Politicspoliticshillaryfbiemailscandal

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:33 PM

Words have meaning....especially in the rule of law.

Gregg Jarrett, a former defense attorney and Fox News anchor, brought up an interesting tidbit regarding the non-indictment of Hillary....

The relevent criminal statute for Hillary's email crime reads:

“Whoever, being entrusted with… any document relating to the national defense… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)
Note the term "gross negligence" in the statute.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "gross negligence" as...."extreme carelessness." As well, Wikipedia defines "gross negligence" as: "...a legal concept which means serious carelessness."

Is anyone seeing a pattern here? The National Review put it best:

According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

The statute requires "gross negligence", which is defined as "extreme or serious carelessness." Comey stated specifically that Clinton was guilty of "extreme carelessness." So how was she not found criminally negligent?

Comey said that she did not "intend" to do the US harm. That appears to be his justification for not charging her. But the statute does not require "intent". The purpose of the statute is to hold government officials accountable for how they handle sensitive communications. The purpose of the statue is not to only hold accountable those who "intended" to do harm.

So effectively, Comey has inserted a requirement into the statute of law, that does not exist, in order to justify not charging her.

The question is.....why did he do this?

7 replies, 764 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Words have meaning....especially in the rule of law. (Original post)
LaughingGull Jul 2016 OP
sentient_simian Jul 2016 #1
Dumper Jul 2016 #3
MeatSandwich Jul 2016 #5
TM999 Jul 2016 #2
Lifelong Jul 2016 #4
MeatSandwich Jul 2016 #6
Boston Jul 2016 #7

Response to LaughingGull (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:41 PM

1. just to disappoint you

[link:?t=125|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sentient_simian (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 02:51 AM

3. Typical Obama logic, 'well, Boosh did it,.' implying that's OK.

You fail to realize, we Trumpies can't stand
Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sentient_simian (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 05:21 AM

5. All the e-mails were recovered.

Just to disappoint you and add some actual facts to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaughingGull (Original post)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 02:42 AM

2. Politics trumped the law today.

And yes, many lawyers and legal experts have caught this.

Why did he do it indeed. Because it is a big club and we are not in it. Little people get busted for such things and people like the Clintons get to run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaughingGull (Original post)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 03:19 AM

4. Trump knows the system is rigged.

But would he do something about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaughingGull (Original post)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 05:25 AM

6. Good post. I've been trying to explain this concept to LMPV as he keeps insisting that

INTENT is required for a conviction under the statute. But, what can I say. He specializes in mergers and acquisitions, not criminal law. You know, putting little people out of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaughingGull (Original post)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 05:37 AM

7. Yes, no "intent" requirement

Hillary Millhouse Clinton ... even if she were to win ... #NotMyPresident

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticshillaryfbiemailscandal