Actually, your entire approach to deflecting attention away from Hillary's mammoth display of unethical, incompetent, hypocritical, lying behavior is to attempt to sound condescending as you trot out lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Don't like the way the FBI director used the word "exposed?" Quick! Tell someone they've got a mental defect. Don't like the fact that her blathering assurances that she never handled any email classified at the time, despite the fact that the FBI pointed out the untruth of that statement over a hundred times over? Quick! Say that the person pointing that out has no integrity! Which is hilarious, given who you're cheerleading for.
Gross Negligence is a legal term. It has a precise definition (which does not apply here). Look it up. The other is not a legal term.
Right. Both terms describe what she did, but the FBI director, under pressure from his boss, chose the one that gives Clinton cover. It's nothing but semantics, but provides him a way to do his political duty, rather than the one the facts demand.
No, the LAW in question speaks to whether or not classified material is exposed (made available, whether or not accessed by a third party) even through negligence. The FBI director just explained that she did EXACTLY that, but for political reasons (say, pressure on his boss during a 30 minute talk about grandchildren in a private plane the other day?), he chose to use the words "extreme carelessness" instead of "negligence" so that Clinton would have the political cover she wants. He couldn't exactly make the facts go away, so he made a judgement call to give her some wiggle room, since his bosses (Lynch, Obama) made it clear that's how it's going to be.
Nice cherry-picking, there. She was supposed to turn over ALL of her work-related records on the day she left the job. She deliberately chose not to. Under subpoena pressure, after years of stonewalling, she went through all of them, deleting tens of thousands of records... including thousands that have since been recovered by the FBI, which were work-related, and which she said didn't exist. In the mix of what's on record (we'll never know about tens of thousands of others) were dozens of classified and even top-secret documents left exposed on an unsecure, internet-connected computer in her house... all for her own "convenience," as she explains it. You think it's a "witch hunt" when Obama's own FBI is alarmed enough about her "extreme carelessness" (their words) with classified information that the administration puts over 100 agents on the matter?
There is nothing to prosecute on.
There is only the difference between "extreme carelessness" and "negligence" that separate her from merely having her years of lying exposed (which just happened) and being indicted.
The ONLY reason this is happening "to" Hillary Clinton right now is because she deliberately stonewalled and dragged her feet for YEARS in doing what she was legally obliged to do in the first place. ALL of her public records were supposed to be turned over to State archivists the day she left the job. She waited years (under subpoena pressure), and then deleted thousands of her work-related emails, avoiding the obligation to turn them over even when under direct scrutiny. Stuff she deleted is still coming out of the woodwork. She is 100% to blame for any of this being an issue in the first place, and then spent a couple of years playing hard to get and lying about it at every opportunity. If this is uncomfortable for her and her party with the timing in question, she is entirely responsible. It's all her. And her party, who knew all of this, are responsible for putting her forward as their candidate.
You distinguish between extreme carelessness and gross negligence how, exactly?
And how does deliberately choosing to avoid using State's email platform, and instead running an unsecure system out of your house, and using that system to participate in dozens of message threads that include classified-at-the-time and top-secret-at-the-time information differ from willful mishandling? That's mis-handling by definition, and willful by definition.
And thank you for quoting the FBI director whose words exactly convey the manner in which Clinton exposed top secret information to hostile foreign governments. Her actions put that information on a platform that made is possible for such entities to see her home-hosted email. That's what "exposed" means. Like, when you take your hat off, your head is exposed. When you leave printed classified information out on a table in public, you're exposing it. That doesn't mean that we'll ever know if Russia, China, Korea, Iran, etc. stopped by to read your papers, only that through (as the FBI describes her actions) extreme carelessness, that information was available for access by those hostile actors. But sure, you just keep wishing that away. The more smug you sound, the more your wish will come true, right? Sure.
As I see it, indicting Hillary Clinton right now would be tantamount to tampering with the results of the general election in September in favor of Trump, and one way or another would be political/career suicide for anyone who made an indictment happen. That's what I think is saving her from it.
