When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
_____________________________________________

Well, if that doesn't describe gross negligence, then why don't you tell me what it describes. Go ahead and put a name on it. It is what Clinton did.

_____________________________________________

(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, I did have a mix up concerning those two documents. At any rate, I've highlighted the gross negligence segment so that you can see it this time.

What part of Comey's assessment convinced you that what Clinton did was no worse than running a stop light? Remember, she received adequate training in these matters.

FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI's name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out, a former FBI official tells CNBC.

The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.

In the end, the Department of Homeland Security and The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued the statement on Oct. 7, saying "The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations…These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment on Comey's role in the decision making surrounding the Oct. 7 statement.


According to the former official, Comey agreed with the conclusion the intelligence community came to: "A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true, but was against putting it out before the election." Comey's position, this official said, was "if it is said, it shouldn't come from the FBI, which as you'll recall it did not."


Comey took a different approach toward releasing information about the discovery of emails on a laptop that was used by former Congressman Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, the official said. "By doing a press conference, and personally testifying and giving his opinion about the conduct, he made this about James Comey and his credibility," the official said. "You can see why he did it, from his perspective, once he had had that press conference."


The official said FBI investigators can get a "preliminary read" of the newly discovered emails within a couple of days and come to an initial conclusion about whether there is classified material in the files. "The questions is whether they will decide to share that read or not," the official said. "Normally in the FBI we would not, but we're not in normal land anymore."

That's probably because you are too chicken **** to have an actual discussion with someone better at debating than you are. You and Snood are peas in a pod. Out classed, out matched and out smarted by your betters.

No. There is no gross negligence in that part of the law. It clearly states "knowingly" "and with intent". Knowingly and with intent is something completely different from gross negligence. Clearly this law can't be applied under gross negligence.

This law requires a proper place of custody. Please tell us what the proper place for any email on Clinton's server is. Until there is a proper place of custody the law can't apply. Then it requires removal from the proper place of custody. Which would require you to tell us who removed it and how.

Here's a doozy:

Sorry to have to tell you this . . . again, but Clinton knowingly intended to retain classified material at an unauthorized location--her own personal server at her own place of residence even after being schooled concerning proper protocol. She signed a legally binding agreement stating as much. She did it knowingly.
This is you trying to be clever again.

Sorry to have to tell you this . . . again, but Clinton knowingly intended to retain classified material at an unauthorized location--her own personal server at her own place of residence even after being schooled concerning proper protocol

She signed a legally binding agreement stating as much. She did it knowingly.

This is you trying to be clever again. The proper place of custody for emails having to do with government business is a secured State site, and not on her personal email server at her place of residence.

if she never placed it in the proper place of custody in the first place, then it can't be said that she removed it from it's proper place of custody.

She neglected to take proper care in the performance of her duty as Secretary of State.

Not only that, but she neglected to ask for counsel concerning whether or not she can use her own personal email to communicate government business on.

That, too, was something she was obligated to do as per the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed--which you have seen

This is you trying to be clever again.

On a serious note, I'm also baffled why the hate is so deep, visceral and unshakable.