Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin are pictured together for the first time since losing

Nomad said:
You are a fraud.

Everyone knows it, too.
Click to expand...
ROFL..at least I'm reality based and able to follow "gross negligence"=extreme carelessness".
It's fun pushing your buttons at times. I usually refrain, but when you become the Perfect Partisan Excusemaker, it's hard to resist
 
anatta said:
ROFL..at least I'm reality based and able to follow "gross negligence"=extreme carelessness".
It's fun pushing your buttons at times. I usually refrain, but when you become the Perfect Partisan Excusemaker, it's hard to resist
Click to expand...

Gross negligence is an actual criminal offense. Extreme carelessness is not.

It is nothing more than two words paired together by their speaker, obviously meant to exaggerate what actually occurred for partisan political purposes and designed to damage the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

If Comey had meant that he found evidence of "gross negligence" by Clinton, he would have phrased it that way and recommended charges be filed against her.

He even said that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD FILE CHARGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD. Yet, here you are trying to twist and use other less significant words from the same source to support your bullshit case that Clinton broke the law and committed crimes against the US.

Sorry sonny boy, but you can't have it both ways. Either Comey said she committed a crime and should be charged or he didn't.

Until you end your thick-skulled refusal to acknowledge that reality, then your claim of being "reality based" is just more of the same bullshit from you.

A reasonably intelligent child could see thru the flaws in your case.
 
Nomad said:
Gross negligence is an actual criminal offense. Extreme carelessness is not.

It is nothing more than two words paired together by their speaker, obviously meant to exaggerate what actually occurred for partisan political purposes and designed to damage the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

If Comey had meant that he found evidence of "gross negligence" by Clinton, he would have phrased it that way and recommended charges be filed against her.

He even said that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD FILE CHARGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD. Yet, here you are trying to twist and use other less significant words from the same source to support your bullshit case that Clinton broke the law and committed crimes against the US.

Sorry sonny boy, but you can't have it both ways. Either Comey said she committed a crime and should be charged or he didn't.

Until you end your thick-skulled refusal to acknowledge that reality, then your claim of being "reality based" is just more of the same bullshit from you.

A reasonably intelligent child could see thru the flaws in your case.
Click to expand...
As mentioned Comey described her behavior as "extreme carelessness".
As I referenced from QUORA -the legal language is identical
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-di...-by-Director-Comey-regarding-Hillary’s-emails
I see no obvious distinction between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “gross negligence” as “a lack of slight diligence or care.” In other words, one is grossly negligent when one is careless in the extreme
Click to expand...


Here is the actual Comey redact:https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Click to expand...
so you are correct he finds no clear evidence of "intent"-but I've already shown you that subsection does NOT REQUIRE INTENT.

The rest of your blathering I will not bother with except
by Nomad
If Comey had meant that he found evidence of "gross negligence" by Clinton, he would have phrased it that way and recommended charges be filed against her.
Click to expand...
is clearly a false premise in that gross negligence is the same legal definition of a crime - even if not worded that way in the statute itself. The statute relies on the behaviors -one and the same.
 
oh and he said:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...
not
by Nomad
He even said that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD FILE CHARGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD.
Click to expand...
there is plenty of evidence,and he also said administrative sanctions were doable.
She only escaped by "intent"- and as other sources have shown that is not a requirement either.
 
Nomad said:
Depends upon the officer charging the driver and what other behavior the driver was engaging in, like swerving in and out of traffic, skidding around corners, jumping curbs, smoking the tires etc, etc.

If the driver was on a basically straight line highway with no other traffic around or residential areas close by, maintaining control of the vehicle by staying in one lane and not exhibiting any other behavior that could be considered reckless, then it would most likely be a very expensive speeding ticket.

And speeding is the offense we're discussing here, not criminally reckless behavior.

Also, for all you low IQ conservative Hillary despisers, handling and mishandling secret govt information, particularly electronically transmitted information, is much a more complex situation than how fast one operates a motor vehicle. Many things have to be taken into consideration prior to filing criminal charges against someone who failed to follow to the letter, govt data transmission guidelines, the main one being intent. If someone committed a simple oversight, like failing to notice a small letter (c) at the beginning of a paragraph and transmitted that data to an authorized recipient over an unsecured server, that would be totally different than intentionally handing over printed paper documents to a female reporter one was screwing on the side, or a foreign agent, etc., for the intentional purpose of disclosing secret info to an unauthorized recipient. It is even different than "accidentally" taking unauthorized paper documents home in violation of the law.

