Based on the fact that no one created a thread to this tells me everyone pretty much expected this outcome. I certainly did.
I was surprised that the head of the FBI made this comments that he did. I think there are many prosecutors that would take this case despite him saying that would not be the case. I was sort of expecting the FBI to send this to a grand jury to get the monkey off of their back.
The way this all went down including Bill Clinton’s meeting with Loretta Lynch sure makes this look like the fix was in.
Yeah it is especially fixed when a career prosecutor with a history of standing up against power, who is a card carrying republican and donated to the Romney campaign is involved in the coverup. But of course all the right wing outlets are trying to tear him down because they didn’t get the outcome they wanted.
It’s tough to be objective and above the fray in this hyper partisan world.
The difference between criminality and bad judgement is usually intent. That kind of distinction is made all the time.
I am sure you were equally upset by the thousands of “lost” emails from the Bush White House or both Sec Powell and Sec Rice’s private email servers when they were at the state department right?
How about the Americans that lost their lives fighting in Iraq for a war started under false pretenses? So that matters so little you actually voted for that moron to be president twice but Hillary uses a private server and everyone loses their minds. Give me a break it was just some emails. The story has been such a nonstory I haven’t even paid attention to it. Did she email nuke specs to every country in the world? No? Ok then who cares?
The left is too soft and PC for sure but the right just appears to be crammed to the gills with absolute lunatics that have zero to use rational thought. They went from being racist/sexist to radical fox news zombies.
Obama’s out to get my guns! King Obama does whatever he wants with the executive order! (except take the guns he supposedly wants so badly) The gays want to molest my kid! The poor people want to live in the “luxury” of sucking icecream from my teet forever! Every Muslim is a terrorist! Build a wall and kick all the Mexicans out!
Please explain the damages done by Hilary having her own email server. The two articles I just looked up didn’t seem to say anything bad happened besides “she broke the rules”.
Oh yeah, when Pines said Comey was a “a card carrying republican” may want to know that in his congressional testimony he said he is no longer a registered Republican…..for the record.
The difference between criminality and bad judgement is usually intent. That kind of distinction is made all the time.
I am sure you were equally upset by the thousands of “lost” emails from the Bush White House or both Sec Powell and Sec Rice’s private email servers when they were at the state department right?
Not going to go too much into this because I didn’t expect a different outcome either, but intent is not required in this statute - simply “gross negligence.” I’m not sure how “extremely reckless” differs from gross negligence, but that’s not my call. By setting up a server in her house, she clearly had intent to do what was described as “extremely reckless.”
If “she got special treatment” is all you’re mad about then we’re talking about the wrong sorts of people, ever politician (including Trump) lives a life of special treatment.
If “she got special treatment” is all you’re mad about then we’re talking about the wrong sorts of people, ever politician (including Trump) lives a life of special treatment.
As far as what harm was caused, we don’t know, and it’s doubtful we ever will. However, that isn’t the determining factor as to whether there was an offense. People get DUI charges all the time when there’s not identifiable harm.
Not sure what you mean by “talking about the wrong sorts of people, ever politician (including Trump) lives a life of special treatment.”
In this case, as I said earlier, Intent is what mattered. It does all the time too across a host of charges. I think the whole thing really shows how loosely the State department as a whole treats classified and has for decades.
But yes, the Director of the FBI, a Republican to boot, was totally in the bag for Hillary. It is so easy to pull punches on our tribe and attack the other isn’t it?
In this case, as I said earlier, Intent is what mattered. It does all the time too across a host of charges. I think the whole thing really shows how loosely the State department as a whole treats classified and has for decades.
In United States v. McGuinness in 1992, the courts determined that intent was not required and that the gross negligence clause was intended to set a lower threshold. This case was cited in many other decisions to support the same conclusion.
SoPinesHeel - 12 July 2016 02:01 PM
But yes, the Director of the FBI, a Republican to boot, was totally in the bag for Hillary. It is so easy to pull punches on our tribe and attack the other isn’t it?
I don’t know where you see punches pulled on my part. I don’t care if he calls himself an R or a D. I didn’t expect anything different but I’m not sure where you differentiate between extremely reckless and gross negligence. Those words mean the same whether they’re stated by an R or a D.
So, just to be clear Counselor, you know more about this case than the director of the FBI? A former US attorney, it was his words not mine that discussed intent.
Who knew Facebook and message boards made so many legal experts.
I saw a documentary once predicting that in the future Costco would give out legal degrees too…
So, just to be clear Counselor, you know more about this case than the director of the FBI? A former US attorney, it was his words not mine that discussed intent.
Who knew Facebook and message boards made so many legal experts.
I saw a documentary once predicting that in the future Costco would give out legal degrees too…
I heard what he said, and I heard many others saying the opposite. So that I wouldn’t be one of those basing opinions on party, I looked it up and found several cases where it was decided that intent wasn’t necessary, and the majority of them cited the case I mentioned somewhere in their decisions. To save time, I just posted that one and noted it had been referenced several times. Did you do any of your own research or just go with the statement issued by a political appointee - all while talking about the tribe effect?
Except the director of the FBI is a career law enforcement officer with a reputation for fairness and speaking truth to power, a lifelong Republican and was confirmed with overwhelming Republican support. Man they turn quick when they don’t get the outcome they want don’t they?
Do you do any of your own research or just listen to what people who hate Hillary Clinton say since they are the only ones saying things contrary to the FBI. BTW Fox News and Brietbart are not objective sources, just in case you didn’t know.
So what kind of law do you practice? Do you hold a JD fromWikipedia or Facebook?
