence”.
No, it is a fact that in the statute you quoted, intent is required.
You have no idea what I’m talking about.
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Well one of us certainly doesn’t.
I doubt that it’s you.
Gross negligence has a legal definition. It’s not whatever Wildrose deems to be gross negligence.
You’re right I don’t have to define it, it’s defined as extreme carelessness which is exactly what she’s guilty of.
Provide the source of your definition, solicitor.
gross negligence in British
(ɡrəʊs ˈnɛɡlɪdʒəns)
noun
law
extreme carelessness that shows willful or reckless disregard for the consequences to the safety or property of another
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant’s conduct to cause the plaintiff’s injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.
When we examine the legislative and judicial history of 793(f), it’s not so simple.
This provides a primer on the section.
As noted in the IG report, the investigation examined this issue closely. Much more closely than you. Summarized as the following:
In addition, as described in Chapter Two, prosecutors reviewed the legislative history of the gross negligence provision in Section 793(f)(1) and court decisions impacting the interpretation of it. The prosecutors noted that the congressional debate at the time the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1) was passed indicated that conduct charged under the provision must be “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful.” The prosecutors also reviewed military and federal court cases and previous prosecutions under Section 793(f)(1), and concluded that they involved either a defendant who knowingly removed classified information from a secure facility, or inadvertently removed classified information from a secure facility and, upon learning this, failed to report its “loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction.” In addition, based on a review of constitutional vagueness challenges of Sections 793(d) and (e), the Midyear prosecutors observed that “the government would very likely face a colorable constitutional challenge to the statute if it prosecuted an individual for gross negligence who was both unaware he had removed classified information at the time of the removal and never became aware he had done so.”
Page 256
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
If you want Clinton to be treated the same as anyone else by the DoJ, then the decision not to prosecute is the only way to go. A decision to prosecute would be an extreme stretch, especially given that she’d only be the second civilian to ever be charged under this theory and given previous court rulings is unlikely to even be constitutional.
There’s another problem with the code. It specifically indicates that classified material is to be removed from a proper place. The emails on Clinton’s server never were in a proper place but generated outside the proper place.
I’ve made this point already, but the IG report puts it very succinctly.
We further found that the statute that required the most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section 793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has been the focus of much of the criticism of the declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just short of being willful,” as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information “knowingly” included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems.
Do you know how many people (in the history of the Espionage Act) have been prosecuted under 793(f) without intent being proven?
The answer is 0.
Yup. Don’t try to tell the “experts” here that, though.
Yes, nothing related to collusion… Those nothing burger are getting real cold.
Since Comey was using G-mail for official business you can see why he didn’t want to really investigate Hillary.
Yes, that’s true.
You literally quoted in bold the intent while claiming that intent is not there.
His legal analysis is to provide the legal standard for gross negligence . . . from an online dictionary?
Here’s the definition of criminal gross negligence from Black’s:
an act of omission or commission where a person demonstrates the willful disregard to the rights of other people that results in possible or actual harm
He doesn’t seem to understand the difference. He also seems unaware that gross negligence is a question of fact for a jury. He isn’t a jury.
He’s piggybacking on his piggybacking in order to feel good.
