It depends on what the meaning of “law” is; and “criminal” …and “intent.”Posted on 07/06/2016 3:39:10 AM PDT by NOBO2012
It depends on what the meaning of “law” is; and “criminal” …and “intent.”
They make a cute couple don’t they? Dysfunctional, butt cute.
And again, I feel it necessary to ask: Evil?
or Incompetent?
Butt you know the drill:
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Posted from: Michelle Obama’s Mirror
Even though I think B&H should be in jail, here’s my understanding of “gross negligence”:
This is when you basically have the attitude “Yes, I know it’s against the law, but I do it anyway ha ha ha!”
H certainly has this attitude but the prob w/the FBI is how do you prove that, precluding psychic ability?
They do it with questioning. When dealing w/the gov (or anyone with authority over you for that matter) remember Miranda - “Anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you.”
This, in a nutshell, is how they get out of this situation.
When being questioned, all they had to say was something like, “Little ol me? We didn’t do anything wrong, we were just attempting to make things more accessible so we could work more efficiently.”
Easy to come up w/when you have a lawyer present, or are dishonest and keep Miranda in mind.
On the other hand, when you have an honest person like Petraeus, he, thinking that being cooperative would help him (meaning he wasn’t thinking Miranda) probably said something like “I knew I shouldn’t have done it but...”
POW! You are now nailed with gross negligence because that statement indicates your knowledge that it was wrong and you did it anyway.
Sort of like going to traffic court and using that ridiculous plea “guilty with explanation”. You just admitted your guilt (sap).
If you’ve got something to say, plead not guilty and challenge the evidence without providing any (remember Miranda).
You can still request reduced fine/points if found guilty.
Per Comey, Clinton and her aides handled classified information in an “extremely careless” manner.
The statute makes it a crime to handle classified information in a “grossly negligent” manner.
The difference between the two terms is ... what exactly? Perhaps Comey can explain that to us benighted souls.
Then Comey can tell us how proving “intent” relates to a crime of negligence, which by definition is unintentional.
How could someone intend to be neglectful? But if he insists on going beyond negligence, it would seem that stating her desire to evade oversight, setting up an expensive, troublesome private server, failing to turn in copies of her messages, paying a coven of lawyers to purge her records, and causing the server to be wiped so the FBI could not recover the messages, seems to show a mountain of intent to mishandle classified information.
But Comey is a man of integrity, a real stand up guy.
bammy, using the powers of the presidency, interfered with the proper carrying-out of the law by telling the fbi and the “justice” department to go easy on hillary. hillary’s husband met with the head of the “justice” department to demand that hillary never be prosecuted.
If hillary is elected, it will have been through abuse of power.
EXCELLENT analogy!~
Not if Trump doesn’t watch his mouth...Bringing up Sadazz Hussein was stupid stupid yugely stupid.
The leftists are going to say: “See, nothing to see here...the FBI said so!” The mildly interested will see that as vindication and those who keep pushing the criminal meme will be seen as “attacking” the poor misunderstood hitlery.
It won’t take massive swings of people...just a few here and there in the swing states. Maybe even in a few precincts. That’s how zerohissef won Ohio.
”Everybody does it” is true. In the Obama Administration at least.
I bet when Comey’s children used the standard “but everybody does it,” he did not say “OK! You did not intend to (fill in the blank), you just did not know better.”
If we could use political timing to our advantage, and didn’t give half a damn about human life (like the Dems), we could keep stoking the Black Lives Matter crowd into taking out as many law enforcement agents as possible, up to and including Homeland Security stormtroopers.
That’s not going to happen, though. The BLM “movement” is a large portion of the chaos that the future neo-Marxist regimes want as an excuse to bring their “order”.
The Law of the Jungle.
Trump is right about Saddam Hussein. Bush effed up going there. He was finishing daddy’s battles instead of getting bin laden.
Well the perception among the voters he has to convince is that he is praising then enemy...as if he praised Mussolinili for making the train station run on time.
Ok, so Sadazz killed some terrorists: he also threw his political enemies into wood chippers feet first.
Trump needs to pounce on Hitlery relentlessly, not make stupid comments like he did.
These are imho, unforced errors that can be costly.
He doesn’t have to convince thee and me...he has to convince the fence sitters and independents. I do not think praising SH is the way to do that.
I believe he will win the blue collar, so called Reagan democrats and trash Hillary like Reagan did Carter then Mondale. Just my opinion but I believe he will slaughter her.
I pray you are correct. I too think he will make big gains among the blue collar folks.
If I can’t see Hitlery perp-walked,,,at least I can watch her squirm as she concedes.
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.