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
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: Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]Gothmog
(144,939 posts)53. Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required
Your are consistent in that your analysis is always wrong. The Politico article clear debunks your amusing layperson claim that no mens rea is required to bring an indictment under the applicable laws. The Politico article clearly outlines the fact that showed that Petraeus intended to violated the law including using covert means to deliver additional top secret information to his mistress http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B0AP5ctL
Wehner's affidavit also says both Broadwell and Petraeus acknowledged during the cyberstalking investigation that "they used covert methods" to keep in touch, including a variety of email accounts and "pre-paid cellular telephones," commonly called "burner" phones.
The FBI also said they were not confident they had located all the email accounts because both the general and his biographer said "they could not recall all the account names which they created and used to communicate."
The affidavit could also revive questions about whether Petraeus and other senior officials are treated too leniently in investigations about mishandling classified information. The FBI submission says investigators were pursuing potential felony violations of the Espionage Act provision barring unlawful communication of national defense information and retaining classified information without permission.
The misdemeanor plea deal reached with Petraeus after intense negotiations left some in the FBI and some prosecutors angry that the former general had gotten off too easy, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B6R2Kg1R
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
The FBI also said they were not confident they had located all the email accounts because both the general and his biographer said "they could not recall all the account names which they created and used to communicate."
The affidavit could also revive questions about whether Petraeus and other senior officials are treated too leniently in investigations about mishandling classified information. The FBI submission says investigators were pursuing potential felony violations of the Espionage Act provision barring unlawful communication of national defense information and retaining classified information without permission.
The misdemeanor plea deal reached with Petraeus after intense negotiations left some in the FBI and some prosecutors angry that the former general had gotten off too easy, the Washington Post reported earlier this year.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fbi-petraeus-shared-top-secret-info-with-reporters-224023#ixzz4B6R2Kg1R
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Even with the clear and convincing evidence of intentional violations of the law and steps to hide such violations, Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. Petraus knew that he was breaking the law by the use of these burner phones and secret e-mail accounts and yet got off easy.
I am always amused when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. The article cited in the OP does not support the OP's silly theories and in fact guts the OP's rather silly theory that culpable mental state or mens rea is not relevant. Again, the FBI found no intent and so there will be no indictment. The analysis in the OP nearly cost me a keyboard that I was laughing so hard at this OP that it hurt.
I was planning on posting this article when time permitted because this article does such a great job of documenting why intent to violate the law was so clearly documented in this case.
Again, thanks for the laughs. The indictment fairy is not going to bail out Sanders
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
168 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
Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]
leveymg
Jun 2016
OP
It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening.
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#121
It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#131
To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#30
No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#66
No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you.
Separation
Jun 2016
#140
One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#33
She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The
leveymg
Jun 2016
#67
I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#134
This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party...
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#71
Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#159
With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#7
It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#13
Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails
NWCorona
Jun 2016
#17
We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#18
Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#26
The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#29
You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#49
So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#54
Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#111
You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#115
I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI
leveymg
Jun 2016
#93
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#104
Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author-
leveymg
Jun 2016
#23
I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not)
DCBob
Jun 2016
#27
It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are:
jonno99
Jun 2016
#52
His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#96
I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#107
The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue
leveymg
Jun 2016
#112
1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#39
This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#73
Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#89
We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have
leveymg
Jun 2016
#95
The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting.
sharp_stick
Jun 2016
#61
Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#83
honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#101
As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling
leveymg
Jun 2016
#108
Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#68
Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal
leveymg
Jun 2016
#98
Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#53
Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793
leveymg
Jun 2016
#77
The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#78
When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world....
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#90
The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#97
That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies
leveymg
Jun 2016
#123
Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert"
leveymg
Jun 2016
#129
I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document
leveymg
Jun 2016
#79
so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa
Sunlei
Jun 2016
#63
Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy.
think
Jun 2016
#106
+1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#120
No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#133
I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence.
napi21
Jun 2016
#139
It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#158
I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours
leveymg
Jun 2016
#138
Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys,
leveymg
Jun 2016
#147
So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server?
pdsimdars
Jun 2016
#165