You people are just so desperate to create some phony justification for the way HRC was railroaded by the sleazeball, gutter politics right, that you stoop to these absurd depths of idiocy in your attempts.

Like trying to compare speeding with emailing govt data.

Morons.
Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to hide your ignorance in long winded diatribes; because all you have to do is tell me what State / city you live in and I'll present the codes from that area.
Reckless driving doesn't mean that you have to be swerving in and out of traffic, skidding around corners, jumping curbs, smoking the tires etc, etc.

Your inability to be honest, is noted though. :good4u:
 
anatta said:
Comey used that term -not an opinion. It is a descriptive phrase of her behavior.
If you want to argue extreme carelessness is not the same as gross negligence, you'd be hard pressed to show any daylight between the phrases.
++
fr Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-di...-by-Director-Comey-regarding-Hillary’s-emails
++
The definition of gross negligence is admittedly vague, making it difficult at times to determine when someone crosses the line between mere negligence (a failure to exercise ordinary care, or, more colloquially, an unjustified mistake) and its more serious cousin.

Still, I see no obvious distinction between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “gross negligence” as “a lack of slight diligence or care.”
Click to expand...

anatta said:
As mentioned Comey described her behavior as "extreme carelessness".
As I referenced from QUORA -the legal language is identical

Here is the actual Comey redact:https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

so you are correct he finds no clear evidence of "intent"-but I've already shown you that subsection does NOT REQUIRE INTENT.

The rest of your blathering I will not bother with except
is clearly a false premise in that gross negligence is the same legal definition of a crime - even if not worded that way in the statute itself. The statute relies on the behaviors -one and the same.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...

not

He even said that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD FILE CHARGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD.
Click to expand...

there is plenty of evidence,and he also said administrative sanctions were doable.
She only escaped by "intent"- and as other sources have shown that is not a requirement either.
Click to expand...

Dude, you are becoming a real bore. This is getting monotonous, just like playing with any stubborn dog who refuses to let go of the tennis ball gets after awhile.

From Media Matters:

According to Comey, "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."*[Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System, Federal Bureau of Investigation,*7/5/16]
Click to expand...

So the issue was also one of LEGAL PRECEDENT. No case with the same or a similar set of circumstances had ever been prosecuted before.

Furthermore:

ABC’s Dan Abrams: Prosecuting Clinton Would “Warp The Intent And Interpretation” Of The Law.*In February, ABC News’ legal analyst Dan Abrams explained that prosecuting Clinton for “gross negligence” regarding her emails “would … warp the intent and interpretation” of existing law, which requires both “intent” and “bad faith” to prove a violation of the Espionage Act:

"Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody?” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.

In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and over-broad. The answer was no only because:

“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same). Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as:

* * *“A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”

As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

[/B]“Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”[/B]

That is another critical point here. [/B]This Espionage Law clearly was never intended to address a Secretary of State using — foolishly or even improperly to maintain her privacy — a personal email server to send and receive emails.[/B] Inevitably, this novel use of the law would leave a political stink. Efforts to compare this situation to other cases that have been prosecuted also fail on the facts. [ABC News,*2/1/16]
Click to expand...

http://mediamatters.org/research/20...inton-emails-fbi-specifically-rejected/211352
Click to expand...

So, as far back as 1941 the SCOTUS ruled that in order to prosecute under the Espionage Act, there was in fact, a requirement of malicious intent to harm the nation.

Period.

The rest of your blathering I will not bother with except...

oh and he said:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...

not

He even said that NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD FILE CHARGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Too funny how, when it suits your bullshit argument, exact wording suddenly counts, but when it comes to Comey's description of what Clinton did, "....well this can mean that, etc, etc.".

Look up the definition of the word "paraphrasing" dipshit.

Then give it up.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You seem to be trying to hide your ignorance in long winded diatribes; because all you have to do is tell me what State / city you live in and I'll present the codes from that area.
Reckless driving doesn't mean that you have to be swerving in and out of traffic, skidding around corners, jumping curbs, smoking the tires etc, etc.

Your inability to be honest, is noted though. :good4u:
Click to expand...

It depends on one or more of many other factors other than simple speeding, though.

Your inability to be honest, is noted though. :good4u:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Still evading the easiest way to resolve this, HUH. :good4u:
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
lol....show me which of her emails weren't sent to someone.....
Click to expand...

tumblr_mogkmaler71rjcfxro1_400.gif


So..... many..... pesky..... gnats..... must...... swat......
 