Nonsense. NOT indicting her is the "tampering with" part. Her own actions and years of stonewalling and lying about it are what bring this to a head so late in the game and so close to the election. That's her doing, not the FBI's, and certainly not her election opponent's. But yes, indicting her would bring career suicide to anyone who tried it, which is no doubt exactly the sort of message that Bill Clinton delivered to Loretta Lynch when he cornered her in her private plane (uh, "bumped into her") at the airport the other day.
Why should I call for scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's demonstrable law breaking and lying to stop? She wants to run the executive branch of the government, and we've just seen yet another parade of her demonstrated incompetence and willingness to lie about it. Regardless, who exactly to you think Obama was pandering to, the Republicans? Are you even listening to yourself?
And... the Freddie Gray case? What is your point, exactly? Unlike Hillary Clinton's deliberate violation of numerous statutes and being shown to be lying about it, the officers in that case are being prosecuted by Democrats in a fit of race-related mob-appeasing (of OTHER Democrats). The two situations have nothing to do with each other.
The FBI director said nothing of the sort.
What? He just got done telling you that they forensically recovered thousands of emails that were public records, which she destroyed. She said she turned over every single such email. So, she was lying.
He just got done telling you that there were over 100 classified emails in dozens of message threads that included classified-at-the-time material, including some clearly marked as top-secret material. Clinton said there was no such material. So, she was lying.
I can see why a breathless Hillary shill might be trying to wish that sort of thing away, of course. It takes liars to support a liar of a candidate.
Indeed. I have many friends with clearances, some quite elevated, and their hair is absolutely on fire over this. They'd all be, at the very least, beyond redemption and at the end of their careers if they'd done half of what Clinton did. And she's smiling and lying about it, which her supporters just LOVE.
On July 2 Lynch [nytimes.com] stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.
Which has nothing to do with the ongoing corruption investigation.
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
National security matters, such as those defined by espionage-related statutes, are specific exemptions to that concept. Mere negligence is enough to make you a felon. The FBI describes Clinton's deliberate actions as "extreme carelessness" - which is deliberate hair-splitting designed to avoid the word "negligence" EXACTLY because that would demand criminal prosecution.
Other than the part where that's not true. Rice and Powell didn't traffic in over a hundred classified (and even top secret) documents in their personal mail, and they didn't destroy thousands of emails instead of turning over their records as they left office, as they were supposed to do. The crimes you're fussing about didn't happen until Hillary did them.
Except that narrative has no resemblance to what happened. It wasn't that the SoS IT guys "couldn't get it done"... they were begging her to use the official system, warned her that no using it was a terrible idea, and had to dumb-down THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT'S SECURITY so that it wouldn't throw out incoming mail from her home-brew, private server. This was done entirely so that she could avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conducting her federal job, even as she leveraged that job to rake in millions of dollars from foreign governments for her family business, making her and Bill rich.
And no, the SoS doesn't get to "say" that something marked as top secret by another agency isn't really classified and thus just fine sitting on an unsecure, internet-connected server in her house.
Please make a distinction between extremely careless and grossly negligent. And he DID say that people who do the same face punishment (such as career-ending loss of clearance, firing from their jobs, etc) which isn't the FBI's territory. The main point is that anyone else working for Hillary or in any other agency who did the same things, and - as she's been doing, as he just showed - lied about it non-stop for years, would be (at the very least) at the end of their career with the government.
Thanks for wasting more money on yet another sham investigation
So, you're complaining about the Obama administration's pursuit of these matters? Who are you talking to, exactly? The FBI works for him, not for me.
See, the public knows something you don't want to admit. Investigations? Criminal charges? They can be politically motivated and nothing more than an agenda being pushed.
So what political motivation do you suppose Obama had in having his executive branch's law enforcement agency investigate (and find) Clinton's substantial incompetence and lies surrounding her communications as SoS, and their ongoing investigation of corruption in the intersection between her family business and her role as Secretary? What is making Obama tick, in that regard? Or are you saying it was Eric Holder and his successor who had the political axes to grind with the Clintons? Please be specific.
Sing us another song.
Why? The FBI director, a Democrat political appointee, just sang the song: he spent 15 minutes running down the long list of things that Hillary Clinton has been looking you in the eye and lying about for the past couple of years. The question is, why do you like it when she does that?
