Why bother asking him? He's a shill for Dems and a lawyer so he's going to try and make an argument, rock a shiny object in front of our eyes, and hope we're hypnotized . Bottom line, this was gross negligence at best or such a thing doesn't exist.
Difference between negligence & extremely careless
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Carelessness is part of the definition of negligence. Calling her extremely careless was a way for Comey to make a hint at accusations of negligence without the tricky aspect of using the word negligence.
You lawyers and your jargon. I never see the minor differences that you guys do. Which is probably just one reason I am not one
.
In real life, there's not much of a difference. But they are not symmetrical. See, negligence is defined in terms of carelessness, not the other way around. Negligence is basically a lack of reasonable care. Gross negligence is basically really bad negligence. So I'd say "extremely careless" is a way for a guy who happens to be an experienced lawyer to hint at "gross negligence" without saying it, because if he'd accused her office of gross negligence explicitly, it would have been very difficult for him to explain his final recommendation.You lawyers and your jargon. I never see the minor differences that you guys do. Which is probably just one reason I am not one
In other words, I believe Comey concerning his reasons for not recommending charges, and I think he was personally unhappy about it, because he thought Hillary was guilty, but knew that they couldn't make a case in court, so he carefully crafted his statement to be as scathing as possible, while still remaining consistent with his official recommendation.
In another thread, I opine that perhaps Comey was instructed to read the final FBI recommendation (forced) and the reason he painstakingly laid out in detail, the FBI's findings, were his way of saving face?
How would that be a black helicopter version? Comey spent 10 minutes detailing how she had extreme carelessness then gives us one paragraph recommending charges not be brought. There's no question as to whether she was negligent, he presented that as fact. Could it be that he disagrees with the "agencies" recommendation, but is proud of all the facts they uncovered and wasn't going to short the effort?
Last edited:
