So Why Would Comey Change Key Words in Statement re: Clinton

[Peach]

So you are saying Comey did not completely understand the distinction between the two statements?

-Geaux

1st draft, 2nd draft, 3rd. This is not a memo on lunch.T

Back to the question. Why did he change it? Evidently, all the evidence was in, and conclusions formed

-Geaux

It seems safe to assume you do not do any writing as part of your job. For those of us who do, we revise words often as we go through the drafts for a multitude of reasons. Doing so is not out of the norm, it is in fact what one is taught to do. You are trying way too hard here and just showing your own ignorance.

Gross negligence vs extreme carelessness have different legal implications. If Comey really believed what he initially stated, what was his reasoning for changing it? Did anyone pressure him to make the change? I suspect we will find out once he is brought back for questioning under oath. This is similar to the other 'change' he was instructed to make when he initially called the issue an 'Investigation', but was instructed to change the wording to 'matter' by Lynch

-Geaux

One thing a person who does any sort of writing learns very early on, never put in print what you cannot prove. Perhaps he knew/felt he did not have the evidence to prove the former so he went with the latter. I put out a simple weekly Crop Progress report and even in that I reword it multiple times to make sure I can support every statement in it.

Technical. Appelate briefs are revised multiple times, I revise less than my former partner.

 

[JoeMoma]

A review of the evidence must impact conclusions due to thought.

Good luck with that.

But ok, for discussion sake, in review of the evidence in that the memo was changed, what specifically would have warranted changing the definition of the message?

-Geaux

Further research into legal impact of course. I cannot imagine writing only onedraft of a legal document that unique.

True. And the legal impact was whether he/they wanted to indict HRC or let her off the hook.

 

[Geaux4it]

They thought the fix was in.

1st draft, 2nd draft, 3rd. This is not a memo on lunch.T[/QUOTE]

Back to the question. Why did he change it? Evidently, all the evidence was in, and conclusions formed

-Geaux[/QUOTE]

It seems safe to assume you do not do any writing as part of your job. For those of us who do, we revise words often as we go through the drafts for a multitude of reasons. Doing so is not out of the norm, it is in fact what one is taught to do. You are trying way too hard here and just showing your own ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Gross negligence vs extreme carelessness have different legal implications. If Comey really believed what he initially stated, what was his reasoning for changing it? Did anyone pressure him to make the change? I suspect we will find out once he is brought back for questioning under oath. This is similar to the other 'change' he was instructed to make when he initially called the issue an 'Investigation', but was instructed to change the wording to 'matter' by Lynch

-Geaux[/QUOTE]

One thing a person who does any sort of writing learns very early on, never put in print what you cannot prove. Perhaps he knew/felt he did not have the evidence to prove the former so he went with the latter. I put out a simple weekly Crop Progress report and even in that I reword it multiple times to make sure I can support every statement in it.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, however, he stated- and I paraphrase, no prosecuter would bring charges...... By changing the terminology of the statement, his assumption that no case would have been made was made more justifiable in his mind

-Geaux

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They thought the fix was in.

Hillary's election win was inevitable.

None of this would ever see the light of day.

True, and so did the Russians which should clearly establish their lack of interest in putting

1st draft, 2nd draft, 3rd. This is not a memo on lunch.T

Back to the question. Why did he change it? Evidently, all the evidence was in, and conclusions formed

-Geaux

It seems safe to assume you do not do any writing as part of your job. For those of us who do, we revise words often as we go through the drafts for a multitude of reasons. Doing so is not out of the norm, it is in fact what one is taught to do. You are trying way too hard here and just showing your own ignorance.

Gross negligence vs extreme carelessness have different legal implications. If Comey really believed what he initially stated, what was his reasoning for changing it? Did anyone pressure him to make the change? I suspect we will find out once he is brought back for questioning under oath. This is similar to the other 'change' he was instructed to make when he initially called the issue an 'Investigation', but was instructed to change the wording to 'matter' by Lynch

-Geaux

One thing a person who does any sort of writing learns very early on, never put in print what you cannot prove. Perhaps he knew/felt he did not have the evidence to prove the former so he went with the latter. I put out a simple weekly Crop Progress report and even in that I reword it multiple times to make sure I can support every statement in it.

Perhaps, however, he stated- and I paraphrase, no prosecuter would bring charges...... By changing the terminology of the statement, his assumption that no case would have been made was made more justifiable in his mind

-Geaux

If he believed that no prosecutor would bring charges, then you have the answer to why he changed the words. If he felt there was not enough evidence to support the original words, they got changed. That is how it should work. Just because he wrote them first does not make them more accurate.

 

[Peach]

The amorphus "they".

 

[mudwhistle]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

You are so brainwashed.
It's actually pretty pathetic when you think about it.

 

[Aletheia4u]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

It sounds like the style of these people. They like twisting the words around to make it sounds less than what it is. They are using all sorts of fake legal terminology. They are playing word games on the public. Comey is a regular Roald Dahl in disguised.






