DescentBB

...to others that broke the law.

Attorneys for people who allegedly mishandled classified information say the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton could be good news for their clients.

Though many see a double standard in FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against the former secretary of state who used a personal and unsecured email system for official business, others see possibilities.

Mark Zaid, a defense attorney for national security whistleblowers and people accused of mishandling secrets, says he plans to ask for “the Clinton deal” in the future.

And Zaid says he probably can get it.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... inton-deal

So...if an "elite" official decides that a law doesn't apply to them, it's possible that the law will no longer exist for anyone else either- which would be "fair" and equal...but of course that would mean there are essentially no laws that couldn't be overturned in the end.

We would be a nation of men...and not law. (We're already becoming that as I type this.)

Snowden may have an "out" now. However, in Snowden's case, he released classified information to the public, with intent.

from what I'm hearing from Comey, intent is everything.

callmeslick wrote:from what I'm hearing from Comey, intent is everything.

And according to the law, intent has little to do with the crime.

Nightshade wrote:And according to the law, intent has little to do with the crime.

That's not actually how law works, ThunderBunny. Intent is a huge part of whether a person is innocent or guilty, or how guilty they are. For a general explanation that applies to all laws in the United States see the definition between murder and manslaughter. In the Clinton case, the question was whether or not Mrs Clinton acted in gross negligence. That term has a specific legal definition. While the FBI found her to be reckless, they did not find a strong enough case for an indictment of gross negligence to warrant going to trial. This brings us to where we are today.

If you can't believe the word of a Republican Agent overseeing this matter you have some serious delusions about how the world works.

TB is correct. The section of the law pertaining to this says nothing about "intent". Just so you know the law is from the Espionage Act, Subsection (e)

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

https://ows.edb.utexas.edu/index.php?q= ... e-act-1917

Now, show me where intent has to be factored in? As to gross negligence, what else would you call it when a person with a law degree and is head of a dept., willfully moves classified and top secret documents to her private unsecured filing system?

woodchip wrote:Now, show me where intent has to be factored in?

What is the matter with you? The law you quoted specifically says gross negligence as a measure. Gross negligence is defined by intent. Jesus man. can you be any more ignorant? (Don't answer that.)

woodchip wrote:...what else would you call it when a person with a law degree and is head of a dept., willfully moves classified and top secret documents to her private unsecured filing system?

Fact: A FBI investigation headed by a Republican (you know, the "conservatives" who have spent millions on political theatre) found this not to be the case. And what does it matter? You are not open to changing your mind about anything regardless of facts.

I suggest vision, you read your own link a little closer:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

where do you read "intent" in your link?

On the line of Mens Rea, there are five levels of culpability. Accidental, Negligent, Reckless, Knowing, and Intentional.

So we can say that we expected Clinton to know better, but in her case; she didn't expect any problems.

And given the fact that 'gross' is legally defined as (this is an important distinction) "A high degree of negligence, manifested in behaviour substantially worse than that of the average reasonable man", which just squeaks under "reckless", it stands to reason that she should have had closer oversight on the matter.

woodchip wrote:I suggest vision, you read your own link a little closer:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

where do you read "intent" in your link?

I placed in bold for you. [removed]

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suggest vision, you read your own link a little closer:

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

n. carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil.

where do you read "intent" in your link?

I placed in bold for you. [removed]

You placed gross negligence in bold and not how "intent" factors into the Espionage Act. In case you missed my quote earlier let me repost it:

(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Gross negligence is not intent unless you care to show me where I am in error. Quote the part of your link that states gross negligence equates with intent. Name calling is a crutch when your argument has failed.

We both showed you, woodchip

I'm sorry woodchip, I can't also teach you to read.

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."

Notice the word voluntary. Here are synonyms of the word voluntary:

Synonyms: voluntary, intentional, deliberate, willful, willing
These adjectives mean being or resulting from one's own free will. Voluntary implies the operation of unforced choice: "Ignorance, when it is voluntary, is criminal" (Samuel Johnson).
Intentional applies to something undertaken to further a plan or realize an aim: "I will abstain from all intentional wrongdoing and harm" (Hippocratic Oath).
Deliberate stresses premeditation and full awareness of the character and consequences of one's acts: taking deliberate and decisive action. Willful implies deliberate, headstrong persistence in a self-determined course of action: a willful waste of time. Willing suggests ready or cheerful acquiescence in the proposals or requirements of another: "The first requisite of a good citizen ... is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight" (Theodore Roosevelt).

The subtle differences between the words show degrees of essentially the same concept, and none of them describe Mrs Clinton's actions, so the legal definition of gross negligence was not met and there will be no indictment.

Would you like to continue arguing over the meaning of words you should have learned as a child?

What is astounding vision, is that you do not see Ms Clinton as consciously and voluntarily disregarding the use of reasonable care when handling classified documents. Even a child could see that she didn't.

by the way, the title of the thread implies some 'deal' was made around Clinton. There clearly was none.

woodchip wrote:Even a child could see that she didn't.

