James Comey Press Con. At 11am

[*bfine32*]

Just so we are clear; With this information, if Ms Clinton was a low-level Government employee she would lose her clearence and most likely her job, but she can still run for the highest job in the government.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case"

I can think of at least a few unreasonable prosecutors they could get from Ferguson or Baltimore.

I heard Ken Starr is looking for a job.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2016, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I heard Ken Starr is looking for a job.

Or if he's busy, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2016, 12:55 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: So in a nutshell, Comey said what she did was criminal but he don't recommend prosecution.

Makes sense

Why make up bullshit when you can post his exact words.


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




What he is saying is that she messed up, but not to the level of breaking the law.


Still looks really bad on Hillary.  A lot of the stuff people try to blame on Hillary is bullshit, but in this case she actually messed up.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

18 United States code section 793 (f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
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. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gross+negligence

According to the law and the definition, Hillary Clinton broke the law and should be prosecuted. You can't spin this any other way, it's right there in black and white, Hillary Clinton broke the law.

[CKwi88]

The law is hardly black and white.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-06-2016, 01:26 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 18 United States code section 793 (f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
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. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gross+negligence

According to the law and the definition, Hillary Clinton broke the law and should be prosecuted. You can't spin this any other way, it's right there in black and white, Hillary Clinton broke the law.

Then anybody using email for any secret info should be found guilty of negligence. I could see if the governemnt never gets hacked and they had a 100% security record. But they just dont. When was the use of a .gov email fully implemented? And was hillary the only politician that sent stuff with an account other than the .gov one? If not let step back and comb through all the emails sent by every politician who had secret info in the last 10 years. Once we get done with that we can get back to Hillary using a server that was for a former president that was guarded by secret service.

Trump accidentally tweets racist shit to the world while campaigning to be president. At least Hillary was only sending private emails.

[BmorePat87]

(07-06-2016, 01:55 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The law is hardly black and white.

It's funny reading the legal opinions and then the pundit opinions. 

Legal opinions: "It's not really clear if laws were broken, maybe, maybe not, certainly rules are being skirted, but punishing this would be unprecedented". 

Pundit opinion: "She is a criminal who clearly broke the law. Everyone else would have been punished". 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2016, 02:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Then anybody using email for any secret info should be found guilty of negligence. I could see if the governemnt never gets hacked and they had a 100% security record. But they just dont. When was the use of a .gov email fully implemented? And was hillary the only politician that sent stuff with an account other than the .gov one? If not let step back and comb through all the emails sent by every politician who had secret info in the last 10 years. Once we get done with that we can get back to Hillary using a server that was for a former president that was guarded by secret service.

Trump accidentally tweets racist shit to the world while campaigning to be president. At least Hillary was only sending private emails.

Yeah but a lot of us aren't going to vote for our scumbag, while the left will dutifully pull the lever for theirs.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-06-2016, 01:26 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care

Which is why Comey's choice of words was so interesting.  While he didn't say the above verbatim, he certainly referenced "reasonable people" and "extremely careless".
IMO, he basically said he believes she was guilty of gross negligence while acknowledging you probably can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  And the reality is you don't bring such cases just to make examples out of someone when that someone is a high-ranking official.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-06-2016, 02:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Legal opinions: "It's not really clear if laws were broken, maybe, maybe not, certainly rules are being skirted, but punishing this would be unprecedented". 

That kind of sounds like the textbook definition of "something for a jury to decide".

[BmorePat87]

(07-06-2016, 02:18 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Which is why Comey's choice of words was so interesting.  While he didn't say the above verbatim, he certainly referenced "reasonable people" and "extremely careless".
IMO, he basically said he believes she was guilty of gross negligence while acknowledging you probably can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  And the reality is you don't bring such cases just to make examples out of someone when that someone is a high-ranking official.

I read that as "anyone who knows shit about cyber security would consider this gross negligence, but we have to convince others of this and prove she acted with gross negligence when in reality she just seems ignorant of proper cyber security protocol" 

I believe she's a bit ignorant when it comes to believing this was ok securty wise, but I question if no one actually told her. 

[GMDino]

(07-06-2016, 02:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Then anybody using email for any secret info should be found guilty of negligence. I could see if the governemnt never gets hacked and they had a 100% security record. But they just dont. When was the use of a .gov email fully implemented? And was hillary the only politician that sent stuff with an account other than the .gov one? If not let step back and comb through all the emails sent by every politician who had secret info in the last 10 years. Once we get done with that we can get back to Hillary using a server that was for a former president that was guarded by secret service.

