• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ignorance of the law

L

lefty louie

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
2,435
Reaction score
357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Huma Abedin was found to have a computer that contained thousands of e-mails, many "classified", it was released that they didn't prosecute her because they felt "She didn't know she was breaking the law."

Well since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? (assuming I buy that BS theory)

I can hear lawyers all over the country now, I invoke the "My client didn't know he was breaking the law".

Cut and Paste from another site
 
Ignorance of the law is not the best defense, and I wouldn't bank on it myself if I were accused of a crime. Nonetheless, ignorance of the law isn't unheard of as defenses ago. We can see an ongoing example of that right now, with the question of obstruction of justice as committed by trump, it may seem like a relatively straightforward thing to look at what trump has done and see his actions as working to derail and obstruct justice, yet it can't be overstated how important it is for Mueller to establish guilty and deliberate intent in obstructing justice. What we know of ignorance of the law aside, if Mueller is unable to establish that, it's unlikely he would be able to get an indictment and/or sentence of guilt.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread moved from Breaking News
 
“With respect to Ms. Abedin in particular we didn’t have any indication that she had a sense what she was doing was in violation of the law – couldn’t prove any criminal intent,” he told the Senators.

With all due respect this story was playing on my radio this morning WCBS station 100 wins.
 
lefty louie said:
Huma Abedin was found to have a computer that contained thousands of e-mails, many "classified", it was released that they didn't prosecute her because they felt "She didn't know she was breaking the law."

Well since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? (assuming I buy that BS theory)

I can hear lawyers all over the country now, I invoke the "My client didn't know he was breaking the law".

Cut and Paste from another site
Click to expand...

I think the main thing that changes thing is

The emails weren't marked as classified, though the FBI later found classified information contained in some emails recovered from Weiner's laptop.
Click to expand...

It means the emails that she forwarded were mis classified. .. but not by her.
 
lefty louie said:
Huma Abedin was found to have a computer that contained thousands of e-mails, many "classified", it was released that they didn't prosecute her because they felt "She didn't know she was breaking the law."

Well since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? (assuming I buy that BS theory)

I can hear lawyers all over the country now, I invoke the "My client didn't know he was breaking the law".

Cut and Paste from another site
Click to expand...

Fits right in with the Hillary defense. On that one she was deemed too stupid to have broken the law. It works when you're near the top of the political class.
 
Lutherf said:
Fits right in with the Hillary defense. On that one she was deemed too stupid to have broken the law. It works when you're near the top of the political class.
Click to expand...

It works, when the emails do not have 'Confidential' on the top and are mislabeled. If the emails were properly classified, then that would have been a point.
 
RAMOSS said:
It works, when the emails do not have 'Confidential' on the top and are mislabeled. If the emails were properly classified, then that would have been a point.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how classified material works, and anyone who believes so should have their clearance revoked.
 
Taylor said:
No, that's not how classified material works, and anyone who believes so should have their clearance revoked.
Click to expand...

https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/basic-marking-requirements-email.pdf

Classification Management Training Aid 2.5
Basic Marking Requirements for E
-
Mails
32 CFR Part 2001, “Classified National Security Information”
§2001.23(a), Classification marking in the electronic environment, states:
General. Classified national security information in the electronic environment shall be:
(1) Subject to all requirements of the Order.
(2) Marked with proper classification markings to the extend that such marking is practical, including portion marking, over
all
classification,
“Classified by,” “Derived from,” “Reason” for classification (originally classified information only), and “Declassify On.”
§2001.23(b), Marking on classified e
-mail messages, states:
(1)
E- mail transmitted on or prepared for transmission on classified systems or networks shall be configured to display the overall
c
lassification
at the top and bottom of the body of each message. The overall classification marking string for the e
-mail shall reflect the c
lassification of
the header and body of the message. This includes the subject line, the text of the e
-mail, a classified signature block , atta
chments,
included messages, and any other information conveyed in the body of the e
-mail.
(2)
Classified e
-mai
l shall be portion marked. Each portion shall be marked to reflect the highest level of information contained in that portion.
(3)
A classified signature block shall be marked to reflect the highest classification level markings of the information containe
d i
n the
signature
block itself. (NOTE: most signature blocks are unclassified.)
(4)
Subject lines shall be portion marked to reflect the sensitivity of the information in the subject line itself and shall not
ref
l
ect any
classification markings for the e
-mail content or attachments. Subject lines and titles shall be portion marked before the subj
ect or title.
(5)
For a classified e
-mai
l, the classification authority block shall be placed after the signature block, but before the overall cl
assification
marking string at the end of the e
-mail.
(6)
When forwarding or replying to an e
-mai
l, individuals shall ensure that, in addition to the markings required for the content of
the reply or
forward e
-mail itself, the markings shall reflect the overall classification and declassification instructions for the entire st
ring of e
-mails and
attachments. This will include any newly drafted material, material received from previous senders, and any attachment
Click to expand...
 
lefty louie said:
Huma Abedin was found to have a computer that contained thousands of e-mails, many "classified", it was released that they didn't prosecute her because they felt "She didn't know she was breaking the law."