But a Republican FBI investigator also didn't see what a child can? If that is the case I feel like I'm in good company. Perhaps you should be directing your statements toward Director Comey instead of here? I think your problem is that you don't know what constitutes "reasonable care" and the FBI does.

Did woody just imply a child, no older than 11, has more experience and better judgement than a fully grown adult who's spent most of his life chasing down criminals?

That's about as bright as a person saying they're smarter than an entire fraud investigation team for an insurance company just before they commit insurance fraud.

woodchip wrote:What is astounding vision, is that you do not see Ms Clinton as consciously and voluntarily disregarding the use of reasonable care when handling classified documents. Even a child could see that she didn't.

Hillary didn't "intend" to be stupid. She was just "stupid". That's why she can't be charged with a crime. Simple.

callmeslick wrote:by the way, the title of the thread implies some 'deal' was made around Clinton. There clearly was none.

Oh...I think she got a pretty good deal...in a manor of speaking.

Spidey wrote:Oh...I think she got a pretty good deal...in a manor of speaking.

You mean endless months of harassment over a non-issue? Some deal...

callmeslick wrote:by the way, the title of the thread implies some 'deal' was made around Clinton. There clearly was none.

The "DEAL" was made by Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch...or was THIS just a meeting to exchange brownie recipes?

I speculated that this would happen in another thread: "The FBI hands off the Hillary e-mail investigation evidence to the Justice Department and Obama's girl Loretta Lynch 'decides' not to prosecute.

Obama makes a deal with Hillary to extract concessions from her when she wins the presidency in exchange for not letting the DOJ pursue charges. (One of these concessions possibly elevating Obama or his surrogates to positions in government.)"

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Oh...I think she got a pretty good deal...in a manor of speaking.

You mean endless months of harassment over a non-issue? Some deal...

If you can’t handle endless months of harassment, you probably shouldn’t run for president.

Nightshade wrote:The "DEAL" was made by Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch...or was this just a meeting to exchange brownie recipes?

And I suppose Lynch then used her feminine charms to persuade the FBI…

Spidey wrote:

Nightshade wrote:The "DEAL" was made by Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch...or was this just a meeting to exchange brownie recipes?

And I suppose Lynch then used her feminine charms to persuade the FBI…

More like Comey didn't want to be humiliated and surrendered when he saw the political cards in play.

Again...in a tyranny, Political Power > Rule of Law.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:by the way, the title of the thread implies some 'deal' was made around Clinton. There clearly was none.

The "DEAL" was made by Bill Clinton with Loretta Lynch...or was THIS just a meeting to exchange brownie recipes?

I find it entirely believeable, given a handful of encounters with W J Clinton, that he merely wished to blabber about the grandkids and their travels. He's just kind of that way.

I speculated that this would happen in another thread: "The FBI hands off the Hillary e-mail investigation evidence to the Justice Department and Obama's girl Loretta Lynch 'decides' not to prosecute.

but Lynch played no part in it, and Comer said so, flatly. Twice. So, he's a liar?

Obama makes a deal with Hillary to extract concessions from her when she wins the presidency in exchange for not letting the DOJ pursue charges. (One of these concessions possibly elevating Obama or his surrogates to positions in government.)"

and off we go on a trek up Mount Guesswork........

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Oh...I think she got a pretty good deal...in a manor of speaking.

You mean endless months of harassment over a non-issue? Some deal...

If you can’t handle endless months of harassment, you probably shouldn’t run for president.

Why should anyone, even the president, be the target of such nonsense? Seems too politically correct to provide a safe-space for birthers, people who think Obama is a Muslim Communist, and other Benghazi morons. Like this is acceptable behavior or something? Not to mention the millions of dollars stolen from tax-payers for this crap. The conservative in me is too ashamed to associate with the Republican Party in any capacity because of this childish ★■◆●.

I get the feeling the conservative in you left the building a long time ago...

And no, it really isn't about whether a person should be subject to any kind of ★■◆●, it's more along the lines of whether someone has the fortitude for taking the said crap, and I'm pretty sure Hillary can deal just fine.

So I'm not going to cry any rivers anytime soon, and start feeling sorry for her.

Vision, easy there bud. Both you and spidey are right, but for (not so) different reasons.

Both of you have good points. Endless months of harassment shouldn't be necessary, but also that harassment from all angles just comes with the job. Politics itself is contentious in nature.

Ferno wrote:Vision, easy there bud. Both you and spidey are right, but for (not so) different reasons.

Both of you have good points. Endless months of harassment shouldn't be necessary, but also that harassment from all angles just comes with the job. Politics itself is contentious in nature.

Yeah, it's my feminist bias talking. The woman has put up with a lot of garbage in her political career, and when she fumbles the same way men do she gets disproportionate negativity.

woodchip wrote:What is astounding vision, is that you do not see Ms Clinton as consciously and voluntarily disregarding the use of reasonable care when handling classified documents. Even a child could see that she didn't.

As a voter, the gross disregard for the freedom of information act is just as bad... I don't want to vote for someone who has demonstrated a disinterest in being accountable to me as the voter.