Hillary and her her Apologists were acting like she was not guilty because she did not have criminal intent... that dog no longer hunts... . Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Latin for "guilty mind"[1][2][3]) in criminal law, is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latinphrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/ After one of the 2011 hack attempts Mrs. Clinton’s tech staffer shut the server down for a few minutes, hoping that would solve the situation, but quickly warned top aides not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive” after the attempted breach, according to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times. After another suspicious attempt Mrs. Clinton said she was scared to open email — but failed to report the matter. “Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” the investigators said. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.” At one point in 2010, Mrs. Clinton’s emails were ending up in subordinates’ spam filters because they were coming from a non-state.gov account. One of her top aides urged her to sign up for an official account or letting everyone in the department know of her address so she could be added as a verified account, but she refused, saying she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible.” http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds-n580131 Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds The State Department's auditors challenge some of the fundamental assertions Clinton has been making about why her use of personal email for government business was not improper. A federal law requires the preservation of government records, and Clinton has said that since most of her emails were sent to people on the State Department system, she was complying. But the audit says that "sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a federal record." Clinton has also said her use of a personal email server did not violate the rules at the time. READ: FBI Has Interviewed Clinton Aides Over Email Investigation The audit says that none of the senior State Department officials in charge of information security were asked to approve Clinton's email arrangement. They would not have done so if asked, they said, according to the audit. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on during a campaign event on May 24, 2016 in Commerce, California. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images The report shows that Clinton was concerned about her personal emails messages becoming part of the public record. In November 2010, Clinton aide Huma Abedin said they should "talk about putting you on state email," because her private server emails were not always being received. Clinton replied: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible." The audit says that some State Department officials tried to offer different solutions to Clinton's email situation but were rebuffed. At one point, an official suggested Clinton carry two devices, but that suggestion was rejected. Two information technology officials who support the secretary raised concerns about Clinton's use of personal email in late 2010 and raised the issue with their boss, the audit says. The director of the unit that supported the secretary's information technology "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/ Supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to ask the equivalent of ‘What difference does it make?’with regard to the former Secretary of State’s use of a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. Meanwhile, many investigative reporters are combing through federal rules and regulations to discover what criminal charges Clinton could face for her actions. Here are the three most frequently cited laws that appear to have been violated by Clinton: 1. Mishandling Classified Information Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle: “‘By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,’ Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters. ‘This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.’” Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch’s security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information. Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email. 2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.” According to the original story on Clinton’s emails published in The New York Times: “Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record. In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.” The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton’s private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information. 3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used: “‘At this point in time, I think we’re the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,’ Arends said of his group’s Benghazi-related request.” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA: “‘Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.'” [mga_video id=8oBEhNirSSg] These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. More information will be provided as this story continues to develop.
by the way when she says she does not want her personal accessible. Think about what that means. it means the Clinton Foundation's collection of money for services rendered against our country.
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse... I was driving the kids to school I heard the LA station talking about this. I think it was Handle. He was grilling someone in the studio... saying that hillary said she didn't know. Does she have to know every rule at the state dept, Handel asked? The lady who did not like hillary said she should have known. Does that make criminal intent? The lady said I did not say it was criminal. Very sneaky. I know he is smart. He knows that the criminal intent we talk about in the law... is the criminal intent to commit the unlawful act. its not the intent to break the law. (see below) I am sure you will see Hillary defenders pull that same trick. That is wrong. The State dept report shows hillary had the intent to put her info on a private server that action was illegal and never authorized. She says she did it because she did not want people to see her personal conversations. That is the mens rea for breaking multiple laws mentioned above. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html Intentional versus Unintentional Intentional harmful behavior is often criminal, but unintentional harmful behavior comes in two basic forms. The first is "mistake in fact" and the second is "mistake of law". Mistake in fact means that, although your behavior fit the definition of a crime in an objective sense - you sold illegal drugs for instance - you were unaware that what you were selling was in fact an illegal drug. For example, if you gave someone a bag full of white powder in return for some money and honestly thought it was baking soda, then you are mistaken as to a fact that is critical to the crime. As a result, you likely lack the necessary mens rea or mental intent necessary under a drug law, because you never intended to sell an illegal drug, you intended to sell baking soda (note that almost no one will believe you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money). Mistake of law however, will almost never save you from criminal liability. Almost everyone is familiar with the phrase that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and that's exactly how the law sees it. Perhaps in the above example, you did know that what you were selling was cocaine, but you honestly thought that it was legal to do so. It doesn't matter. It may seem slightly unfair that the person who was essentially dumb enough to believe that the white powder was baking soda gets off, but the well intentioned person who honestly thought it was legal to sell cocaine doesn't get off. The justification for having no tolerance for ignorance of the law is that allowing ignorance of the law as a defense would discourage people from learning the law and seriously undermine the effectiveness of the legal system. Strict Liability No Mens Rea Required Finally, there are some criminal laws, called strict liability laws, that don't require any mens rea at all. These laws are justified by claiming that no matter what you intended, the act itself deserves criminal punishment. Many strict liability laws involve minors, such as laws prohibiting "statutory rape" and the sale of alcohol to minors. It doesn't matter that you may have honestly thought that the minor was over 18 in the case of statutory rape, or over 21 in the case of selling alcohol. These laws often seem harsh, but the underlying theory behind it is the protection of the minor over the possible innocence of the defendant. - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...dant-s-mental-state.html#sthash.Oe2B3LMA.dpuf