Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: WaPo/CNN ran a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has [View all]
LiberalArkie
(19,529 posts)163. I had a friend who accidentally dropped papers "to be shredded and incinerated" into the recycled
sealed disposal containers. Someone simply stopped to ask him some questions and he turned and dropped then into to wrong container. He called security and explained the problem and they came and emptied the recycled container into the shread and burn container. He was let off because he had no intent to dispose of the documents incorrectly.
More than likely the "mens rea" is what got him off. The guy that there before him had to serve time for improper disposal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
169 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
WaPo/CNN ran a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has [View all]
leveymg
May 2016
OP
"Close to the investigation" is rhetoric. Does it mean in the same room or same city or
rhett o rick
May 2016
#54
I had a friend who accidentally dropped papers "to be shredded and incinerated" into the recycled
LiberalArkie
May 2016
#163
Pathetic Sanders acolytes clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination
redstateblues
May 2016
#151
I've been here a decade longer than you, and no one has ever accused me of being RW.
leveymg
May 2016
#10
Silly and foolish laypersons are funny when they attempt to understand the law
Gothmog
May 2016
#119
Funny how conservatives will post an article that includes spin, but when the spin lie is
rhett o rick
May 2016
#23
Bravo! Ignoring and minimizing this issue will only make things worse if and when the FBI announces
merbex
May 2016
#156
How is it slander? I assume you accepted the article that said there was "scant evidence", the
rhett o rick
May 2016
#25
I like "sole intent" as if you can devine that. I believe Hillary's sole intent is to amass
rhett o rick
May 2016
#29
Somebody posted a video yesterday of Hillary from 2008 saying she wasn't going to use email
BernieforPres2016
May 2016
#7
The parts of this that didn't hurt my brain to read, I am in total agreement with.
pdsimdars
May 2016
#9
Just like her little "out" tag of "as far as I know." All she knows how to do is spin.
GreenPartyVoter
May 2016
#21
Under your sad but wrong analysis talking about NYT articles on drones is illegal
Gothmog
May 2016
#125
Even Fox News is not stupid enough to believe that there will be an indictment
Gothmog
May 2016
#133
Those handling confidential information are trained extensively on how to recognize
rhett o rick
May 2016
#34
And of course the Secretary of State is going to GENERATE a lot of classified communication
BernieforPres2016
May 2016
#40
First of all she is trained and fully knows what is and isn't confidential.
rhett o rick
May 2016
#51
Interesting that those that don't handle confidental information think lawyers know all.
rhett o rick
May 2016
#138
It is even more interesting seeing laypersons attempting to understand legal concepts
Gothmog
May 2016
#150
Just like there's "no malicious intent" when someone cheats on their spouse. .
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2016
#39
No, the law is clear and it is the silly attempts of laypersons to understand the law that is wrong
Gothmog
May 2016
#127
Everything they say seems possible to parse. The communications seem intended to obsfuscate
HereSince1628
May 2016
#56
"Scant Evidence" under the Law Means "No Evidence" ie Insufficient Evidence to Meet Burden of Proof
Stallion
May 2016
#68
leveymg, I think you are right about the word "scant," also about "intended."
Peace Patriot
May 2016
#71
The difference between intended and not intended is only which felony to charge her with. nt
leveymg
May 2016
#73
Of course I don't admit that; I am trying to show how you are arguing different things
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#143
Well in a civil society we have a free exchange of ideas over whether public officials break the law
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#146
I agree. It is fine to argue that she should be indicted (it is how I read it)
JonLeibowitz
May 2016
#148
I read it is dangerous to interrupt a person when he or she is dreaming.
DemocratSinceBirth
May 2016
#88
Couldn't "scant" mean the ONE SAP email (Special Access Programs).
Waiting For Everyman
May 2016
#110
Anyone who has mentioned that we operate drones in Pakistan has revealed an SAP
Recursion
May 2016
#169
Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. It won’t matter.
Gothmog
May 2016
#140
Pathetically, Sanders' acolytes are clinging to Bernie's only path to the nomination-
redstateblues
May 2016
#152
Give it up. You have lost and you're not going to win this way. This is pathetic.
pnwmom
May 2016
#164