The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent," and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers, and mentions that people who do such things face punishment (as long as they're not Hillary Clinton). But he's leaving it up to Loretta Lynch to determine which punishment is appropriate. That's Loretta Lynch, fresh from her half hour "bumping into" Hillary's husband in her private plane the other day. Nothing to see here, just move along.
Oh, and if you're wondering about the FBI's sprawling, ongoing corruption investigation of Bill and Hillary's family business as it raked in millions of dollars from foreign government with business before her as Secretary of State, that's still in progress. Under Loretta Lynch's watch, of course.
Why should I read the same thing over again? Doing so AGAIN won't change your totalitarian instincts. Please, again, do not endanger other people by voting.
No surprise, because you just can't bring yourself to it. You can only refuse.
Right, I can only refuse to do the same thing you're refusing to do: name the politicians and the laws you're saying they've broken. Since there are none (not counting the one you're working for), it's as simple as that: I'm refusing to make something up out of whole cloth. Why should I? It's YOUR burden to name names that you know about, which I do not. But you can't because you also know they don't exist. So, you're still having your irrational tantrum. That's fine! Every bit of irrational cowardice you display just shows how juvenile you're being. Carry on!
Oh, look! The coward is still unable to admit that he can't come up with a single name or broken law that he insists - by pretending they exist - place a burden on someone else to admit to. The names don't exist, the laws aren't broken, so the burden you wish to place on someone else doesn't exist. That's a lot of trouble to go to in order to avoid talking about the multiple criminal and corruption investigations being conducted on the candidate you're shilling for. But Hillary fans are nothing if not persistent in their blind devotion, so no real surprise, of course. Still, you certainly are a coward. As a reminder, pasting your own words over and over again doesn't make them mean anything different, it just makes your look even more ridiculous.
Repeating yourself doesn't fix the contradictions you've embraced as the mixed premises that underlie your totalitarian world view. Copying and pasting your own words doesn't improve them.
They'd be restrained by each other from conduct that was inappropriate as it caused harm to others
Who is suggesting crime be tolerated? Not me. But then, you seem to be thinking that anyone who starts a business is up to no good, by definition.
Nope! "Off you go, then!" is your words.
That's driving someone out, not a suggestion, but a command.
Wow, you are such a fan of totalitarianism that you can't even parse spoken words without assuming that they're said in the context of people having power over you. No wonder you're so anxious to gain power over everyone who makes things and provides services to you. It's because you think that something as simple as an invitation to follow your heart to Venezuela is a "command." Of course you don't really think that, but you're so desperate to sound that way, you're trolling along as if you did.
Thanks, though, for willingly ending your little ad hominem exercise in avoiding the substance of the matter. It must be exhausting to pretend you're so continually offended by people's exercise of liberty, even as you do everything you can to squelch it. Being called "depraved" by someone like you is actually a badge of honor, so thanks for the complement. The last thing I'd ever want would be for someone like you to approve of me.
It's quaint how you're cherry picking, and ignoring what the founders considered to be the very most important piece of the Bill of Rights: the First Amendment. Most people who love censorship do try to pretend that one doesn't exist, so I can see why you're hoping nobody notices it.
OK, let's have you provide some actual words that can be responded to. Which crimes are you suggesting that which people committed, so that you can feel better about yourself as your candidate is under criminal investigation? The words you need to provide are names, and statutes. If you once again cannot muster the courage and the intellectual honesty to do that, we'll just take that as confirmation that you have indeed painted yourself into a craven little corner out of which you can't escape by simply mentioning names and laws. But if you do, those will be some actual words to which a response is appropriate.
