When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...she's innocent until PROVEN guilty, right? I mean, that's a cornerstone of our legal system that you seem to have decided simply doesn't apply to Clinton.

THAT is the key point here.

Clinton is innocent BECAUSE she wasn't proven to be guilty. It's a right guaranteed by our constitution and applies to every citizen of the United States.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Does your employer know you spend working hours on A2K?

Just wondering?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

So because a jury found OJ Simpson not guilty of killing his wife and her lover he was innocent?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

This is an incredibly naive response.

Do you really believe that every guilty person is successfully prosecuted and every innocent person escapes prosecution?

1 Reply

@parados,

Gotta wonder where Comey's career is going to go, but that's an entirely different thread topic.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

He described her actions as extremely careless which means grossly negligent. Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.

Sure, that's the Rudy Giuliani argument, but not an actual legal one.

Quote:

It's your assessment that the FBI didn't find her grossly negligent and not necessarily Comey's.

Actually, if the FBI had found she was in fact 'grossly negligent,' you would have seen them recommend indictment. Or even state that. But they did neither of those things, so it isn't in fact MY assessment, it was the FBI's assessment that her actions didn't rise to the level of Gross Negligence.

Quote:

You keep harping about intent. The statute doesn't require intent. If you think it does, offer proof.

It requires either intent, actual harm, or gross negligence to have occurred. None of those things did in fact occur.

Quote:

Yes they didn't find that a hostile actor hacked her account but for some reason Comey found it necessary to point out that a sophisticated hacker wouldn't leave traces. Just anal retentive?

I believe Comey was in fact quite concerned about reactions such as yours, and the perception that he would have acted in a careless manner for political reasons. Therefore he carefully and intentionally outlined a lot of specific things they looked into.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

Let's start simple here, Finn. Of the list of items in a person's control, which do you think apply in the case of Clinton's emails?

document, -NO
writing, -NO
code book, -NO
signal book, -NO
sketch, -NO
photograph, -NO
photographic negative, -NO
blueprint, -NO
plan, -NO
map, -NO
model, -NO
instrument, -NO
appliance, -NO
note, -NO
information - The only one that is possible under the statute since the emails ONLY contained information and did NOT have attachments of any of the other items on the list.

Now we get into the 2 actions that make it a crime.

Quote:

(1) 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 lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

through gross negligence permits the same to be :

removed from its proper place of custody - requires you to define proper place and show it was removed
or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, - requires you to show no one receiving the information was entitled to have it
or to be lost, - information placed into an email is not lost just disseminated
stolen, - no evidence of anything being stolen. Comey made that quite clear
abstracted, - information placed into an email is not abstracted
destroyed, - information someone put into an email is not destroyed when an email is destroyed. The original information still exists.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
If the statute only requires gross negligence and Comey spent 15 minutes detailing Clinton's gross negligence, he made the case she broke the law.

Why don't you read the F...ing statute. It is not made up of only the words "gross negligence". You keep arguing that you know the statute when you clearly don't.

The statutes requires actions that are MORE than gross negligence and MORE than simply receiving emails.

I can only assume this is the part of the statute you are referring to -

Quote:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) 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 lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Yes, it only requires gross negligence but it has other stipulations that can't be applied.
An email can't be claimed to have been illegally removed from it's proper place of custody. You are left with such a thin argument that a first grader could make the defense in court.

Apparently you may have read the f....ing statute but you don't understand what is meant by construction when interpreting a legal statute.

In the construction of law words, punctuation, everything has a specific meaning. For instance the words shall, may, and, or... all have specific meanings that affect how the statute is applied legally.

Your premise that gross negligence also requires the other components of the statute as an element of the crime is false in that you do not see the word "and" but you see only the word "or".

This means that anything after the comma and the word or is a separate element of the law and not dependent on the other parts of the clause for indictment.

Your interpretation of the statute is akin to that of a shithouse lawyer. The law clearly defines the criteria for being charged and one can be charged simply for gross negligence.

So endeth the lesson.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

In the construction of law words punctuation everything has a specific meaning. For instance the words shall, may, and, or... all have specific meanings that affect how the statute is applied legally.

The funny thing about statutes is ALL the words have specific meanings. You don't get to ignore most of them when you claim someone was guilty of gross negligence.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

OMG

Don't make arguments you can't back up.

Extremely careless = Gross negligence. And it doesn't require Guilianni to prove it.

Quote:

Actually, if the FBI had found she was in fact 'grossly negligent,' you would have seen them recommend indictment.

No, no, no...Comey very specifically raised intent as the reason why he could not recommend prosecution.