Did you know Roald Dahl invented 500 words and character names, from the Oompa-Loompas and whizzpopping to the less well known humplecrimp, lixivate and zoonk? Susan Rennie, chief editor of The Oxford Roald Dahl Dictionary, takes us on phizz-whizzing tour of the most scrumdiddlyumptious words Roald Dahl: the best gobblefunk words

 

[Peach]

Do you know the depth of case law and authority before the issues in question?

If you don't want a legal response, don't ask legal questions.

 

[depotoo]

After being advised to by doj, after a meeting on the tarmac...

If that is indeed what Comey thought it was, why would he change it?

-Geaux

Ever written a brief, thesis or research paper?

So you are saying Comey did not completely understand the distinction between the two statements?

-Geaux

1st draft, 2nd draft, 3rd. This is not a memo on lunch.T

Back to the question. Why did he change it? Evidently, all the evidence was in, and conclusions formed

-Geaux

It seems safe to assume you do not do any writing as part of your job. For those of us who do, we revise words often as we go through the drafts for a multitude of reasons. Doing so is not out of the norm, it is in fact what one is taught to do. You are trying way too hard here and just showing your own ignorance.

 

[Auld Phart]

Probably because gross negligence has a legal definition to it?

Probably because gross negligence has a legal definition to it?

and if he had used 'gross negligence', he would have had to bring charges.

 

[Peach]

No. There may or may not be grounds; prosecutors are not sanctioned to roll the dice.

 

[Geaux4it]

From the link I posted in opening thread. Bold text added by me for emphasis

-Geaux

Section 793 of federal law states, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 

[JoeMoma]

At what point does "extreme carelessness' end and "gross negligence" begin?

 

[JoeMoma]

From the link I posted in opening thread. Bold text added by me for emphasis

-Geaux

Section 793 of federal law states, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Goudy believes a case could of been made for "intent".

 

[Theowl32]

The lawyers (mainly the Democrat lawyers) are the swamp.

All lawyer bullshit.

Did Bill ever find out what the meaning of "is" is?

 

[Geaux4it]

At what point does "extreme carelessness' end and "gross negligence" begin?

Here is sone more interesting information

-Geaux

I am puzzled by this argument for several reasons, but I will limit this post to just one of them: The fact that the statute has been used repeatedly in military prosecutions – and that at least one military court decision undermines arguments Director Comey has made about the state-of-mind proof required. The military prosecutions for gross negligence in the mishandling of classified information were discussed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal column following Director Comey’s press conference on Tuesday. While it is certainly true that the FBI does not handle such investigations, the military courts are part of the United States justice system. Military cases litigate many of the same statutes and precedents (especially, Supreme Court precedents) that are applicable in the civilian justice system. One relevant military case, United States v. McGuinness, is from 1992 – hardly ancient history. It involved a navy operations specialist sentenced to two years’ confinement (and other penalties) because, over his years of service, he retained 311 “classified items” unsecured in his home. While he was charged under Section 793, it was not under subsection (f) – the subsection of the statute most relevant to Mrs. Clinton, involving the grossly negligent mishandling of classified information – but under subsection (e), which criminalizes willful mishandling of classified information. Nevertheless, the case is highly relevant to our consideration of Director Comey’s recommendation against prosecution.

Read more at: Military Prosecutions Show That a Gross Negligence Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton

 

[iceberg]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

seriously? this is the same person who changed "investigation" to "a matter".

he was hillaries bitch, simple.

 

[SeaGal]

It is being reported this morning that James Comey in his written statement, had initially had the words 'Gross Negligence' relative to Clintons handling of classified information. He subsequently changed the wording to 'Extreme Carelessness'.

Again, why the change?

-Geaux

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

I think two things happened. The FBI couldn't or wouldn't prove intent on Hillary's part...portraying her to be foolish, rather than traitorous. The other was Lynch's announcement that Justice would abide by the FBI recommendations regarding charges. Remember FBI investigates, Justice prosecutes.

'Gross negligence' is harder to ignore.

 

[Care4all]

It was a draft, done before their final FBI interview for the investigation with Clinton.

Also, it says in the article gross negligence CAN be prosecuted, and NOT that it must be.....it all depends on the circumstance.

Petraeus was charged with gross negligence felony, he knowingly removed MARKED top SECRET CLASSIFIED information from its proper, protected holding place to an unsecured place and handed them over to his biography writer and mistress, and also lied 3 different times to the FBI.... And through a plea bargain down, he was only charged with a misdemeanor....

Comey testified that what Patreaus did was much much much worse than Clinton....

She and her actions, never came close to Patraeus wrong doings and he got a misdemeanor.....below a misdemeanor, there is simply NO CHARGE, and reprimand.

You are so brainwashed.
It's actually pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Actually, I'm using testimony before congress....

 

[Peach]

From the link I posted in opening thread. Bold text added by me for emphasis

-Geaux

Section 793 of federal law states, “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

That is one legal definition in that area. National defense, pull the reins. Read it Random statutes/Code sections are not even near trial.