CDZ FBI Recommends No Charges Against Mrs. Clinton...but what it says creates political drama...AWKWARD

[JimBowie1958]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

 

[320 Years of History]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Look, I have a level of respect for you that you are eroding with that sort of non-neutral discourse on this topic. Let's we two just stop discussing this matter here if you are unwilling to present your thoughts absent the "flavored" language. You know I don't present my cases that way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Look, I have a level of respect for you that you are eroding with that sort of non-neutral discourse on this topic. Let's we two just stop discussing this matter here if you are unwilling to present your thoughts absent the "flavored" language. You know I don't present my cases that way.

Well, I can leave out the 'flavored language, for example I could refer to the concept of a wife following her husband as President to merely be unprecedented in our nation and not indicate how this smacks of the sycophancy of European royals and their courtiers...or I can just refer to the Royal House Clinton Dynasty.

But the latter is just more concise as well as descriptive of what is going on.

Why would you insist on using paragraphs to convey what four words can do so much more easily? I dont recall your lack of flavour regarding your description of Donald Trump? Was that neutral?

But now you ask me to use paragraphs to circumnavigate the obvious?

lol

 

[Kristian]

Elections 2016 is over november 2016. A suprise if it is the winner is Gary Johnson is he so populare in Union...what all brown thinker??

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Elections 2016 is over november 2016. A suprise if it is the winner is Gary Johnson is he so populare in Union...what all brown thinker??

the fuck???

 

[320 Years of History]

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Look, I have a level of respect for you that you are eroding with that sort of non-neutral discourse on this topic. Let's we two just stop discussing this matter here if you are unwilling to present your thoughts absent the "flavored" language. You know I don't present my cases that way.

Well, I can leave out the 'flavored language, for example I could refer to the concept of a wife following her husband as President to merely be unprecedented in our nation and not indicate how this smacks of the sycophancy of European royals and their courtiers...or I can just refer to the Royal House Clinton Dynasty.

But the latter is just more concise as well as descriptive of what is going on.

Why would you insist on using paragraphs to convey what four words can do so much more easily? I dont recall you lack of flavour regarding your description of Donald Trump? Was that neutral?

No. My remarks about Donald Trump are not neutral, but my non-neutral comments about Donald Trump are conclusions from arguments I've presented to support my making the non-neutral comments. So, if you, or anyone, endeavors to offer an argument in support of the assertion that Mrs. Clinton in fact has some idea or belief that, like European royals, she is the legitimate inheritor of a throne (a throne the U.S. lacks) of sorts, fine. I may even agree with the argument.

But your merely asserting that is so without a cogent argument in support of that assertion/conclusion is just you offering "colored" language that doesn't actually advance anything, other than perhaps our being aware of what you think. Well, I can simply share the conclusions that I've arrived at on any topic, but I can hardly expect to be taken seriously, nor do I deserve to be so taken, if I don't support them with something credible and cogent, but that also is neutrally presented.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nothing to see here.

Move along everyone.

It's all good.

It's not criminal when a Clinton does it and even if it is criminal, it's really not criminal if they didn't intend it.

 

[Slyhunter]

Nothing to see here.

Move along everyone.

It's all good.

It's not criminal when a Clinton does it and even if it is criminal, it's really not criminal if they didn't intend it.

I'm glad she doesn't drive.
Well I didn't intend to hit him officer so it doesn't count.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Look, I have a level of respect for you that you are eroding with that sort of non-neutral discourse on this topic. Let's we two just stop discussing this matter here if you are unwilling to present your thoughts absent the "flavored" language. You know I don't present my cases that way.

Well, I can leave out the 'flavored language, for example I could refer to the concept of a wife following her husband as President to merely be unprecedented in our nation and not indicate how this smacks of the sycophancy of European royals and their courtiers...or I can just refer to the Royal House Clinton Dynasty.

But the latter is just more concise as well as descriptive of what is going on.

Why would you insist on using paragraphs to convey what four words can do so much more easily? I dont recall you lack of flavour regarding your description of Donald Trump? Was that neutral?

No. My remarks about Donald Trump are not neutral, but my non-neutral comments about Donald Trump are conclusions from arguments I've presented to support my making the non-neutral comments. So, if you, or anyone, endeavors to offer an argument in support of the assertion that Mrs. Clinton in fact has some idea or belief that, like European royals, she is the legitimate inheritor of a throne (a throne the U.S. lacks) of sorts, fine. I may even agree with the argument.

