Difference between negligence & extremely careless
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
I don't believe there is much of a difference, except Goat claims that gross negligence is required, which is actually "with intent" from what I gather.
Yep, he I believe was quoted as saying that he did not discover intent, just extreme carelessness, which is the problem with bringing charges. But he basically concluded she was negligent, there just isn't anything criminal about that in this case.
Gross negligence does not require an intent to cause harm or violate a law. Rather, it's a conscious disregard of a known risk, duty to exercise care, etc. It's intentionally failing to exercise due care while doing something to ensure that you are not violating the law, harming others, etc. It's one level below intentionally doing something that you know is illegal, or know will cause harm.
If that's the case, how do you reconcile the FBI's final recommendation? Everything you just described sounded like His decscription of what happened.
So, voting for either Hillary or Trump would fall within that classification?
Good to know .....
Ironically, the person who will likely be our next President would be losing her security clearance right now were she not running for President.
On the other hand, she's running against someone who would likely not qualify for a security clearance.
I recently heard an astonishing statistic about how many people currently have the highest level of security clearance in the U.S. I'm hesitant to give a figure, as I do not remember for certain. However, I believe it was nearly one million people (maybe more?) for the very highest tier. Think it may have been Malcolm Gladwell's new podcast called Revisionist History--it is really, really great. The episode in question dealt with intelligence failures during the Viet Nam War.
I can't reconcile them, other than to say that negligence and gross negligence are almost always in the eye of the beholder--not to mention whether you think you can convince a jury to reach that same conclusion, which also depends, in part, on who the accused is. Heck, Sandy Berger only got a slap on the wrist and he was caught stuffing classified documents into his pants and later lying about it---$50,000 fine, 2 years probation, 100 hours of community service, and lost his security clearance for three years (that last part is, in my opinion, the most maddening outcome of Berger's case).
Negligence is, put as simply as possible, a lack of reasonable care. Gross negligence, following Noodle's lead, is basically really bad negligence. It could be that Comey's remarks were a way of saying she was negligent without using the word. I.e., this might be one of those situations where the cops have the guy in the room, and they know he did it, but they also know the case will not stand up in a court room.
I'd say nominating either of them would . . . except the alternatives were on the Democratic side a guy who isn't a Democrat, is older than either Hillary (or Trump) and whose math makes the student debt crisis seem rational, and on the GOP side the alternatives were all the guys and gals that Trump spanked (and some of them, like Christie and ultimately Rubio found out they liked getting spanked by the Donald) . . .
. . . it is what it is, isn't it . . .
. . . we need a different electoral process, and may need a constitutional convention to get it. I'd start with requiring congressional districts be drawn based on economic similarities among the various locales making up a potential congressional district, and without regard to political party affiliation . . . you know, outlaw gerrymandering altogether.
After listening to everything the director said I came away feeling he was discusted with the behavior but determined a jury wasn't going to find her guilty of anything. I guess prosecutors face this dilemma every day. It looks like prosecutor Marylin Mosby in Baltimore went the opposite direction. She charged 6 cops with very little chance of success but it made sense politically for her.
So basically the Clinton campaign has been continually lying to the public on these issues, specifically that she never sent classified material....shocking. Also the campaign deleted half her emails as "personal".
This election is vomit inducing. Let's toss both candidates at the conventions and let the delegates nominate someone at each that isn't totally repugnant.
This election is vomit inducing. Let's toss both candidates at the conventions and let the delegates nominate someone at each that isn't totally repugnant.
Do you really think she will? In spite of the being admonished by the judge isn't she continuing with the prosecutions?
She may or may not face ethics charges, but at the very least, her career is severely damaged. Malicious prosecution settlements don't look good on anyone's resume.
WRT gerrymandering.
Goes without saying, but both sides would have to agree as gerrymandering has been used by both sides. The shoe is now on the GOP foot, but it's been on the Democrat foot and will likely be again.
My guess is the guys and gals in the smoke-filled back rooms won't be too keen to change the options to gerrymander anytime soon.
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss ......
Here is the way I look at it.
1. Simple negligence might be that Ms. Clinton routinely used a secure server for her business, but in a time or two absent mindedly used her personal server to conduct classified business.