So Comey after 15 minutes of indicting Clinton suddenly became concerned about conservative reactions and added a meaningless comment about how sophisticate hackers were not likely to leave a trace.

Go back to gloating your continued arguing of her exoneration is, frankly, pathetic.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Extremely careless = Gross negligence. And it doesn't require Guilianni to prove it.

Okay; neither I or the FBI agree with you, but if this is what you'd like to believe, I'm comfortable with you believing that.

Quote:

Quote:
Actually, if the FBI had found she was in fact 'grossly negligent,' you would have seen them recommend indictment.

No, no, no...Comey very specifically raised intent as the reason why he could not recommend prosecution.

He actually gave three reasons, intent being only a single one of them. If, for example, they had found that her actions had led to the info being disseminated to foreign or hostile actors, she would have been charged irregardless of her intent. Intent is only a factor once actual harm and gross negligence have been ruled out.

Quote:

So Comey after 15 minutes of indicting Clinton suddenly became concerned about conservative reactions and added a meaningless comment about how sophisticate hackers were not likely to leave a trace.

Go back to gloating your continued arguing of her exoneration is, frankly, pathetic.

Well, he didn't indict her or even recommend indicting her, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

As for the gloating, I've actually restrained myself from doing so. Mightily. However, in the spirit of accommodation, I'd be happy to lift those restraints if you really want to read it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Good question.

Personally, I think he was too wrapped up in his possible position in history, but he hasn't made any friends on the Left or the Right.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sure you don't agree with it but you have no evidence to even suggest the FBI doesn't.

No, intent was his specific basis no matter how you would like to parse it.

It doesn't take brilliance to perceive what I am trying to say here is that Comey made the case for her violating the statute but chose not to recommend prosecution because there was no evidence of intent (not required by the statute).

Let me me absolutely clear here, I am also saying that anyone who argues that the FBI exonerated Clinton is a partisan hack or an idiot.

If you want to be happy that she skirted justice fine, but please don't try and sell us bullshit about how Comey announced she was telling the truth or was innocent.

Even Hillary had to claim a short circuit after she made such an argument.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
In the construction of law words punctuation everything has a specific meaning. For instance the words shall, may, and, or... all have specific meanings that affect how the statute is applied legally.

The funny thing about statutes is ALL the words have specific meanings. You don't get to ignore most of them when you claim someone was guilty of gross negligence.

You obviously have no clue as to Legal construction ... please define for me the word "or" as it applies to the legal statute.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So because a jury found OJ Simpson not guilty of killing his wife and her lover he was innocent?

Legally? Criminally?

Absolutely.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,

Let's start simple here, Finn. Of the list of items in a person's control, which do you think apply in the case of Clinton's emails?

document, -NO
writing, -NO
code book, -NO
signal book, -NO
sketch, -NO
photograph, -NO
photographic negative, -NO
blueprint, -NO
plan, -NO
map, -NO
model, -NO
instrument, -NO
appliance, -NO
note, -NO
information - The only one that is possible under the statute since the emails ONLY contained information and did NOT have attachments of any of the other items on the list.

Now we get into the 2 actions that make it a crime.

Quote:
(1) 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 lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

through gross negligence permits the same to be :

removed from its proper place of custody - requires you to define proper place and show it was removed
or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, - requires you to show no one receiving the information was entitled to have it
or to be lost, - information placed into an email is not lost just disseminated
stolen, - no evidence of anything being stolen. Comey made that quite clear
abstracted, - information placed into an email is not abstracted
destroyed, - information someone put into an email is not destroyed when an email is destroyed. The original information still exists.

Did you shepardize the law? Have you checked Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of writing? Did you do anything other than apply your own cockeyed interpretations?

Are you now or have you ever been a jailhouse lawyer?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This is an incredibly naive response.

Do you really believe that every guilty person is successfully prosecuted and every innocent person escapes prosecution?

Of course not. What would suggest that I think that? That must be the most idiotic interpretation of what I posted possible.

1 Reply

@parados,

Comey used "extremely careless" for a political reason.

If you think a judge would find someone guilty of "extreme carelessness" not guilty of "gross negligence" you are either willfully stupid or uninformed.

0 Replies

Quote Finn:

Quote:

Let me me absolutely clear here, I am also saying that anyone who argues that the FBI exonerated Clinton is a partisan hack or an idiot.

Translation: I and all the other conservatives are going to hang on to this Email thing for dear life and we are never giving it up. Never!

1 Reply

HEY PARADOS...

I'm still waiting for you to give us the benefit of your legal expertise... Have you discovered the legal definition for "or"?

How about the legal definition for "writing"?

Do you even know what is meant by to shepardize the law?

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know