But your merely asserting that is so without a cogent argument in support of that assertion/conclusion is just you offering "colored" language that doesn't actually advance anything, other than perhaps our being aware of what you think. Well, I can simply share the conclusions that I've arrived at on any topic, but I can hardly expect to be taken seriously, nor do I deserve to be so taken, if I don't support them with something credible and cogent, but that also is neutrally presented.

I am not sure what evidence speaks louder about Hillary Clintons royal status among Democrats than her behavior and their behavior.

IF this nominating process int he Democratic party was not a coronation I dont know what is.

 

[320 Years of History]

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

Look, I have a level of respect for you that you are eroding with that sort of non-neutral discourse on this topic. Let's we two just stop discussing this matter here if you are unwilling to present your thoughts absent the "flavored" language. You know I don't present my cases that way.

Well, I can leave out the 'flavored language, for example I could refer to the concept of a wife following her husband as President to merely be unprecedented in our nation and not indicate how this smacks of the sycophancy of European royals and their courtiers...or I can just refer to the Royal House Clinton Dynasty.

But the latter is just more concise as well as descriptive of what is going on.

Why would you insist on using paragraphs to convey what four words can do so much more easily? I dont recall you lack of flavour regarding your description of Donald Trump? Was that neutral?

No. My remarks about Donald Trump are not neutral, but my non-neutral comments about Donald Trump are conclusions from arguments I've presented to support my making the non-neutral comments. So, if you, or anyone, endeavors to offer an argument in support of the assertion that Mrs. Clinton in fact has some idea or belief that, like European royals, she is the legitimate inheritor of a throne (a throne the U.S. lacks) of sorts, fine. I may even agree with the argument.

But your merely asserting that is so without a cogent argument in support of that assertion/conclusion is just you offering "colored" language that doesn't actually advance anything, other than perhaps our being aware of what you think. Well, I can simply share the conclusions that I've arrived at on any topic, but I can hardly expect to be taken seriously, nor do I deserve to be so taken, if I don't support them with something credible and cogent, but that also is neutrally presented.

I am not sure what evidence speaks louder about Hillary Clintons royal status among Democrats than her behavior and their behavior.

IF this nominating process int he Democratic party was not a coronation I dont know what is.

Red:
Okay....

• What behavior or speech made by Mrs. Clinton supports the assertion that she thinks she, like European royals, thinks she is the legitimate inheritor of the office of the President?
  • Please reconcile the fact that nobody inherits the Presidency from their spouse or relative with the fact that Mrs. Clinton is actively attempting to garner votes from the electorate rather than the approbation of courtiers.
  • Please be sure to address how the unprecedented nature of Mrs. Clinton becoming President after her husband is any more or less relevance, positively and negatively, to anything having to do with
  1. her ability and qualifications to do the job of being President,
  2. other firsts:
     • John Adams being followed as President by his son
     • Benjamin Harrison following his grandfather William into the Presidency
     • Zachary Taylor following his second cousin James Madison into the Presidency

I seriously doubt that Democrats view Bill and HIllary Clinton as royal anythings.


Blue:
I can help clarify your lack of understanding about what a coronation is the act or ceremony of crowning a pope, king or queen. This is what one looks like.

​

You'll note that there is a crown of some sort that is placed upon the head of the person being coronated.

The Presidency is not an office that comes with a crown and Presidents are inaugurated. This is what a U.S. Presidential inauguration looks like.

​

You'll notice that there is no crown involved.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You'll note that there is a crown of some sort that is placed upon the head of the person being coronated.

The Presidency is not an office that comes with a crown and Presidents are inaugurated.

OF course there is no literal crown as that would be too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton.

But all the hallmarks of a coronation were present in this years unDemocratic primaries which were decided before the first primary, which Sanders won with like 70% of the vote, but still wound up with fewer delegates than her Royal Highness, Hillary Rodham did. Now what is that but the American version of a coronation; a rigged predetermined 'primary' system that had its winner already determined throughout the whole thing? Hell get a crown for her, it would be no less a condescending act than what they pulled with all the rigged Super delegates. The predetermined nature of this whole series of faked up votes is just the kind of things that 'democratic' monarchies used to pull to show that the public fully supported some jack ass with blue blood.

Another characteristic of Royalty lording it over their inferiors is the double standard of judicial law. There is law for the elites, and then there is the law for everyone else. While an Oligarch might be a coward and flee from the sound of canon firing and might get a pardon or his record wiped clean and forgiven, the riff raff never did. Of course that is what riff raff is for; to absorb the bullets, slings, arrows and canon shot for the royals so that they would be safe and those that would die would be the ones bred to be canon fodder, you know, the kind of people that used to make up the Democratic party.

So when Hillary is cleared of charges of gross negligence regarding 110 emails with classified information that was not secured, that is not the same kind of 'extreme carelessness' that the rest of us have. No, we have the kind of extreme carelessness when we get caught doing that that is also gross negligence and we get hammered for it. But in Clintons case it is just a 'silly old thing, darling, never you mind; now run along dear' kind of negligence, but not real serious negligence. That is only done by the little people, just like Bill Clintons perjury before federal investigators or the hundreds of millions of US dollars Hillary and Bill have received from foreign nations and corporations for their marvelous speaking ability. The coincidental timing of decisions being made to favor them was just that; nothing but coincidence, I'm sure, the royal coincidence for them that we never have the pleasure of.

And of course there is the fawning press that will alter the color of Hillarys pantsuit so it wont look like the exact match to Elizabeth Warrens pantsuit and they look like Bobsy twins or something equally ridiculous. When Hillary has her little oopsies the press mostly ignores them, but that gawd-damned racist Trump, even if the quotes of him were out of context and distorted, well he really is a racist so he still deserves it, especially for running against Hillary and saying mean things about her, damn his cheek!

Her lack of any actual accomplishments in her life is another hallmark of royalty. Other than getting her resume filled in, and having a Vagina, what has she actually done that one would want done for the USA? What she did for Libya, Syria, Egypt or Yemen? Everything Obama the Messiah has done to America, Hillary promises to do it ten times faster, harder and without lube, and 80% of Democrats still want her for POTUS...just because it is a womans turn now.

Yeah, Royalty for having the surname Clinton is exactly right..

 

[320 Years of History]

I can't believe I'm deigning to respond to these comments....And, no, I"m not expressly defending Mrs. Clinton. I'm defending the truth because it seems from your remarks that you believe a variety of things are so and they quite simply are not. I cannot stop you from holding the ultimate stance you do, but to the extent that stance/conclusion depends on the "facts" you cited, I can say that your stance derives from your accepting to be so that which is not.

the first primary, which Sanders won with like 70% of the vote, but still wound up with fewer delegates

Mr. Sanders won more votes in New Hampshire's primary, but he did not receive fewer New Hampshire delegates than Mrs. Clinton. Additionally, Sanders did not win more overall primary votes than did Mrs. Clinton

this whole series of faked up votes

What faked votes? If you have any evidence that Democratic primary votes were falsified, faked or otherwise unlawfully registered for either Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton, I suggest you share that information with the appropriate state election commission(s).

Hillary is cleared of charges of gross negligence regarding

She was not cleared of any charges of gross negligence in connection with "Email-gate" because none have been levied against her.

And just what is the legal meaning of "gross negligence?" It's "a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages."

that is not the same kind of 'extreme carelessness' that the rest of us have. No, we have the kind of extreme carelessness when we get caught doing that that is also gross negligence and we get hammered for it. But in Clintons case it is just a 'silly old thing, darling, never you mind; now run along dear' kind of negligence, but not real serious [gross] negligence.

And, as FBI Director Comey stated under oath on 7-July-2016 before the House Judiciary Committee, where are all those people who got prosecuted under Subsection 793(f) based on strict liability alone rather than under strict liability plus intent?

Congressperson:
"YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE."

Director Comey:
"I SPILE [sic] BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER."​

Are you going to say that Dir. Comey implicitly and under oath misrepresented the historical facts pertaining to the history of DOJ prosecutions to Congress when he rhetorically asked the question you see above? Do you really think he (his FBI team) didn't look to see what the historic trend/reality is regarding who has been prosecuted under Subsection 793(f)?

Law professor Laurie Levenson, writing in the National Law Journal writes:

Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after "leakers," but not bunglers. Twenty years ago, John Deutsch** found himself in hot water and the target of a DOJ investigation for transferring classified materials to his government-owned computer at home — a computer that he used to access a wide range of Internet searches. He was never charged.​

Additionally, you'll note from the video clip below that the FBI made the same recommendation for Mrs. Clinton's State Department aides and factotums that they not be prosecuted. I suppose you think, therefore, they too must also be "royalty?" I sure don't see them or Mrs. Clinton as some "American version" of royalty, yet they are receiving the very same consideration that she is. So much for your "the little guy suffers and the 'royal' Clintons don't" presumption of comparative modes of treatment....

​

** Note:
For more info on the Deutsch investigation, see:

• CIA Inspector General's Report of Improper Handling of Classified Information by John M. Deutsch (1998-0028-IG)
• Deutch Apologizes for Mishandling Secrets on Home Computer
• The Investigation of CIA Director John Deutsch

the hundreds of millions of US dollars Hillary and Bill have received from foreign nations and corporations for their marvelous speaking ability.

The Clintons' total speaking fee income from 2001 to February of 2016 is $153M. That's ~$10M per year if one spreads it out evenly over the years. What is there to say about that? Speaking is "good money if you can get it." What place have I, you or anyone else to grumble over the fact that they can get it? Is one supposed to be ashamed of being wealthy or for being able to generate wealth by selling what is that buyers demand and that is legal to sell?

I doubt their speaking ability, in and of itself, has much to do with it. Moreover, neither she nor anyone else need necessarily be "marvelous" speakers to be paid to address a body. All that's needed is the demand to hear someone speak and the speaker's willingness to supply that demand. What the speaker gets paid is merely a matter of price negotiation for delivering the speech.

If you want to earn money for delivering a speech, go do something that makes folks willing to pay to hear what you have to say.

• Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical
  
• Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women and The Price Of Political Speakers
  
  • Bill Clinton: According to the Washington Post, the former president “earned more than $16.3 million for 72 speeches” in 2012. That’s an average of around $226,000 per speech, and CNN reports he was once paid $750,000 for a speech to telecom firm Ericsson in Hong Kong.
  • Tim Geithner: According to the Financial Times, the former US treasury secretary was paid roughly $200,000 (paywall) for a speaking engagement at Deutsche Bank in 2014.
  • Ben Bernanke: The former Fed chairman left his government job and started charging his annual government salary to appear at single events. As of May 2014 he charged “fees that range from $200,000 in the United States and $400,000 for engagements in Asia,” according to the New York Times.
  • Larry Summers: The former treasury secretary charged Yale only $10,000, but took $135,000 from Goldman Sachs in 2008 or 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal.
  • Al Gore: Bloomberg reported in 2013 that after Gore won the Nobel prize he was asking for $175,000 in speaker fees.
  • Donald Trump: Trump reportedly earned $1.5 million per speech for a series of seminars in a private online learning company’s “real estate wealth expos,” Forbes reports. That was in 2006 and 2007, though. In light of recent news, his star power may be decreasing.

the fawning press that will alter the color of Hillarys pantsuit so it wont look like the exact match to Elizabeth Warrens pantsuit and they look like Bobsy twins or something equally ridiculous.

Exact match, similar, different color pantsuits. So what? Why is what they wore even something worth noting, much less talking about? Have you never seen men, political, business, or otherwise not dressed alike?

Oh, yeah. They all look real different. Not wearing pretty much exactly the same thing. Not at all.

Nope, not several Congresswomen wearing essentially the same thing.

Not those businesswomen and businessmen either...

And for the record, Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Warren weren't wearing the same color pantsuit. Here they are from the same event.



That image is from the Daily Caller's depiction of MSNBC video.

Here's a NY Post photo from the same day/event.

 

[320 Years of History]

OF course there is no literal crown as that would be too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton.

The matter has nothing to do with what's "too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton." It has everything to do with the fact that U.S. heads of state are not royal and therefore not coronated.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

OF course there is no literal crown as that would be too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton.

The matter has nothing to do with what's "too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton." It has everything to do with the fact that U.S. heads of state are not royal and therefore not coronated.

Someone should tell the Obamas that they are not royalty for starters.

But on THIS topic, you certainly are not for truth.

The law has been quoted to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER and you ignore it, Mishandling of classified material is a CRIME, the FBI recommended no indictment for one reason and one reason only.. The President of the United States emailed classified emails to Clinton's servers, making HIM guilty of the same crime. There was NO WAY to prosecute her without making that fact a matter of the public record, that simply isn't going to happen. The FBI isn't going to allow a sitting US President to be accused of committing a crime. Easier to just not indict.

That however, does NOT mean a crime wasn't committed. It simply means she wasn't charged. It actually happens a lot in this country.

If you were truly interested in truth, you would admit that yes, the law clearly makes the mishandling of classified material , whether intentional or not, a crime. Your silly nonsense about a non secure server not being an unapproved place is beneath you.

 

[Flopper]

OF course there is no literal crown as that would be too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton.

The matter has nothing to do with what's "too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton." It has everything to do with the fact that U.S. heads of state are not royal and therefore not coronated.

Someone should tell the Obamas that they are not royalty for starters.

But on THIS topic, you certainly are not for truth.

The law has been quoted to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER and you ignore it, Mishandling of classified material is a CRIME, the FBI recommended no indictment for one reason and one reason only.. The President of the United States emailed classified emails to Clinton's servers, making HIM guilty of the same crime. There was NO WAY to prosecute her without making that fact a matter of the public record, that simply isn't going to happen. The FBI isn't going to allow a sitting US President to be accused of committing a crime. Easier to just not indict.

That however, does NOT mean a crime wasn't committed. It simply means she wasn't charged. It actually happens a lot in this country.

If you were truly interested in truth, you would admit that yes, the law clearly makes the mishandling of classified material , whether intentional or not, a crime. Your silly nonsense about a non secure server not being an unapproved place is beneath you.

This is getting downright silly. Clinton's carelessness which would only be considered gross negligence in a court of Republicans who've been hounding her for over 20 years. Clinton carelessness is another way of saying that the Secretary of State is responsible for all screw ups within the department which includes the security of classified information.

Clinton's carelessness if you want to call it that, amounts to not insuring that the email server was secure and not taking an active part in cleaning up the loose security culture that existed in the State Dept long before she took office. Top level people in government do not setup the security measures within the system, they just take responsibility for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

OF course there is no literal crown as that would be too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton.

The matter has nothing to do with what's "too crass and brazen, even for a Clinton." It has everything to do with the fact that U.S. heads of state are not royal and therefore not coronated.

Someone should tell the Obamas that they are not royalty for starters.

But on THIS topic, you certainly are not for truth.

The law has been quoted to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER and you ignore it, Mishandling of classified material is a CRIME, the FBI recommended no indictment for one reason and one reason only.. The President of the United States emailed classified emails to Clinton's servers, making HIM guilty of the same crime. There was NO WAY to prosecute her without making that fact a matter of the public record, that simply isn't going to happen. The FBI isn't going to allow a sitting US President to be accused of committing a crime. Easier to just not indict.

That however, does NOT mean a crime wasn't committed. It simply means she wasn't charged. It actually happens a lot in this country.

If you were truly interested in truth, you would admit that yes, the law clearly makes the mishandling of classified material , whether intentional or not, a crime. Your silly nonsense about a non secure server not being an unapproved place is beneath you.

Red:
Yes, according to the statues I've myself cited -- nobody has needed to cite the laws in this regard to me; I posted them in this and my other related thread -- it is a crime, and according to the FBI's Director and, by inference, the attorneys at the DOJ, it is a crime that they will prosecute when there is mens rea and actus rea involved.

I realize you don't think mens rea applies in Mrs. Clinton's matter, but the entire FBI and DOJ, along with the authors of the scholarly/critical legal "thoughtware" documents (not "court of public opinion" editorials and/or partisan posturing) to which I provided all say the same things.

• Have you actually clicked on the links I've provided and read the documents I shared? I did. Those documents are what have led me to understand and agree with the FBI's and DOJ's decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton pursuant to Subsection 793(f).

Pink:
I have seen nothing indicating that happened. Have you?

Blue:
??? Since when? Bill Clinton was indicted while he was a sitting President.