Trump accidentally tweets racist shit to the world while campaigning to be president. At least Hillary was only sending private emails.

"Accidentally".

I'd think his best defense is he is stupid.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-06-2016, 02:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but a lot of us aren't going to vote for our scumbag, while the left will dutifully pull the lever for theirs.

Haha. Possibly the worst candidate ever. And there will be plenty of people voting for trump just because the R is next to his name.

Would have been the golden opportunity for a 3rd party to step in and make some noise. It just isnt happening.

I will be voting for the candidate with the best chance to win not named Donald Trump. Because I want America to exist beyond 2020

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2016, 01:26 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: 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.



According to the law and the definition, Hillary Clinton broke the law and should be prosecuted. You can't spin this any other way, it's right there in black and white, Hillary Clinton broke the law.

Actually it is clear to me that she was negligent, but not grossly negligent. Therefore she did not break any laws. She did not post any of this information where just anyone could see it. That would be "gross negligence".

[*michaelsean*]

(07-06-2016, 09:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is clear to me that she was negligent, but not grossly negligent. Therefore she did not break any laws. She did not post any of this information where just anyone could see it. That would be "gross negligence".

"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."

I think one could reasonably argue that setting up her own server could fall under this part of the definition if that definition is the one to go by in this case.

Who would determine if she was negligent, and does that carry a penalty?

[*bfine32*]

LTC West is happy about the decision.

http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-hillary

Quote:My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

However, James Comey just delivered a gift wrapped with a bow.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-06-2016, 12:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the emphasis was on the sharing of the information. Was there criminal intent to share state secrets and risk national security or was there overly reckless conduct?

I would like to ask John M. Deutch the same thing when he was lost his security clearance and brought up on charges for .....

"While serving as Director of Central Intelligence I erred in using CIA-issued computers that were not configured for classified work to compose classified documents and memoranda," Deutch said. "While it was absolutely necessary for me to work at home and while on travel, in hindsight it is clear that I should have insisted that I be provided the means of accomplishing this work in a manner fully consistent with all the security rules."

It seems as if it didn't matter if there was intent or not. They still hung him for breaking the law, that is until Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office... Strange.

[Benton]

(07-07-2016, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: LTC West is happy about the decision.

http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-hillary

He should be. Hillary Clinton stands to be the greatest Republican president since Ronald Reagan. With a RINO majority and presidency, expect a great ringing sound to be heard from corporate coffers. Even those folks five or six income brackets away will be able to hear all the coins dropping. They'll be too busy working two jobs to see it, but they'll sure be able to hear that money they're not making as it makes its way into foreign tax shelters and unnecessary public spending projects.

[GMDino]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cummings-comey-hearing-petraeus

Quote:Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) slammed Republicans Thursday for going too far in their quest for answers regarding Hillary Clinton's email server.

Cummings came to the defense of FBI Director James Comey, a Republican, who was summoned to testify to the House Oversight Committee about his decision this week not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton. Cummings slammed Republicans for flip-flopping from praise to criticism when Comey did not recommend criminal charges and said that Comey was "on trial" in a sense.

"Amazingly, amazingly, some Republicans who were praising you just days ago for your independence, for your integrity, and your honesty, instantly turned against you, because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted," Cummings said. "In their eyes, you had one job. And one job only: to prosecute Hillary Clinton. But you refused to do so. So now you are being summoned here to answer for your alleged transgressions. And in a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial."

The Democratic congressman went on to compare Clinton's probe to that of retired General David Petraeus who pleaded guilty to charges related to having shared classified informationwith his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell.

"I give House Republicans credit," Cummings said. "They are not shy about what they are doing. They have turned political investigations into an art form. If our concerns here today are with the proper treatment of classified information, then we should start with a review of our previous hearing on General David Petraeus, who pled guilty last year to intentionally and knowingly compromising highly classified information. The problem is, Mr. Director, we never had that hearing. This committee ignored that breach of national security because it did not match the political goals of House Republicans."

Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was quick to respond to Cummings' comments about Republicans and Petraeus, offering to hold a hearing for him.
"You asked for a hearing on General Petraeus and how that was dealt with: you got it," Chaffetz said.