Yes, mens rea or criminal intent is one of the elements of a crime. However, it does not apply to strict liability offenses. So, the answer is YES it applies to Hillary's email case. Her defense will be that she had no intent to violate the law.

That's not likely is it. Over the years I wonder how much money has been spent on her investigations.

Not true. There is no intent needed to convict on mishandling of classified material. You would only need "intent" if you wanted to convict for something like Treason.

SF312 that she signed: (partial)

"3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me
could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I
will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by
the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States
Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting
me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of
information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a
person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from
any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the
Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized
disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the
provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50,
United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement
constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

Well the women being physically larger than men today, is not really much of an improvement in my eyes.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

40%?
There are 52% on government assistance programs...you can't shop enough at Walmart to help them.

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

She certainly is not wanting to go back to a time when you had to work to support yourself or your family.

The very reason Hillary can't lose! All they care about is that their assistance does not stop coming!

STOCK ON AMMO!

Will someone please ask Hillary.............

Someone DID and Hillary responded:

"On Tuesday, she appeared on the liberal morning TV show the View and expressed just how extreme she was again. When cohost Paula Faris wondered if Clinton’s abortion views meant that a baby, just hours before birth, had no rights at all.

Clinton responded with an emphatic “yes”.

Ain't that the truth. Viagra sales are up, so the husband can get it up, for the fat pig of a wife who disgusts him.

That's why Democrats have been winning. The minorities are beginning to outnumber us. We've given away the country to political correctness. I wonder if they'll be truthful in the history books when describing the downfall of America. "They were inundated by minorities until it all collapsed".

I doubt it, why start being honest with history now? That's why we keep getting screwed, the REAL reasons things happened in history isn't what's in the books.

I can't believe it. We agree on something.

They are on assistance because Walmart does not pay enough. Walmart calls a 28 hr work week full time. Walmart buys clothes from sweat shops directly. Once they investigate and find out it's a sweat shop using children they buy from another vendor. That vendor has the contract and sub-contracts to a sweatshop vendor all in the name of capitalism.
Attention Walmart shoppers while you are saving money you are also spending a lot of tax money and encouraging manufacturers overseas to hire children and the desperate for work people. When you get a contract with Walmart you have to guarantee the next contract will be even lower.

We're lucky we have a first amendment. I think we are heading in a very bad direction too. When enough Americans are starving I'm hoping Walmart doesn't say "We just rolled back prices on pound cake so Let them eat Sara Lee."

And Walmart forced them to take that low paying job? Is it any of your business what they get paid? Where would those same thousands of folks be working if not at Walmart? Why aren't they working somewhere else?

The only reason you feel that we are spending tax money when we shop at Walmart is because of people like you that force us to pay higher taxes to subsidize the lazy.

You speak of the 1st Amendment and then scream bloody murder at Trump's language. Get over yourself and get a job to pay for all those other libtards. You are quite willing for everyone else to ante up to support lazy. Your turn.

You live in a supposedly free country and yet you want to ban Walmart because you don't agree with their business policy. If they didn't do well, they would be out of business. NO one is forcing you to do your business there. As a matter of fact, thanks to your liberal business regulations, Walmart is losing business and closing down some of their stores. Putting thousands out of a job and onto unemployment. Congratulations libtards. I hope they raise your taxes so that you can start paying for all the damage you all do.

So your expertise would have us believe if we get a speeding ticket that a reasonable defense is that it was not my intent to speed??

Just stop and think for a minute just how stupid it sounds if you say it out loud.

Nothing but lawyerly word smithing BS!

This thread needs replaced by something of value.

I want to hear everything Trump wants to say and his wife. His language doesn't bother me, that would be hypocritical. I want to hear everything you have to say.

Otherwise how will we find the common ground?

Common ground?

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
Balanced budget?
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
Free markets?
Gun ownership as a right?
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
A strong military?

We could start there.

Don't forget freedom of speech; i.e. having a different opinion than another without being called names!

Do you believe in:

Smaller government?
no
Balanced budget?
yes
Not raising taxes disproportionately?
depends--are you talking about a flat tax? or readjusting what we have now
Free markets?
yes
Gun ownership as a right?
yes
Illegal immigration stopped and legal immigration welcome?
yes
A strong military?
strong yes

Good! You almost agree with ALL the Tea Party principles.

I'm certainly not ashamed if my principals are the same as theirs.
That's the common ground, the principles.

Read my original post. SPEEDING is a STRICT LIABILITY offense. Intent is NOT an element of strict liability offenses. What law school did you attend?

The Law School of Hard Knocks, football scholarship, center

And, his/your ignorance of the law is apparent.

And this has what to do with Hillary's felonies? Intent is not a mandatory element of ALL crimes, you know?

Intent:

Mishandling of classified information - Intent not required

Intentional and willingly mishandling of classified information - Intent required

Negligent compromise of classified information - Intent not required

Releasing classified to uncleared personnel - Intent required

====================

Murder - intent required
Manslaughter - intent not required

Get it?

This intellectual and legal research exercise should commence with a brief review of the basics of criminal jurisprudence: There are two elements of a criminal offense: the prohibited conduct as defined in statute; and the mens rea or mental intent of the individual or individuals engaging in the prohibited conduct. Thus, to gain a conviction on a criminal count in an indictment, a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the prohibited conduct occurred, (2) the prohibited conduct was undertaken by the defendant, and (3) the defendant had the requisite mens rea or intent at the time.

Read more: Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking | The Daily Caller

I didn't feel like reading the whole article. Does this apply to Hillary's charges?

Fortunately, there is NO requirement for "intent" in the commission of many crrimes, as listed in a post above. I believe mens rea means that there is a knowledge of the law at the time. Remember the old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Hillary can not clam ignorance of the law because she signed SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT. The only requirement of the FBI will be proof that a violation occurred and that Hillary was the perpetrator of the violation. No intent will be required for some of the crimes she committed. And I do not say "alleged" to have committed because proof is all over the Internet with copies of her emails. So, she is guilty of some crimes. Now, it is up to the FBI to present a case to the Attorney General, Obama's AG. The FBI can present indisputable evidence and the AG can decide not to prosecute it, or Obama can pardon her. Either way, I doubt anyone will ever see justice and the libtards will continue to deny that she did wrong. But, she will pay ultimately. If not now, then later.

"intent" as being used in the Clinton defense is pure and simple a legal wordsmith game. NOTHING MORE.

off topic

Woodward: Obama Commenting on Clinton Investigation "Proves We're In A Political Situation Now"
Woodward: Obama Commenting on Clinton Investigation "Proves We're In A Political Situation Now" | Video | RealClearPolitics

I remember being in a thread not too long ago and someone made the point that the Bob Woodwards are not around anymore. He [I think it was a he] said that politicians are not investigated like before. I'm not taking sides, it's just that he called it.

Does anyone else remember it?

She is not paying any taxes (remember she has an EBT card), she could care how much tax you pay. She is holding out for a management position, has been making contacts at the local bar on a regular basis (you have to know someone to get the good jobs...). Hey if the CEO position at GE comes available; use me as a reference I can't think of a gal more qualified, LOL

STOCK UP ON AMMO!