But we both know that you're too much of a coward to fabricate that sort of stuff, because such things can be fact checked. So you will, of course, again try to pretend that the problem is with the person who is calling your bluff. That's transparent nonsense, so we're back to you naming names and laws. Which of course you can't do, which takes all the fun out of your irrational little foot-stamping session. Why the cowardice, though? Really, what do you have to lose at this point? Are you afraid that someone will think less of you if you fabricate some non-existent laws to cite people breaking, after all of the other nonsense you've said? You really have nowhere to go but deeper in to the silly little hole you've dug, so you might as well go all the way with it and make up some of the laws you're so desperate to hear somebody say that politicians you don't like have broken. So, get on with it: show some backbone. Grow a pair. Pretend you believe your own BS and name names. Looking forward to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your entire approach to deflecting attention away from Hillary's mammoth display of unethical, incompetent, hypocritical, lying behavior is to attempt to sound condescending as you trot out lazy, juvenile ad hominem. Don't like the way the FBI director used the word "exposed?" Quick! Tell someone they've got a mental defect. Don't like the fact that her blathering assurances that she never handled any email classified at the time, despite the fact that the FBI pointed out the untruth of that statement over a hundred times over? Quick! Say that the person pointing that out has no integrity! Which is hilarious, given who you're cheerleading for.
Gross Negligence is a legal term. It has a precise definition (which does not apply here). Look it up. The other is not a legal term.
Right. Both terms describe what she did, but the FBI director, under pressure from his boss, chose the one that gives Clinton cover. It's nothing but semantics, but provides him a way to do his political duty, rather than the one the facts demand.
No, the LAW in question speaks to whether or not classified material is exposed (made available, whether or not accessed by a third party) even through negligence. The FBI director just explained that she did EXACTLY that, but for political reasons (say, pressure on his boss during a 30 minute talk about grandchildren in a private plane the other day?), he chose to use the words "extreme carelessness" instead of "negligence" so that Clinton would have the political cover she wants. He couldn't exactly make the facts go away, so he made a judgement call to give her some wiggle room, since his bosses (Lynch, Obama) made it clear that's how it's going to be.
There is nothing to prosecute on.
There is only the difference between "extreme carelessness" and "negligence" that separate her from merely having her years of lying exposed (which just happened) and being indicted.
The ONLY reason this is happening "to" Hillary Clinton right now is because she deliberately stonewalled and dragged her feet for YEARS in doing what she was legally obliged to do in the first place. ALL of her public records were supposed to be turned over to State archivists the day she left the job. She waited years (under subpoena pressure), and then deleted thousands of her work-related emails, avoiding the obligation to turn them over even when under direct scrutiny. Stuff she deleted is still coming out of the woodwork. She is 100% to blame for any of this being an issue in the first place, and then spent a couple of years playing hard to get and lying about it at every opportunity. If this is uncomfortable for her and her party with the timing in question, she is entirely responsible. It's all her. And her party, who knew all of this, are responsible for putting her forward as their candidate.
You distinguish between extreme carelessness and gross negligence how, exactly?
And how does deliberately choosing to avoid using State's email platform, and instead running an unsecure system out of your house, and using that system to participate in dozens of message threads that include classified-at-the-time and top-secret-at-the-time information differ from willful mishandling? That's mis-handling by definition, and willful by definition.
And thank you for quoting the FBI director whose words exactly convey the manner in which Clinton exposed top secret information to hostile foreign governments. Her actions put that information on a platform that made is possible for such entities to see her home-hosted email. That's what "exposed" means. Like, when you take your hat off, your head is exposed. When you leave printed classified information out on a table in public, you're exposing it. That doesn't mean that we'll ever know if Russia, China, Korea, Iran, etc. stopped by to read your papers, only that through (as the FBI describes her actions) extreme carelessness, that information was available for access by those hostile actors. But sure, you just keep wishing that away. The more smug you sound, the more your wish will come true, right? Sure.
As I see it, indicting Hillary Clinton right now would be tantamount to tampering with the results of the general election in September in favor of Trump, and one way or another would be political/career suicide for anyone who made an indictment happen. That's what I think is saving her from it.
Nonsense. NOT indicting her is the "tampering with" part. Her own actions and years of stonewalling and lying about it are what bring this to a head so late in the game and so close to the election. That's her doing, not the FBI's, and certainly not her election opponent's. But yes, indicting her would bring career suicide to anyone who tried it, which is no doubt exactly the sort of message that Bill Clinton delivered to Loretta Lynch when he cornered her in her private plane (uh, "bumped into her") at the airport the other day.
