It's just not very informative as to the prosecuting decision on Hillary.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.
Difference between negligence & extremely careless
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
I don't disagree. I listened to his entire statement and thought OMG they're actually going to recommend prosecution. It will be interesting to see if any leaks with differing opinions come out of the FBI.
Were you surprised after listening to his statement with the recommendation at the end?
Not really
Unless you think the same standard of care should apply to HRC that might apply to a low-level staffer. The law of negligence changes reasonableness according to the person whose conduct is being measured. This is why a medical specialist is held to a higher standard of care than a GP working in the same field.
And yet, still several steps ahead of Trump in the cognition department, as every single lapse in judgment, knowledge and awareness of his and his campaign clearly indicates.
I read the statement after I already knew the outcome, so I didn't have that opportunity.
We aren't talking about access
We are talking about putting classified info where it doesn't belong. She must be held to the knowledge that she did that, and she did it deliberately. There was no accident or negligence in that aspect of the facts.
We disagree counselor. Are we required to agree with you?
I'll stipulate he his campaign is largely mismanaged.
But his lifetime achievements "tower" over Clinton's.
After reading the statement do you think it's a clear call that a grand jury shouldn't hear the case?
I already quoted the relevant passage above. You can disagree with me all you want, but your interpretation of Comey's statement isn't even defensible.
It's the double standard that really gripes my a$$. At a minimum I'd have lost my clearance and my career and she gets nothing at all. It makes me very unhappy that I have to vote for her if it's close between her and Trump. I'll try to keep the puke off the voting machine.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Read this by a much more experience federal prosecutor than can be found on the pages of your resume. Then tell me he's wrong? Expect anyone to take your view over this? Read it. He explains what I posted - Comey re-wrote the federal law inserting a word "intent" that does not appear in law.
That's what I thought and so did all the people that watched it with me.
Like I said, I already quoted the relevant passage of Comey's own words that demonstrates your representation of his statement was horribly dishonest.
I dunno. That statement wasn't detailed enough to say for sure.
Today was not a good day for Clinton, although her people will spin it that way. That was a harsh statement made by Comey. Even without an indictment, the head of the FBI went on television today and called her an irresponsible liar.
Yeah, If this election is close, I won't be proud of my vote, but I'll suck it up and do my duty anyway.It's the double standard that really gripes my a$$. At a minimum I'd have lost my clearance and my career and she gets nothing at all. It makes me very unhappy that I have to vote for her if it's close between her and Trump. I'll try to keep the puke off the voting machine.
I'd prefer a gladiator style duel to the death... whether its in a Coliseum or Thunderdome, I'd watch.
You think it'd be a fair fight?
I can't decide who would cheat more, or more creatively, Trump or Clinton . . . hmmmm . . . .
My take:
As all those who play at the highest levels must, Comey had to weigh the politics of the situation. He determined that an indictment could hand the Presidency to Donald Trump. Rather than be the catalyst for such a disaster, he chose against recommending the criminal indictment. However, he could not in good conscience let Clinton off unscathed, and that is why his statement amounted to a personal indictment of her conduct. I wouldn't be surprised if he resigned in disgust tomorrow.
Tomorrow? Probably not, at least not unless and until a major firm lands an attractive offer on his desk.
By the time Clinton is inaugurated? Oh hail yes . . . .
If you're correct them Comey is not the man of high integrity that everyone on both sides of the isle describe. No part of his job duties tell him to weigh the election and choose a winner before making a decision. Do you really believe what you posted?
More, for those who didn't read/see the entire thing. The description of Comey's reasoning offered by Ladoga and the writer at NR is simply wrong. Here are the relevant passages:
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
...
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
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.
...
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
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.
Comey clearly understands the legal requirements of potential crimes being investigated. He is not inserting any sort of extra requirement in them. In fact, he is essentially saying that the investigation turned up evidence that crimes in fact occurred. He then explains why an actual indictment would be inappropriate, nonetheless. You can disagree with his reasoning if you like, but what Ladoga and his link are doing is not disagreeing with his reasoning, but misstating his reasoning, and then disagreeing with that misstatement. Pure straw men.
Last edited:
No way. If that were really Comey's concern, he'd know that recommending an indictment - especially right after Lynch promised that DOJ would follow his recommendation - right now would give the Dems plenty of time to pick a replacement that would kick Trump's ass. He's not recommending an indictment for the reasons he stated.
Yes, I do believe it. In fact, what I described is a man of integrity making a decision that he himself might find repugnant, but was required for the good of the country. Doing damn near anything would be justified if it prevented a President Trump.