2. Extreme negligence might be that Ms. Clinton had intended to use a personal server for all her public and private business, but relied on herself to re-direct all classified info to a secure server so it would not be kept on her server, and she was just inexcusably sloppy with that.
3. Gross negligence would be Ms. Clinton deliberately* used a private unsecured server for all communications, whether classified or not, and made no effort to protect classified messages. This fits in with what Noodle said elsewhere, gross negligence is a DELIBERATE disregard of a known risk. This is similar texting while driving in a school zone and running over a kid. You wouldn't intend to run over the kid, but you consciously disregarded the risk of that by choosing to text.
The facts about #3 are admitted and or established. I think Clinton caught a big break.
*HRC bad faith is further established by her deliberate avoidance of FOIA rules motive.
I heard the statement live and I thought he was going to recommend charges until almost the end. What they found was even worse than I had read like when he said that a small amount of the emails had classified markings when they were sent. How can that not be intentional mishandling? I guess State Department is a totally different world from the Defense Department and extreme carelessness in handling classified information in State World deserves no punishment. I know some Airmen that were punished for way less negligence than she showed and I don't know how I can recommend punishment for the next case now. This is bad for maintaining control of classified information. I think Bernie should demand that she step down immediately for this and we should put Bernie in her place.
Joe Biden says "Hi. Just checking in. Seeing what's up. Free for lunch. Already have a White House e-mail account."
This is nothing to the Clintons. Just another right wing conspiracy against her. She will plow through and win the election.
It appears as though Comey disagrees with you and Aloha about how these facts would be handled with a non-Clinton, and that's a big part of the recommendation. The money shot:
"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."
That is a head scratcher
Hillary INTENTIONALLY did what she did. She must be held to the knowledge that she would be privy to top secret info. This was not absent-mindedness or carelessness. Her motive was indeed bad faith and mis-conduct regarding FOIA. The deliberate doing of an act, with disregard of the consequences, is usually gross negligence. Like shooting a gun at a tent, not knowing whether it's occupied or not; is gross negligence.
All of which is subjective - which is why a jury should decide.
If I tell a judge that my client had no intent to violate a statute requiring intent, you know what they tell me? "You can make that argument to the jury counsel. Anything else?"
Not to mention that the FBI "decided" it was marked "classified" when sent - not later. Hillary apparently lied about that, er, did not understand the difference, er, misspoke. Nobody cares. What possible difference could it make?
I'd prefer a gladiator style duel to the death... whether its in a Coliseum or Thunderdome, I'd watch.
Bottom line is the FBI says she intended her conduct but did not intend to violate the law.
That and a quarter gets you and me indicted.
I'd prefer a gladiator style duel to the death... whether its in a Coliseum or Thunderdome, I'd watch.
The first debate will have amazing ratings.
Of course she would be privy to classified info. Kind of her job, isn't it? But she still had the same access to the classified transmission services as anyone else. Her home brew server doesn't change that.
And only a few short years ago
Many regarded Hillary as one of the smartest most powerful lawyers in the country, or maybe the world. Two things. I think she never was that, and moreover, she seems to be several steps slower in the cognition department than she was even in 2008.
Correct. Just makes it look more intentional.
No wait ... That can't be right.
I'll check back ...
He doesn't include how we handle this in the military. I've seen people punished under the UCMJ for less. I know Airmen that lost their clearances and were separated from the Air Force for less. We always joke that rank has its privileges and this shows that is no joke. I think she should step down for Bernie.
The Director, in his description of Clinton's conduct, used the term "extremely careless" in place of "gross negligence". They mean the same thing. No appreciable difference. BUT, he inserted a term not found in any statute - intent - as an excuse not to recommend indictment. If you read his remarks, he makes out the case for prosecution under several of the espionage statutes then declines based up a term not in the law. Is there a fix? Hate to think it of this Director, but where did he get an intent requirement as the SOLE excuse for not prosecuting when it does NOT appear in the law?
I know that but a conviction under the UCMJ still counts as a legal conviction. Punishment at NJP can just get us fired with some bad paper. No biggie I guess.
That's not even close the reasoning he provided or not recommending prosecution. You have dramatically misrepresented his words here.
