[snowwrestler]

When I think about Hillary's email server, which could have been hacked, I think of the State Department's email system, which we know was hacked, thoroughly, by the Russians.

If incompetence in operating unclassfied email systems on behalf of the State Department was a crime, it seems like some State IT folks would be going to jail too.

> Hillary's intentions were to circumvent FOIA rules and break the law.

One of the major findings of the FBI investigation was that she did not have criminal intent. In fact this was a major reason they recommended against prosecution.

[theandrewbailey]

> One of the major findings of the FBI investigation was that she did not have criminal intent. In fact this was a major reason they recommended against prosecution.

Snowden didn't have criminal intentions either, but many people want to prosecute him to the fullest anyway. But I also believe that Hillary's lack of charges is absolutely politically motivated. Some people are more equal than others.

[snowwrestler]

Snowden himself has stated that he knowingly and intentionally violated the law.

What he wants is an opportunity to present a whistleblower or "public interest" defense. These are affirmative defenses--you admit you committed the crime, but that you had a really good reason for doing so, which should excuse you from punishment. "Self-defense" is a well-known affirmative defense against prosecution for a violent crime.

[tootie]

You're confusing the colloquial and legal definitions. Snowden knowingly and proactively committed an illegal act. Even if he thought he was morally justified, his action was deliberate and intentional. Hillary committed an act of negligence. From a legal standpoint, she had no criminal intent and Snowden absolutely did.