Posted on 07/06/2016 9:08:38 AM PDT by Jim W N
The negligence thing bothers me even if there were no intent to subvert federal law. If you leave a child in a hot car and that child is harmed, you will be charged with negligence even if the action was unintentional. By minimizing the negligence issue in the Clinton case, Director Comey puts his agency under scrutiny. I am not casting aspersions on Comey's honesty, I believe he is a credible man and I don't believe he would tank an investigation. But the people are owed a more detailed explanation about negligence that put our national security in jeopardy. Finally, it is more than likely that the FBI tipped off President Obama as to what was going to happen today. That's not to say that Director Comey was working with the president in any way, but the bureau knew Mr. Obama was allowing Hillary Clinton to ride on Air Force One to a campaign event in North Carolina. So it is inconceivable that the director of the FBI and Attorney General Loretta Lynch would allow that to happen if Hillary Clinton was going to be charged. Summing up, the FBI says lack of intent to subvert federal law is the reason the agency is not recommending charges against Hillary Clinton. But Director Comey downplayed the negligence issue and that is very troubling."
(Excerpt) Read more at billoreilly.com ...
As usual O'Reilly put the problem on a person level saying the FBI's downplaying negligence is "troubling." Bill, it is more than "troubling", it is a clear failure of the FBI's duty to respond to Hillary's probable violations of a federal statute.
Bill, get it right. Your personal preferences don't matter here - gross negligence is enough to indict the Screech. The FBI is clearly not performing its duty to respond to Hillary's probable violations of a federal statute.
O'Reilly gets tangled up in his "No-Spin-Zone."
I disagree, I think even if you accidentally release Top Secret or SAP information you go to Prison. And that's for each occurence. Doing it seven times is not accidental.
O’Reilly has proven repeatedly that when his buffoon act is not an act. Yes, sadly he really is as stupid, rude and uninformed as he sounds.
O’Reilly always playing both sides. I was sorry I flipped him on and immediately put Lou Dobbs back on.
It’s an act. When Dan Rather was in trouble, he claimed Rather didn’t know. He’s trying to be even-handed.
I saw that last night. He is clueless............
Not called 0’pinheD fer nuthin” !!!
*****
If an executive at a private company tried this they would be fired on the spot.
Only as a RAT Gov employee does this rate a promotion.
“gross negligence is enough to indict the Screech”
I disagree with this statement in that you are giving in to the possibility it was a mistake. When a government official sends out emails through the CAC that is being used as a training tool to teach subordinates how to by-pass the government COMSEC requirements using a patch and patch process to slip sensitive information through the email system, that is not a mistake. That is an effort to misuse the system to knowingly, and illegally pass the sensitive information improperly. That is not negligence at that level, that is espionage and treason.
red
You can have the most patriotic person EVER but if they are a careless bungler they WILL GET PRISON if they LEAK TOP SECRET INFORMATION or ALLOW IT TO BE LEAKED, even if it is UNINTENTIONAL!
Quote:
“O’Reilly always playing both sides. I was sorry I flipped him on and immediately put Lou Dobbs back on.”
Lou Dobbs is a gentleman. And he has 50 IQ points on O’Reilly.
That dumb SOB remains confused over what happened at Malmedy.
O’Reilly was guilty of gross negligence or lying when he claimed not to be aware of that.
Right on all counts.
O’Reilly is a drunk.
Sorry Bill, we know you’re not that stupid, so we now have proof ‘they’ own you too!
This whole thing is a farce. Hillary’s use of a private server is itself prima facie evidence of intent to subvert the law. Her intent was to avoid the scrutiny of Congress, the President, and the American people while conducting her own personal foreign policy and running the criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation.
He shills for hill thinking she will return the favor and go on his show.
Not gonna happen Bill. We’ll do it live!
O’Reilly lost me when he compared FreeRepublic to DU and called us a hate site holding up sheets of blank paper as proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO5TEvSNguQ
I listened to O’Reilly last night.
He was focused on the negligence — extreme carelessness. He mentioned intent, and he had it wrong, but his focus, to be fair with the man, was on the negligence aspect.
Krauthammer understands intent correctly. O’Reilly understood it to mean intent to harm the USA. I personally think Clinton sold American secrets, that she was protecting her operation over national security, and that she doesn’t give a fig for the USA, so I COULD affirm her intent to harm America. Krauthammer, however, understands that the very act of having a secret server was intent to skirt the law. That intent is irrefutable.
But, all that aside, O’Reilly did focus on the gross negligence. He is so cautious with new news and always holds his finger in the wind to be sure he doesn’t lose his late night invites.
O’Reilly once again proves that he really isn’t very bright and has a very tough time understanding simple legal principles. All bluster. Maybe he can understand this simple two minute video showing HRC on one side, Comey on the other. Maybe Bill can figure this out. BEST video of the year, ready-made Trump ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc&feature=youtu.be
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.