quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk

I will give you Grassleys advice, Suck it up, and move on. You have expertise in that area.

quote:

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2016 — FBI director James Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in her handling of classified information.

According to the espionage act, gross negligence in the handling of classified information is a crime. Comey didn’t recommend prosecution of Clinton because she was just extremely careless but not, it seems, grossly negligent.

What’s the difference?

According to the Federal Bar Association, negligence is “An act or the omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person would, or would not, do under similar circumstances.”

To the average person this means simply the failure to take proper care. Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of gross negligence includes the words “extreme carelessness.”

According to Webster’s dictionary careless is simply defined as “the failure to take proper care.” “Grossly” and “extremely” are adjectives that have similar meanings. There is no clear difference between “grossly negligent” and “extremely careless.”

Then why did Comey recommend to not prosecute Clinton?

After his 15-minute press conference to give the American people the results of the FBI criminal investigation, Comey quickly left without taking questions from the press. It is likely that a reporter would have asked the same question.

During the first 12 minutes of his press conference, Comey delivered damning information about Clinton’s behavior. He clearly outlined the extreme carelessness that Clinton used when handling classified information. He said the investigation found that Clinton had been untruthful to the American public.

Even the Washington Post, which has offered numerous editorials defending Clinton wrote, “Comey laid bare a litany of facts that amounted to a stern admonishment of her (Clinton’s) judgment, management and stewardship of state secrets.”

Comey said that at least 113 emails were marked classified at the time they passed through Clinton’s server. In March 2015, Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” In July 2016, Clinton said, “I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”

Comey said, “Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey continued, “several thousand work-related emails … were not in the group of 30,000” that Clinton returned to the state department. Clinton said, “I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related.”

The FBI found at least four more statements made by Clinton to be untruthful. In one instance, she made a statement under oath that was proven to be untrue. That is usually viewed as perjury.

So why did Comey not recommend that the justice department prosecute Clinton?

So far we do not know the answer. Comey will have to testify before Congress, who will want to know the answer. Unbiased legal experts would probably find no difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence, and would therefore recommend further action against Clinton...

Comey did say that based on precedent, his view was that a prosecutor would not proceed, thus he recommendation that prosecution not move forward. He added that, in the past, individuals who were negligent did suffer a penalty; many lost their access to classified information...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

um sorry, mnottertroll---the fbi concluded concluded "gross negligence" and yes, "gross negligence" can be determined in a court of law. so you just keep losing no matter what incarnation you show up in.

also fool, its not really a matter of prosecuting Hillary any more, its a matter of how the justice system works and figuring out why it worked this peculiar and seemingly wrong way in regards to her. but that's lost on you isn't it?


nnanji---I think wickeds' mental illness is a sort of "certifiable" one that warrants institutionalization, monitoring, medication, therapy, etc...mnottertroll's is of a different sort. I suspect the former has much more fake profiles.

he's like wd in this regard though---he cannot take his medicine like a man. how ironic he used to decry right wing posters on here as "cowards" but irony is lost on him too.

there is still the mystery though of how for a brief period, it was somewhat clear it was wd operating the stwrinklemeat profile, which belongs to mnottertroll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh the huge manatee. can you discuss a topic chaps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Oh no, the mental patient is probably, well at least one of the voices in his head, very OCD. He can't stay away, he can't not spout his propaganda that is verifiably false, he can't control himself. The fact he's here says it all. He's still doing the same BS, peddling the same false narrative. He's a sick puppy. And, I'll bet that while he's here we'll see less of HB, or WD, or MM. who wants to bet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
... however, there is the idea of a sort of nasty void filling---that is, when he was banned, at least a couple of the other comrades seemed to step up the malevolence and filled the gap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh the huge manatee. can you discuss a topic chaps?

Of course they can't. Whining about another poster is the easiest distraction from the point going, so no wonder they do it so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
... however, there is the idea of a sort of nasty void filling---that is, when he was banned, at least a couple of the other comrades seemed to step up the malevolence and filled the gap.

Well, nature abhors a vacuum.



Peace,


Michael

bounty, you have cmail

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh the huge manatee. can you discuss a topic chaps?

Of course they can't. Whining about another poster is the easiest distraction from the point going, so no wonder they do it so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
... however, there is the idea of a sort of nasty void filling---that is, when he was banned, at least a couple of the other comrades seemed to step up the malevolence and filled the gap.

Well, nature abhors a vacuum.



Peace,


Michael

bounty, you have cmail

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
look at the last handful of posts fools, and see if you can see the difference between the ones talking about another poster---who's been banned and shouldn't be here, and the ones that clearly are on some point concerning the investigation into Hillary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
look at the last handful of posts fools, and see if you can see the difference between the ones talking about another poster---who's been banned and shouldn't be here, and the ones that clearly are on some point concerning the investigation into Hillary.

The distinction is obvious, yes: you and your clade are talking about the other to avoid discussing the alleged subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
look at the last handful of posts fools, and see if you can see the difference between the ones talking about another poster---who's been banned and shouldn't be here, and the ones that clearly are on some point concerning the investigation into Hillary.

The distinction is obvious, yes: you and your clade are talking about the other to avoid discussing the alleged subject.

It’s almost comic how the irony goes sailing over his head while he pontificates in all self-righteous earnestness.