Nomad said:
Dude, you are becoming a real bore. This is getting monotonous, just like playing with any stubborn dog who refuses to let go of the tennis ball gets after awhile.

From Media Matters:

So the issue was also one of LEGAL PRECEDENT. No case with the same or a similar set of circumstances had ever been prosecuted before.

Furthermore:

So, as far back as 1941 the SCOTUS ruled that in order to prosecute under the Espionage Act, there was in fact, a requirement of malicious intent to harm the nation.

Period.

The rest of your blathering I will not bother with except...



Too funny how, when it suits your bullshit argument, exact wording suddenly counts, but when it comes to Comey's description of what Clinton did, "....well this can mean that, etc, etc.".

Look up the definition of the word "paraphrasing" dipshit.

Then give it up.
Click to expand...
media matters?? I'll stick with Blacks law dictionary thank you. At least you've come around to the idea that Comey's phrase of "extreme carelessness" is the same as "gross negligence as shown by the QUORA link.

I can't quote your quote boxes,and if you're too lazy to put them into usable format, i'm not going to use my time to to it.
But quoting media maters and Dan Abrams is of little value - especially when we do have case law that shows intent is not needed.
(Dog's link's earlier page -i showed 2 of them)

Further the 1941 case,,what is it? I see no reference to the title of the case.
So how do I know that ruling was only on subsection(f)(1). In all cases subsection 2 requires intent.
If you want to paraphase- fine - but mention that, especially if you are making a legal argument
But i am looking only at subsection 1 - that is a stand alone subsection that does not require intent.

Comey is a fine investigator,and I do not disagree with any of his findings -but he's not a prosecutor.
Even showing extreme carelessness to secrecy is reprehensible by Clinton -especially when she set up the private server
for her own secrecy protection.She put her needs above those of her office of Sec of State.

at minimum she needed to be subject to administrative sanctions. State dept didn't even sanction her for any classification
violations, of which there are many ( intent or not).

Fortunately "we the people" gave her the ultimate sanction and denied her Office of President.
Instant karma maybe, but good enough to keep her out of DC-so it did all work out in that respect.
 
anatta said:
media matters?? I'll stick with Blacks law dictionary thank you. At least you've come around to the idea that Comey's phrase of "extreme carelessness" is the same as "gross negligence as shown by the QUORA link.

I can't quote your quote boxes,and if you're too lazy to put them into usable format, i'm not going to use my time to to it.
But quoting media maters and Dan Abrams is of little value - especially when we do have case law that shows intent is not needed.
(Dog's link's earlier page -i showed 2 of them)

Further the 1941 case,,what is it? I see no reference to the title of the case.
So how do I know that ruling was only on subsection(f)(1). In all cases subsection 2 requires intent.
If you want to paraphase- fine - but mention that, especially if you are making a legal argument
But i am looking only at subsection 1 - that is a stand alone subsection that does not require intent.

Comey is a fine investigator,and I do not disagree with any of his findings -but he's not a prosecutor.
Even showing extreme carelessness to secrecy is reprehensible by Clinton -especially when she set up the private server
for her own secrecy protection.She put her needs above those of her office of Sec of State.

at minimum she needed to be subject to administrative sanctions. State dept didn't even sanction her for any classification
violations, of which there are many ( intent or not).

Fortunately "we the people" gave her the ultimate sanction and denied her Office of President.
Instant karma maybe, but good enough to keep her out of DC-so it did all work out in that respect.
Click to expand...

I quoted the 1941 SCOTUS ruling that said intent is a requirement for prosecution under the Espionage Act.

All the rest of your spin is meaningless drivel.

You lose.
 
Nomad said:
That was nothing more than an exaggeration of the facts done for political purposes and to throw the rabid, mouth-foaming, Hillary hating dogs a nice, meaty bone to chew on.
Click to expand...

Just when I thought you couldn't make more excuses for the left.
 
Nomad said:
I quoted the 1941 SCOTUS ruling that said intent is a requirement for prosecution under the Espionage Act.

All the rest of your spin is meaningless drivel.

You lose.
Click to expand...

Since Hillary lost, that means you, as a Hillary supporter, lost. All the rest is meaningless drivel.

It's going to be hilarious watching all you snowflakes squirm and whine the next four years.
 
CFM said:
Since Hillary lost, that means you, as a Hillary supporter, lost. All the rest is meaningless drivel.

It's going to be hilarious watching all you snowflakes squirm and whine the next four years.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

The fun part is going to be watching you rightie apologists try to spin for this clown show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top