There is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
While that's true, we DO know what the State Department's Inspector General has reported, and that's what I'm describing above.
And
The FBI director said nothing of the sort.
What? He just got done telling you that they forensically recovered thousands of emails that were public records, which she destroyed. She said she turned over every single such email. So, she was lying.
He just got done telling you that there were over 100 classified emails in dozens of message threads that included classified-at-the-time material, including some clearly marked as top-secret material. Clinton said there was no such material. So, she was lying.
I can see why a breathless Hillary shill might be trying to wish that sort of thing away, of course. It takes liars to support a liar of a candidate.
Indeed. I have many friends with clearances, some quite elevated, and their hair is absolutely on fire over this. They'd all be, at the very least, beyond redemption and at the end of their careers if they'd done half of what Clinton did. And she's smiling and lying about it, which her supporters just LOVE.
On July 2 Lynch [nytimes.com] stated that she would follow the FBI's recommendation on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. The FBI is recommending no indictment so none will occur.
Which has nothing to do with the ongoing corruption investigation.
Mens rea [wikipedia.org] is part of due process for imprisonable crimes. The only crimes without a mens rea requirement are strict liability [wikipedia.org] offenses whose penalty is a fine, such as traffic violations.
National security matters, such as those defined by espionage-related statutes, are specific exemptions to that concept. Mere negligence is enough to make you a felon. The FBI describes Clinton's deliberate actions as "extreme carelessness" - which is deliberate hair-splitting designed to avoid the word "negligence" EXACTLY because that would demand criminal prosecution.
Other than the part where that's not true. Rice and Powell didn't traffic in over a hundred classified (and even top secret) documents in their personal mail, and they didn't destroy thousands of emails instead of turning over their records as they left office, as they were supposed to do. The crimes you're fussing about didn't happen until Hillary did them.
Except that narrative has no resemblance to what happened. It wasn't that the SoS IT guys "couldn't get it done" ... they were begging her to use the official system, warned her that no using it was a terrible idea, and had to dumb-down THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT'S SECURITY so that it wouldn't throw out incoming mail from her home-brew, private server. This was done entirely so that she could avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conducting her federal job, even as she leveraged that job to rake in millions of dollars from foreign governments for her family business, making her and Bill rich.
And no, the SoS doesn't get to "say" that something marked as top secret by another agency isn't really classified and thus just fine sitting on an unsecure, internet-connected server in her house.
Please make a distinction between extremely careless and grossly negligent. And he DID say that people who do the same face punishment (such as career-ending loss of clearance, firing from their jobs, etc) which isn't the FBI's territory. The main point is that anyone else working for Hillary or in any other agency who did the same things, and - as she's been doing, as he just showed - lied about it non-stop for years, would be (at the very least) at the end of their career with the government.
Thanks for wasting more money on yet another sham investigation
So, you're complaining about the Obama administration's pursuit of these matters? Who are you talking to, exactly? The FBI works for him, not for me.
See, the public knows something you don't want to admit. Investigations? Criminal charges? They can be politically motivated and nothing more than an agenda being pushed.
So what political motivation do you suppose Obama had in having his executive branch's law enforcement agency investigate (and find) Clinton's substantial incompetence and lies surrounding her communications as SoS, and their ongoing investigation of corruption in the intersection between her family business and her role as Secretary? What is making Obama tick, in that regard? Or are you saying it was Eric Holder and his successor who had the political axes to grind with the Clintons? Please be specific.
Sing us another song.
Why? The FBI director, a Democrat political appointee, just sang the song: he spent 15 minutes running down the long list of things that Hillary Clinton has been looking you in the eye and lying about for the past couple of years. The question is, why do you like it when she does that?
The FBI was careful to point out that Hillary was "grossly negligent," and exposed classified and top-secret documents to hostile foreign powers, and mentions that people who do such things face punishment (as long as they're not Hillary Clinton). But he's leaving it up to Loretta Lynch to determine which punishment is appropriate. That's Loretta Lynch, fresh from her half hour "bumping into" Hillary's husband in her private plane the other day. Nothing to see here, just move along.
