Whoa, whoa, whoa. Cajun, you're making this way too...I dunno what to call it, but just stop. I'm not trying to be short, but I'm going to be blunt. Here is a list of what I am NOT arguing:
I am not arguing that Hillary was not grossly negligent.
I am not arguing that her gross negligence cannot be proven.
I am not arguing that any kind of intent is required for anything.
I am not arguing what constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence.
I am not arguing Hillary is innocent.
I really don't think I'm being unclear, but you simply can't stay on topic. Again, if it's because I'm a sloppy writer, I apologize, but I am arguing one and only one thing:
Gross negligence is an element of the crime that a prosecutor would need to prove in order to find her guilty. He can't simply ask the jury to assume the negligence on the basis of the act. If a judge allowed that, said judge would essentially be writing the language about gross negligence clean out of the statute. Because the language is in the statute, it is part of the crime that needs to be proven.
This is it. This is all I am arguing, and all I have been arguing with you.
When a crime has multiple elements, a prosecutor must prove all of them. Period. This is not something different lawyers have reasonable disagreements about. This is like arguing whether or not there is gravity. If a crime has 10 elements, and the prosecutor only proves 9 of them, the defendant walks. Every. Single. Time.
Fine Goat. I will acknowledge I have been redundant in my post.
Your five
bold points is almost a contradiction to earlier statements you made in this long thread. You indicated you didn't feel she would be indicted and that
you doubted she is criminally culpable for any of these
supposed national security violations.
"supposed national security violations".........How could you possibly think supposed? For example if you answered all the questions I posed in the previous post honestly it certainly points to numerous and serious security violations of Fed statutes and protocols. I understand her presumed innocence and all of this and that proven is the key word. Someone most certainly violated security protocols and statutes regarding same. Someone did
I wasn't trying to irritate you by any means. I think you meant to be very clear and perhaps to another lawyer you might well have been. You have to talk down to us layman. But on second thought some of our other Cooler attorneys feel much differently than you and some should be considered highly qualified.
If you don't want to respond further no problem.
You advise that the material on her computer could be the evidence but it does nothing to prove the required mental culpability. Your five statements in
bold indicate and open mind and imply that you feel she might be grossly negligent and it could be proven, that intent might not be required, and finally Hillary just might be guilty. Or at a minimum you suggested it. Much of this we argued.
I think it simply boils down to this comment you used,
"the material on her computer could be the evidence but it does nothing to prove the required mental culpability". I reviewed several legal sites and the follow definition was the same in all of them:
"Culpable mental state" means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence. It goes on to describe each of those parts.
No argument sir but
suppose you were the prosecutor in her case if indicted. Specifically how would you prove she was criminally negligent??
Assuming this definition is correct: "Criminal negligence" means, with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
I don't think it difficult proving she is in fact a reasonable person and that she was trained on the protocols and statutes and she signed documents stating she was and she told the media she accepted the responsibility. And frankly how could anyone do the job without it involving security issues.
Knowingly also points out that it does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the
act or
omission.
Oh well sir don't worry about a response. I to am burned out. I did enjoy our conversations very much. Thank you sir.