When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@giujohn,

May, shall and or are very easy to understand under the law. The problem is you are not dealing with any of the other words in that law.

I listed the items under the "or" clauses. You have to pick one or more and show how they apply. If you can't pick any then you can't claim the law was broken.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Your interpretation of the statute is akin to that of a shithouse lawyer.

And in what sort of house are you a lawyer?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Extremely careless = Gross negligence.

Not true.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Not true.

What would you call it, Joe?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Potentially she may have violated a statute dealing with classified information. Potentially is not by any definitive, and I don't think statutes are the same as laws. So, no, we are not in agreement.

What Comey basically said was she was careless, the whole department was careless with classified information. But she (Hillary) did not intend to break any laws and since they have never brought a case towards someone unless there was intent or the amount of classified information was so much it would have had to been done on purpose, he did not feel an indictment was warranted against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal email server. That is it, end of story.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

We all know you meant statutes.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

What would you call it, Joe?

Me, personally? I don't know or care enough about Clinton's e-mails to form an opinion.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, I did, thank you.

edit: I went back and corrected it. I am a terrible speller, spell check gets most of them, but if I use the wrong word...

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Yes it is

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. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

Ty Doyle, Partner at litigation boutique, J.D. Stanford 2005
1.4k Views · Most Viewed Writer in Criminal Prosecution
The definition of gross negligence is admittedly vague, making it difficult at times to determine when someone crosses the line between mere negligence (a failure to exercise ordinary care, or, more colloquially, an unjustified mistake) and its more serious cousin.

Still, I see no obvious distinction between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “gross negligence” as “a lack of slight diligence or care.” In other words, one is grossly negligent when one is careless in the extreme.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh my, the opinion of a real J.D., and one from Stanford! I shall be forced to reconsider my previous statement....

Nope, I'm still good. But if you have any actual case law that equates the terms "extremely careless" and "gross negligence," I'll be happy to take a look at it.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Hey, joe. You still going to court frequently?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

May, shall and or are very easy to understand under the law. The problem is you are not dealing with any of the other words in that law.

I listed the items under the "or" clauses. You have to pick one or more and show how they apply. If you can't pick any then you can't claim the law was broken.

Okay I thought we covered this but let me see if I can explain it so even you can understand...

If the statute says A and B you need both A and B to fullfill the element of the crime...if it says A or B you may charge under either or both.

YOU DONT NEED BOTH

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Potentially she may have violated a statute dealing with classified information. Potentially is not by any definitive, and I don't think statutes are the same as laws. So, no, we are not in agreement.

What Comey basically said was she was careless, the whole department was careless with classified information. But she (Hillary) did not intend to break any laws and since they have never brought a case towards someone unless there was intent or the amount of classified information was so much it would have had to been done on purpose, he did not feel an indictment was warranted against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal email server. That is it, end of story.

Well in fact he did say there was a violation (yes he did qualify it by saying potential but that's just a political weasel word) he just recommended that she not be charged with the violation.

And for your edificatioa law refers to the entire body of statutory, administrative, or common law provision that regulates. A statute is the specific, codified expression of some law that has been approved by a legislative body, but they are commonly used interchangeably.

1 Reply

And so the conservatives soldier on, moving throughout the internet, spreading the Gospel of the necessity of people caring about Emails. Half their supporters are so old they don't know what an Email is, but they are undeterred.

Meanwhile, Trump just added a campaign manager whose website plays up to neo-Nazis to add to the campaign manager who worked for Vladimir Putin.

But hey, let's talk for pages about Emails.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Have some more green Kool-Aid... CNN and Hillary have plenty.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

what exactly do you think you have won here?

The Irish sweepstakes... and don't tell me I didn't cuz I've already put a down-payment on a vette.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Well, weasel word or not, he did not say she violated a law or statute, he said potentially she may have, which is a long way from making a definitive statement of "she broke the law" which is what you and finn have been saying here for the last few pages.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Oh, well, the blame is on me, I brought it up this time because the republicans in congress are trying to get the documents out to the public so that we can continue to talk about emails until election day. It can't come soon enough for me. It seems we have been in election season for ten years.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

guijohn and finn have more knowledge then the people who actually did the investigation. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? I wonder what other investigations they're going to tell us about that's still in progress. They're so knowledgable about these things, I'm curious. Their skill is so great, they can investigate matters thousands of miles away. That's a tremendous skill, as Trump would say. LOL

0 Replies

@revelette2,

I'm not blaming you. If hadn't been for your news article, they'd have found some other excuse. The narrative they have to follow is that Hillary is dishonest and a criminal, and follow it they will. Their problem is, not many people care anymore.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know