As expected Hillary is above the law. Terrible precedent to set going forward. Unfortunate day for our country, corruption prevails.

 

Mr. Comey your public lashing insinuating she's dishonest and used terrible judgment doesn't change anything for those who've already made a deal with the devil.

Jim Comey's Statement on the Clinton Emails: A Quick and Dirty Analysis - Lawfare

 

This is an analysis I found informed, even-keeled, and relatively thorough. Based on my following and understanding of the events his conclusions are right in line with mine and I believe a quick perusal of my post history on this topic would confirm that this isn't a new revelation.

 

 

 

If you don't agree or feel that she should be standing trial then I ask that you put up some evidence that would disconfirm Benjamin Wittes' analysis I've excerpted below.

 

 

 

To follow the author's premise, can we point to cases where someone has been indicted for mishandling classified information where there was, in Comey's words, no "inten[t] to violate laws governing the handling of classified information"? It would seem to me that if Comey erred or acted unfairly there would be evidence of similar cases among lower-level staffers, or especially political appointees, who were indicted under very similar facts.

 

As I've said before, Clinton's circumvention of transparency with her email server ought to have been politically damning (and if it weren't for her opponent, it very likely would be). But, I've never seen any evidence that this sort of thing would lead to an indictment.

 

I would tend to agree also with you and the author if we only paid attention to the intent portion of the law and not the other part about gross negligence. If what Comey layed out doesn't fit the bill for gross negligence with classfied material they might as well remove it from the statute.

Naval Engineer Prosecuted For Mishandling Classified Info In 2

Ladies and gentlemen, let's face it. The facts were there. Intent is not included in the code. The Director even said others in the same situation would be prosecuted.

 

This was a political move, plain and simple.

 

It is disturbing that this is what our government has dissolved into. We are no better than the Banana Republics we thumb our noses at.

 

You can polish a :poop: all day, at the end of the day, it's still a :poop:.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's face it. The facts were there. Intent is not included in the code. The Director even said others in the same situation would be prosecuted.

 

This was a political move, plain and simple.

 

It is disturbing that this is what our government has dissolved into. We are no better than the Banana Republics we thumb our noses at.

 

You can polish a :poop: all day, at the end of the day, it's still a :poop:.

 

To clarify I believe intent is worded in the statute but also says gross negligence.

 

I personally believe gross negligence applies with the following :

 

1. You setup a server to house classified material without permission

 

2. Ignore orders not to setup said server.

 

3. Transmit classfied documents on non secure emails or systems.

 

4. Delete emails and evidence that is requested.

 

How is that not a pattern of negligent behavior.

To clarify I believe intent is worded in the statute but also says gross negligence.

 

I personally believe gross negligence applies with the following :

 

1. You setup a server to house classified material without permission

 

2. Ignore orders not to setup said server.

 

3. Transmit classfied documents on non secure emails or systems.

 

4. Delete emails and evidence that is requested.

 

How is that not a pattern of negligent behavior.

 

5. Your unsecured devices were hacked more than once on foreign soil.

if you can get the FBI to not take photographs and ignore the missing pieces of a suicide victim this should not be too surprising.

Naval Engineer Prosecuted For Mishandling Classified Info In 215 | The Daily Caller

@Habib you ask and I deliver. Maybe if that Navy reservist had a different last name.

 

Fair enough. This would seem to constitute evidence that a reasonable discussion can be based around.

 

Now, I will quibble with that website's write-up. They write that Nishimura mishandled the classified data without "malicious intent," implying it's the same conclusion Comey reached when he said there wasn't evidence Clinton intended to violate the laws surrounding classified information. But, Nishimura most certainly intended to violate the law when he stole the data and snuck it off base, which he admitted, he just didn't plan to sell it or give it to anyone, therefore there was "no intent to distribute" or "no malicious intent" as that website strains to put it. So, I reason the level of intentionality in each case - so far as Comey's explanation goes - are quite different.

 

But, I'll grant this is a start. How many more are there? I assume that some number of people have been fired, lost their clearances, or were otherwise reprimanded due to mishandling classified information, how many were charged?

Fair enough. This would seem to constitute evidence that a reasonable discussion can be based around.

 

Now, I will quibble with that website's write-up. They write that Nishimura mishandled the classified data without "malicious intent," implying it's the same conclusion Comey reached when he said there wasn't evidence Clinton intended to violate the laws surrounding classified information. But, Nishimura most certainly intended to violate the law when he stole the data and snuck it off base, which he admitted, he just didn't plan to sell it or give it to anyone, therefore there was "no intent to distribute" or "no malicious intent" as that website strains to put it. So, I reason the level of intentionality in each case - so far as Comey's explanation goes - are quite different.

 

But, I'll grant this is a start. How many more are there? I assume that some number of people have been fired, lost their clearances, or were otherwise reprimanded due to mishandling classified information, how many were charged?

 

So how would you classify putting classified material on a non US government server or device. Clinton ignored direction not to do this , I fail to see the difference . Of a one time encounter , as opposed to doing it over the course of majority of her tenure as SOS.

 

Why should she be given clearance again ? That's not even to talk scale of her negligence. The fact that her negligence on unsecure devices on foreign soil led to those devices being hacked.

 

I don't understand your point on how many more ?

If the Trump campaign is smart, they'll focus less on the fact that no charges were filed, and more so on the use of terminology like "careless", "reckless", and "lack of judgement".

 

IMO, you are making some excellent posts today. While others are going off on wild tangents and making hyperbolic statements, you remain true to the straight and narrow and right on point. BTW, Trump is not disciplined enough to follow your advice.

Sunday, on CNN, Gary Johnson said he believes there is no evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part. He also said he believed that Trump was racist. People need to be giving this guy a closer look. There are not just two options available, people.

Sunday, on CNN, Gary Johnson said he believes there is no evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part. He also said he believed that Trump was racist. People need to be giving this guy a closer look. There are not just two options available, people.

 

Criminal intent doesn't matter to this statute. It specifically states gross negligence.

 

If ignore direct order not to setup private server , sending classified documents on said server and then allowing said servery to be hacked doesn't qualify as gross negligence I fail to see any circumstance that would qualify.

 

Well wait nope I just gave an example of one eerily similar and that person got 2 years probation and banned from clearance for life.

LB ... read Clyde's linked article. Perhaps the key factor in previous cases is criminal intent. That was the factor that determined if charges were filed or not.

 

History tells us we should not be surprised.

 

 

Clinton emails: Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted - POLITICO

 

Interesting article. Certainly changed my opinion. I challenge anyone who thinks Hillary should have been charged with something (like I did) to read Clyde's linked article.

Sunday, on CNN, Gary Johnson said he believes there is no evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part. He also said he believed that Trump was racist. People need to be giving this guy a closer look. There are not just two options available, people.

Johnson may very well decide this election, for the democrats. While he may be more palatable for some then Trump, a vote for him almost ensures a Clinton win. So when deciding to vote, if you care about the make up of the Supreme Court...do not vote Johnson.

 

Of course Bill won with the lowest percentage of the vote for any President in decades, due to Perot running and taking votes from the middle and far right. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton campaign to started pushing for Johnson to be involved in the debates, heck they are probably going to funnel him some money secretly so that he erodes from Trumps potential votes.

It's too bad that the republicans didn't nominate someone like Kasich. They'd have won in a landslide.

 

So many democrats were screaming for Kasich to win the nomination so they wouldn't have to vote for Hillary over Trump.