I didn't get that from his statements. He said there was evidence of potential violations, but when all of the facts are considered there wasn't sufficient evidence of the crime, because the crime requires all of the elements to be supported by evidence and the evidence was insufficient regarding criminal intent, which is one of the elements that has to be proved. This is the money conclusion: (1) no clearly intentional or wilful mishandling, (2) no volume of exposed documents from which intent can be inferred, (3) no disloyalty to the US, and, most importantly IMO, (4) no efforts to obstruct justice.
I don't think so. I don't believe you could expect Bernie or Joe to ride in and rescue the Democratic Party from a Hillary nomination and come out the winner in November. But who knows. I'm still of the belief that Comey included a political calculus in his decision. He used the question of "intent" to justify coming down against indicting, but he could just as easily not inserted that qualifier and recommended in favor based on gross (criminal) negligence.
In criminal law, "gross negligence" is a type of "intent" that makes up an element of crimes based on gross negligence. Comey didn't "insert" the "intent" requirement, he concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that the intent requirement - including gross negligence - was present.
That's funny. I quoted that same line a page ago and called it "the money shot." Here's the key, though. He wasn't making a legal description there. Those aren't the elements of the crime. He was talking about how they look to the past to see what sorts of situations have resulted in these types of charges, and those were the facts that he found in previous cases that didn't find here. That's the key: he was not describing reasons to believe there was no crime committed; he was describing reasons not to indict nonetheless.
Yes, I skipped the word "potential," but I think it's pretty clear what he's doing, especially when combined with his use of the phrase "extremely careless," which is obviously meant to be a nod toward the phrase "grossly negligent." He's basically making the most damning statement about her he can, while still ending his statement with a recommendation for no charges.
Hogwash and horsehockey. His comments about prior cases were to distinguish fact patterns in which the legal standard for the requisite intent was present, and the case that would be brought against Clinton. Here's what he said in preface to the remarks you're whitewashing: . . . we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts . . .
Last edited:
I think you're misstating exactly what he's saying, as well, although not nearly as badly as Ladoga did. I've already quoted the entire relevant passage above...twice.
You guys can do that and I understand the reasoning, but I'm not going to vote for either of them. I don't want to have any responsibility for electing either of the worst candidates in my lifetime. The GOP primary voters have blown the best opportunity it could ever have hoped for this election by nominating Trump. Kasich, Rubio or Bush could capitalize on this YUUUGE and beat her in the election. The FBI Director essentially validated everything that has been said about HRC's gross negligence (or extreme carelessness) with her email server, and more, and essentially stated she probably broke the law, but couldn't recommend prosecuting her for it. It showed that HRC has lied over and over about the situation. She lied when she said the server was authorized (actually, the IG report exposed that lie). She lied when she said nothing was classified at the time it was sent when in fact many were and some at the highest level. She lied when she said that none of it was marked classified at the time (there was a leak about that, but this confirmed it). She lied when she said the FBI was conducting a "security review" instead of a criminal investigation and even said that as recently as a week ago. She lied when she said that she gave all her official emails to State. The report exposed her as an incompetent administrator and the worst kind of "do as I say, not as I do" leader who, if was still in office, could face administrative consequences at the least (like losing her clearance and being fired). She clearly thinks that the rules don't apply to her, they're just for the little people. If she had the slightest bit of shame and integrity, she'd give up the Democratic nomination. Democrats could replace her with a competent, honorable person, like Kerry or Biden, and I'd vote for him. Just about anyone would be a better candidate than her and would beat Trump easily..
Last edited:
Sorry, but I think I'll trust the judgment of an experienced attorney and federal prosecutor over that of a neophyte lawyer still waiting for the ink on his license to dry.
Okay, fine. I think I might not be getting my main contention across... I believe (rightly or wrongly) that Comey took the political situation into account when determining where he would come down. I will also assert that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that if it was done for the greater good. If preventing a President Trump can be considered the greater good, which I believe is the case, then Comey is to be commended.
Seriously, we're having an actual decent discussion about all this in this thread. If this is all you have to offer, please go away.
Hogwash and horsehockey . . . I think you're reading things into his statement that aren't there.
You're welcome to believe that, but if you do it will have to be based only on your supposition and projections of facts and conclusions that aren't supported by any of the evidence we have available to us. It's OK with me . . . but that's not a bog I'll follow you into, if it's all the same to you . . . .
Well, I think it's a valid point and speaks to the credibility of your argument. You may think you're infallible, but that's far from the consensus here.