Well since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? (assuming I buy that BS theory)

I can hear lawyers all over the country now, I invoke the "My client didn't know he was breaking the law".

Cut and Paste from another site
Click to expand...

This "Ignorance of the law" issue is multi-faceted. I observe that Police often shoot people because they "fear for their life," often when the victim is unarmed. Ergo, "fear for your life"is a fine legal argument if you kill a cop or two. Perhaps that is what happened near Denver, or not? Since the Police shoot more civilians than anybody else, I think it is reasonable to fear for your life when the Police come knockin'. Same as it is OK for a cop to shoot one or two of you, then it would be OK to shoot one or two cops, just until the fear has subsided, don't ya' know?
/
 
Taylor said:
No, that's not how classified material works, and anyone who believes so should have their clearance revoked.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what you mean. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information that didn’t posses the legally mandated classification markings. Somebody definitely broke the law regarding those emails, but it was whoever removed the classification markings in order to email it on a non-secured system.
 
lefty louie said:
Huma Abedin was found to have a computer that contained thousands of e-mails, many "classified", it was released that they didn't prosecute her because they felt "She didn't know she was breaking the law."

Well since when is ignorance of the law an excuse? (assuming I buy that BS theory)

I can hear lawyers all over the country now, I invoke the "My client didn't know he was breaking the law".

Cut and Paste from another site
Click to expand...

You've confused two different issues here. The phrase "ignorance of the law" means ignorance of what the law says--that is, ignorance of what is legal and what is illegal. I cannot murder someone and claim I'm innocent because I didn't know it is illegal to murder.

Ignorance of the law is not the same, however, as ignorance that you've broken the law. I may purchase a guitar from a pawn shop, unaware that it was stolen. It is illegal to receive stolen goods, and I know it is illegal to receive stolen goods. However, I don't know the guitar is stolen--and my claiming that I don't know the guitar is stolen is not the same as claiming ignorance of the law.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m not sure what you mean. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information that didn’t posses the legally mandated classification markings. Somebody definitely broke the law regarding those emails, but it was whoever removed the classification markings in order to email it on a non-secured system.
Click to expand...

My problem with this whole thing is this BS intent thing.
If that is the new standard by which we do it then that makes any type of law enforcement impossible.

I didn't intend to speed.
I didn't intend to hit that car
I didn't intent to rob that guy.

When you then add equal protection clauses to is stuff it gets a bit out there.
The law wasn't designed to be subjective of intent.

Given her status she is responsible for all communication on her laptop that it is secured.
The fact she was letting an unauthorized person use it makes it even worse.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m not sure what you mean. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for mishandling classified information that didn’t posses the legally mandated classification markings. Somebody definitely broke the law regarding those emails, but it was whoever removed the classification markings in order to email it on a non-secured system.
Click to expand...
Classified markings are not what makes information classified. I can be prosecuted for things I say or do or write, etc. There is no "removal of classification markings" required.
 
Taylor said:
Classified markings are not what makes information classified. I can be prosecuted for things I say or do or write, etc. There is no "removal of classification markings" required.
Click to expand...

If you know it is classified, which you usually would. However, if the first and one only time you ever encounter a particular bit of information is in an email with no classification marking and you pass it on or keep it on an unclassified system, you will NOT be held legally responsible. You wouldn’t even be disciplined. The culpability buck stopped with the person who removed the classification marking and then put the information on an unclassified system. Now, if you want to criticize the investigation for appearing not to go after that person I am right there with you.

And unlike most of the things I say here at DP, in this case I am not speaking out of my ass. During my two decades working at embassies one of my additional duties was information security officer for all DoD elements attached to the embassy. I conducted numerous investigations regarding “leakage” and mishandling of classified information. I have a lot of problems with many aspects of that whole investigation. I definitely believe Hillary had that server in order to get around accountability regulations. And I don’t believe for one second that she didn’t know it wasn’t allowed. And I have little doubt that Abedin was privy or an accomplice to some nefarious acts. I’m just saying in this specific instance, she doesn’t appear culpable.
 
Taylor said:
Do you think there's a "classification fairy" that reads everything that Huma puts down in an email, waves a magic wand, and classification markings appear to let poor, clueless Huma know whether she can send the information home?
Click to expand...

AH. Sarcasm, without reason or justification. Do you like being a political hack?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom