Legal experts: "extremely careless" is not necessarily "gross negligence"

[A Perez]

The battle between anonymous right-wing message board nicknames vs. legal experts is on.
The former say that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted.
The latter say that James Comey did the right thing by not recommending charges. The experts explain that the standard for charges regarding the Espionage Act (Gross Negligence) is not met in Clinton's case:
Reuters (7/5/2016):

"Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

...

Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power."

Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Link Lawyers: Legal precedent clears Clinton in email investigation

 

[bucs90]

I'm flipping around all the news and talk media. Legal experts appear to be split 50/50. Probably based on who they'll vote for.


Run a red light and t-bone a van killing everyone inside??? Claim you just didn't see the light because you were distracted. See if "no intent" gets you off.

Only if you're Crooked Hillary.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

While true, tell us again how this in anyway bolsters the argument that she is the most qualified candidate? She seems, well, extremely careless.

 

[A Perez]

I'm flipping around all the news and talk media. Legal experts appear to be split 50/50. Probably based on who they'll vote for.


Run a red light and t-bone a van killing everyone inside??? Claim you just didn't see the light because you were distracted. See if "no intent" gets you off.

Only if you're Crooked Hillary.

In some cases intent applies. In other cases intent doesnt apply. Stop pretending all crimes have the same standard for guilt.

 

[Freewill]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

 

[GHook93]

The battle between anonymous right-wing message board nicknames vs. legal experts is on.
The former say that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted.
The latter say that James Comey did the right thing by not recommending charges. The experts explain that the standard for charges regarding the Espionage Act (Gross Negligence) is not met in Clinton's case:
Reuters (7/5/2016):

"Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

...

Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power."

Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Link Lawyers: Legal precedent clears Clinton in email investigation

First it is amazing they could find 110 top secret emails made from a private server as intentional. Heck go to any business in the world and you will never see business emails or documents being sent through private email accounts. You have to be a true moron for not knowing what one was doing.

Even if Clinton was a complete moron and didn't know what she did was wrong, ignorance of the law has never been a defense.

This was Loretta Lynch's doing whether you want to believe it or not.

 

[DGS49]

The FBI director obviously took great pains to explain his actions in terminology that would stand up to legal scrutiny. Certainly, he considered the legal distinction between "gross negligence" and being "careless," which is not even a legal term.

And while we are on the subject of HRC being "qualified," this is total bullshit.

Anyone who has any experience in "executive search" knows that simply holding a position for a period of time is not a qualification. What matters is what you accomplished while holding that position. And in the case of HRC, one must balance the few ephemeral accomplishments, known only to her most ardent and blind supporters, against a whole cornucopia of screw-ups, failings, and negligent inactions.

Not that any of this matters one bit to her supporters. They will vote for her because it is rumored that she has a vagina. Period.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Instead of finding the difference between gross negligence or extreme carelessness they've decided forget all that and call Comey a hack! Call all of it a Scam! Everyone is a liberal! The FBI, Trey Gowdy, Republicans investigations, Comey, That guy over there, that coffee table in the corner....the fly on the wall

EVERYTHING

 

[Fenton Lum]

The FBI director obviously took great pains to explain his actions in terminology that would stand up to legal scrutiny. Certainly, he considered the legal distinction between "gross negligence" and being "careless," which is not even a legal term.

And while we are on the subject of HRC being "qualified," this is total bullshit.

Anyone who has any experience in "executive search" knows that simply holding a position for a period of time is not a qualification. What matters is what you accomplished while holding that position. And in the case of HRC, one must balance the few ephemeral accomplishments, known only to her most ardent and blind supporters, against a whole cornucopia of screw-ups, failings, and negligent inactions.

Not that any of this matters one bit to her supporters. They will vote for her because it is rumored that she has a vagina. Period.

And many will support Trump regardless of all his baggage simpy because it is rumored Trump is the owner/operator of a penis of some sort.

 

[LittleNipper]

, QUOTE="A Perez, post: 14670703, member: 53114"]The battle between anonymous right-wing message board nicknames vs. legal experts is on.
The former say that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted.
The latter say that James Comey did the right thing by not recommending charges. The experts explain that the standard for charges regarding the Espionage Act (Gross Negligence) is not met in Clinton's case:
Reuters (7/5/2016):

"Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

...

Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power."

Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Link Lawyers: Legal precedent clears Clinton in email investigation[/QUOTE]
Had the parties been reversed, and a Conservative had done exactly what a Liberal did, just how kind would the Liberals be towards the Conservative? Where liberalism is concerned, it isn't about right or wrong, it is about winning, and doing whatever they please.

 

[martybegan]

The battle between anonymous right-wing message board nicknames vs. legal experts is on.
The former say that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted.
The latter say that James Comey did the right thing by not recommending charges. The experts explain that the standard for charges regarding the Espionage Act (Gross Negligence) is not met in Clinton's case:
Reuters (7/5/2016):

"Extreme carelessness doesn't necessarily translate into gross negligence," said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

...

Vladeck said the law is not "well suited for careless discussion of information in unsecured media that doesn't dispossess the government of that information or direct it right into the hands of a foreign power."

Previous cases charged under the Espionage Act have shown intent, experts said.

Link Lawyers: Legal precedent clears Clinton in email investigation