quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

He most certainly did not say that in his correct recitation of the law.

Then he spelled out, in some detail, evidence of myriad examples of gross negligence and acts undertaken with constructive knowledge, in violation of said law.

Finally, he said FBI was not recommending charges because they did not find evidence of intent - not because they needed it.

DO NOT PARAPHRASE INACCURATELY. Playing fast and loose with language is how the left performs their best spin.

-Rob

I understand that you're an attorney, but so are the myriad of FBI employees who worked on the case.

As an attorney, what is your understanding of the distinction between negligence and gross negligence?

Equal justice under the law. Not.

I am confident if I had done what that person did, I'd be in a Federal cage for a long time.

I just watched on TV as AF1 taxied down the runway with Obama and Hillary onboard to begin their campaign trip. What a disgusting scene to watch.

I don't think it's with intent, that showpro gives all of us the finger...

It's worth whatever you donate to get this email. It brightened my day:

"Thank you for your generous donation to elect Donald Trump as our next president.

This is not just an election. It’s a fight for the heart and soul of our country.

And with your contribution, we’ll be able to combat the mainstream media’s lies, stop Crooked Hillary from ever setting foot in the White House, and WIN the fight to Make America Great Again!

We will never forget your support.

Thank you,

Team TRUMP"

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't think it's with intent, that showpro gives all of us the finger...

Like other trolls, shopro lives for the anger he stirs up. Ignore him. Everytime I type his name, autocorrect changes it to "shopworn." Autocorrect has it right.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I don't think it's with intent, that showpro gives all of us the finger...

Wait, what?

John Gibson (Fox Radio Talk Show Personality) is making the case that Comey chose to not decide the upcoming election and turned the case over to the voters.

In layman's parlance, he "took a dive."

Here's one thing I can agree with Paul Ryan on:

Link

quote:

"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

He said very clearly why he didn't bring charges:

quote:

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.

We do ourselves no favors to continue to hold on to false hopes about crap like this. If you want to defeat Hillary, get out and work to defeat Hillary. Donate to Trump. Whatever it takes. But continuing to spin on this stuff is a waste of time.

I've watched it happen with the birth certificate thing.

And with the Obamacare at the SCOTUS thing and all its ongoing wishes for magical retraction.

And this.

The way to beat these people is at the ballot box. Expend your energy there, if that's what you want to happen. Wishing for some scandal or court ruling or the magical powers of DJT to save you isn't going to work.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

He most certainly did not say that in his correct recitation of the law.

Then he spelled out, in some detail, evidence of myriad examples of gross negligence and acts undertaken with constructive knowledge, in violation of said law.

Finally, he said FBI was not recommending charges because they did not find evidence of intent - not because they needed it.

DO NOT PARAPHRASE INACCURATELY. Playing fast and loose with language is how the left performs their best spin.

-Rob

I understand that you're an attorney, but so are the myriad of FBI employees who worked on the case.

As an attorney, what is your understanding of the distinction between negligence and gross negligence?

So as not to reinvent the wheel, I copy and paste for you, the following:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

The actual definitions and criteria are somewhat context dependent, but the bottom line is that gross negligence exceeds ordinary negligence by some measure.

I would also point out that the second statute he quoted up front (the misdemeanor) requires merely knowledge of the act.

As far as your comment about "continuing to spin on this stuff" being a waste of time, you are likely correct that thousands of pages of outrage on various internet forums won't accomplish anything directly, but you seem to be taking an approach 180 degrees opposite - namely, to accept without question, discussion, or critical analysis, the conclusions and talking points of those on the left, and simply move on.

If you don't want to be bothered with the discussion, I would respectfully suggest (and I do mean it respectfully) that you are wasting your own time hanging out in this particular thread.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
He said very clearly why he didn't bring charges:

quote:

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.

We do ourselves no favors to continue to hold on to false hopes about crap like this. If you want to defeat Hillary, get out and work to defeat Hillary. Donate to Trump. Whatever it takes. But continuing to spin on this stuff is a waste of time.

I've watched it happen with the birth certificate thing.

And with the Obamacare at the SCOTUS thing and all its ongoing wishes for magical retraction.

And this.

The way to beat these people is at the ballot box. Expend your energy there, if that's what you want to happen. Wishing for some scandal or court ruling or the magical powers of DJT to save you isn't going to work.

Your work here appears to be done. Hillary appreciates your continued support.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Federal Law: Title 18. Section 2071

Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.

Such as, say, President of the United States .

"If you do this or that bad thing, you've essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world," said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.

Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.

For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States .

Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States ."

Shouldn't voters know that? The media isn't telling them. So it's up to us.

I keep getting this in an e-mail. Would you litigators please attest to its truthfullness?? Thanks!

So far, at least, we continue to cling to the old fashioned notion that the penalties mentioned in those sections require conviction before they are invoked.

It may be that a public trial would involve security revelations which are unpalatable. Quite a few of these cases are not undertaken for that reason alone.

As disappointed as some are, having the FBI director announce that, although there is evidence of violations and extreme carelessness, no prosecution is recommended, is not exactly the same as being hauled into the East Room for a Presidential Medal of Freedom award.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

So as not to reinvent the wheel, I copy and paste for you, the following:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

The actual definitions and criteria are somewhat context dependent, but the bottom line is that gross negligence exceeds ordinary negligence by some measure.

I would also point out that the second statute he quoted up front (the misdemeanor) requires merely knowledge of the act.

-Rob

Thanks, Rob.

And where is the line between negligence, gross negligence, and willful intent? What is the "some measure" by which these things exceed each other as they escalate? Is it well defined?

For the misdemeanor, isn't that dependent on the "act" meeting the standard, first? I'm just going by what you've written here and IANAL, but it sounds to me like you'd first have to have enough evidence to establish the act as a violation of the law before you could then charge someone with the related misdemeanor. No? IOW, if Hillary were charged with the act, they could also charge anyone with knowledge of it with the misdemeanor.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
...having the FBI director announce that, although there is evidence of violations and extreme carelessness, no prosecution is recommended, is not exactly the same as being hauled into the East Room for a Presidential Medal of Freedom award.

Not you, too (with the spin, I mean).

He didn't say no prosecution was recommended. I agree that such a statement could mean any number of things, not necessarily all of which would be bad.

What the man said, and I quote, was that "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

That is entirely different than not recommending prosecution and exactly what makes his entire conclusion bullshit.

-Rob

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @ANDREWCMCCARTHY

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.

The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed.

The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.

Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence?

The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...law-let-hillary-hook

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

Originally posted by Andyb:
I don't think this is a bad thing for Trump. Had she been prosecuted we run the risk of the commies tossing in someone who might win. Plus now even more Americans are pissed the fuck off to use the technical term.

This is a good point. Had Joe Biden stepped in, he would have gotten a groundswell of support from Democrats and Independents who were just relieved and happy to have the witch out of the race. Make no mistake: She is a weak candidate.

What happened just underscores the corruption of the Clintons. Yes, most Democrats don't give a shit, or even like it. But many are repulsed. I checked out Huffington post, and the overwhelming majority of comments rejoiced. But even there, in that commie hotbed, there were a few who said that this stinks.

Yeah, agreed, I'm rolling with this now. Hillary is very beatable. I do try to figure out which team the Republicans are on though, almost daily. Maybe this will galvanize things somewhat.

Just so people w clearances don't think they now have a "get out of jail free" card,

Comey said

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

She intentionally and over a long period of time mishandled classified information. She lied about it dozens and dozens of times.

One part of Comey's brief that wasn't clear to me - was the FBI able to read the 30,000 emails deleted? He wasn't very clear on that, but I got the impression they really weren't all that successful.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
I just watched on TV as AF1 taxied down the runway with Obama and Hillary onboard to begin their campaign trip. What a disgusting scene to watch.

The timing of Barry's very first campaign appearance with Hil and Comey's presser is amazing. Just amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
And where is the line between negligence, gross negligence, and willful intent? What is the "some measure" by which these things exceed each other as they escalate? Is it well defined?

Not exactly, but that's why courts are created - to find fact. It only takes a suggestion of the reasonable possibility of a guilty verdict to support an indictment. In any other case, this would be an easy bill.

In other words, it's a matter of fact, not of law, and the fact is adjudicated in the trial process.

quote:

For the misdemeanor, isn't that dependent on the "act" meeting the standard, first?

No. It's a separate statute entirely. Knowingly removing classified information from a secure environment is a misdemeanor in and of itself.

-Rob