Oh, and if you're wondering about the FBI's sprawling, ongoing corruption investigation of Bill and Hillary's family business as it raked in millions of dollars from foreign government with business before her as Secretary of State, that's still in progress. Under Loretta Lynch's watch, of course.
Why should I read the same thing over again? Doing so AGAIN won't change your totalitarian instincts. Please, again, do not endanger other people by voting.
No surprise, because you just can't bring yourself to it. You can only refuse.
Right, I can only refuse to do the same thing you're refusing to do: name the politicians and the laws you're saying they've broken. Since there are none (not counting the one you're working for), it's as simple as that: I'm refusing to make something up out of whole cloth. Why should I? It's YOUR burden to name names that you know about, which I do not. But you can't because you also know they don't exist. So, you're still having your irrational tantrum. That's fine! Every bit of irrational cowardice you display just shows how juvenile you're being. Carry on!
So this is finally the year of Linux On 2% Of Desktops? I'm making a cake.
Oh, look! The coward is still unable to admit that he can't come up with a single name or broken law that he insists - by pretending they exist - place a burden on someone else to admit to. The names don't exist, the laws aren't broken, so the burden you wish to place on someone else doesn't exist. That's a lot of trouble to go to in order to avoid talking about the multiple criminal and corruption investigations being conducted on the candidate you're shilling for. But Hillary fans are nothing if not persistent in their blind devotion, so no real surprise, of course. Still, you certainly are a coward. As a reminder, pasting your own words over and over again doesn't make them mean anything different, it just makes your look even more ridiculous.
Repeating yourself doesn't fix the contradictions you've embraced as the mixed premises that underlie your totalitarian world view. Copying and pasting your own words doesn't improve them.
They'd be restrained by each other from conduct that was inappropriate as it caused harm to others
Who is suggesting crime be tolerated? Not me. But then, you seem to be thinking that anyone who starts a business is up to no good, by definition.
Nope! "Off you go, then!" is your words.
That's driving someone out, not a suggestion, but a command.
Wow, you are such a fan of totalitarianism that you can't even parse spoken words without assuming that they're said in the context of people having power over you. No wonder you're so anxious to gain power over everyone who makes things and provides services to you. It's because you think that something as simple as an invitation to follow your heart to Venezuela is a "command." Of course you don't really think that, but you're so desperate to sound that way, you're trolling along as if you did.
Thanks, though, for willingly ending your little ad hominem exercise in avoiding the substance of the matter. It must be exhausting to pretend you're so continually offended by people's exercise of liberty, even as you do everything you can to squelch it. Being called "depraved" by someone like you is actually a badge of honor, so thanks for the complement. The last thing I'd ever want would be for someone like you to approve of me.
It's quaint how you're cherry picking, and ignoring what the founders considered to be the very most important piece of the Bill of Rights: the First Amendment. Most people who love censorship do try to pretend that one doesn't exist, so I can see why you're hoping nobody notices it.
OK, let's have you provide some actual words that can be responded to. Which crimes are you suggesting that which people committed, so that you can feel better about yourself as your candidate is under criminal investigation? The words you need to provide are names, and statutes. If you once again cannot muster the courage and the intellectual honesty to do that, we'll just take that as confirmation that you have indeed painted yourself into a craven little corner out of which you can't escape by simply mentioning names and laws. But if you do, those will be some actual words to which a response is appropriate.
But we both know that you're too much of a coward to fabricate that sort of stuff, because such things can be fact checked. So you will, of course, again try to pretend that the problem is with the person who is calling your bluff. That's transparent nonsense, so we're back to you naming names and laws. Which of course you can't do, which takes all the fun out of your irrational little foot-stamping session. Why the cowardice, though? Really, what do you have to lose at this point? Are you afraid that someone will think less of you if you fabricate some non-existent laws to cite people breaking, after all of the other nonsense you've said? You really have nowhere to go but deeper in to the silly little hole you've dug, so you might as well go all the way with it and make up some of the laws you're so desperate to hear somebody say that politicians you don't like have broken. So, get on with it: show some backbone. Grow a pair. Pretend you believe your own BS and name names. Looking forward to it.