Green:
Where did I say "a non secure server not being an unapproved place?" I have not anywhere attested to thinking that the actus rea component pertaining to Mrs. Clinton's actions does not exist, nor have I asserted that it's not provable, and the FBI have also said the actus rea is not in question. I have only written about the lack of the mens rea component not being present, and I have provided multiple references indicating that the mens rea component is necessary. The absence of clear evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the mens rea element was present in Mrs. Clinton's actions is also the only thing that Dir. Comey indicated as the reason for the FBI recommending that no charges be brought.

 

[Flopper]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

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.

gross negligence

 

[320 Years of History]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

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.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

While some folks may view the meme you've shared above as acceptable in the "court of public opinion," it doesn't pass muster in a criminal courtroom. The matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted and can be found guilty of the charges levied against her is a matter that must be considered in terms of what can be achieved in a criminal courtroom.

That is true. We dont know if 'extreme careless' in handling classified Top Secret data actually is 'gross negligence' if the accused is a Royal member of the House Clinton Dynasty.

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.

gross negligence

...Yet in spite of the words "conscious" and "voluntary" being in the very definition of "gross negligence," folks want to claim that intent isn't part of the requirement for being prosecuted under Subsection 793(f).

Truly, I do not believe the folks here and in Washington's halls of political power give a damn about anything other than making sure Hillary Clinton does not win the Presidential election. I think to that end that they want to see her prosecuted because that will bring to an end her ability to win the 2016 election.

Off Topic:
Additionally, though I've refrained from politicizing my unbidden remarks about "Email-gate," the fact of the matter is that I was rather hoping the FBI would recommend charging Mrs. Clinton. I wanted that because I would sooner Bernie Sanders be the Democratic Presidential nominee, and Mrs. Clinton's indictment would have all but guaranteed that he become the nominee. I think he's a much better alternative to Trump than is Mrs. Clinton and I have no doubt he'd defeat Trump in the general election for he truly is a "typical" middle class guy.

First let me say that Flopper is a moron and has no business in the CDZ. So perhaps I'll be thread banned for that, but I can't idly stand by while someone pretends like the carelessness of putting the emails on Hillary's private server was anyone's fault but Hillary's.

Reasonable men can debate whether that is illegal or not, but it is completely unreasonable to pretend like the herself is not responsible for them being there and that it's just mean Republicans making up lies that suggest she is.

Secondly, it is obvious from your last post that you are viewing this from a political spectrum. I mean how do you with a straight face say " I don't think she committed a crime, but I wanted her indicted ?" I wouldn't have wanted her indicted had she not committed a crime.

This is personal for me. I used to work for the NSA, I was one of the many who went to countries I wasn't supposed to be in, to do things I wasn't supposed to be doing. Often times those things were coordinated through the State Department. That means potentially that emails containing my name and my whereabouts while conducting illegal activity in a foreign country without diplomatic cover were at one time or another on her server.

My wife and children would not have appreciated it had I been killed due to information leaking off that server.

It's that simple for me. I don't give a damn what party she was in, I don't give a damn about her politics. I ONLY care that she jeopardized the safety of both our country and the men and women serving it. PERIOD.

 

[320 Years of History]

it is obvious from your last post that you are viewing this from a political spectrum. I mean how do you with a straight face say " I don't think she committed a crime, but I wanted her indicted ?" I wouldn't have wanted her indicted had she not committed a crime.

Red + Blue:
I said that with regard to Mrs. Clinton's role in "Email-gate," the actus rea aspect of criminality exists and is provable beyond a reasonable doubt and that the mens rea component of criminality does not exist to the extent that it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. I've also said that both components are necessary. That is also what Dir. Comey said. If you are going to paraphrase me, fine, but do so completely and accurately.

Red:
How do you with a straight face "cherry pick" what I wrote. taking them out of context, and thereby misrepresent by omission what I did in fact write and mean? You know as well as I do that I have gone out of my way to make clear that the basis for my view and that of the FBI is the lack of clear evidence to show the existence of mens rea in the commission of the acts of "Email-gate." You know that because you've been posting in the thread I created expressly to discuss the role and importance of mens rea. Moreover, I posted multiple references in the OP and elsewhere in that and this thread about how the concept of mens rea plays into the FBI's determination/recommendation to the DOJ.

As I asked you before, did you read them? I did.

This is personal for me.

That may well be a very good reason why you should refrain from partaking in what is supposed to be an objective discussion on the matter. You may be taking the matter too personally and thus not seeing the nature and application of legal theory through the clear lens of neutrality.