[Swordmaker]

This is the same FBI that investigated Hillary Clinton and said they could find no intent to commit a criminal act, even though it is obvious all heck she committed multiple crimes including treason.

Since when does a law about NEGLIGENCE require that the person being negligent ever REQUIRE that person to have an intent to BE NEGLIGENT? "Gee, I think I will plan to ignore my duty to safeguard that child." or "There's a broken and dangerous step on my porch, I know this, but I am deliberately planning on not repairing it so someone WILL slip and fall and break their neck. That sounds like a fun thing to see!" or "I know that by not repairing that broken railing in my store's mezzanine, a child will lean on it and fall off to their death, but I don't care because I would prefer to save my money to buy a new car. Besides Insurance is cheaper than paying to repair it."

No, intent is never required to prove negligence. . . especially extreme negligence.

[morphing libertarian]

He said she was extremely careless. That equals gross negligence in my vocabulary.

[UCANSEE2]

Since when does a law about NEGLIGENCE require that the person being negligent ever REQUIRE that person to have an intent to BE NEGLIGENT?

Since the day that Clinton met up with Lynch at the airport.