The Clinton Thread II - Part 2

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

They have not proven gross negligence. That has a legal definition which would be on par with her email password as password. You are confusing negligence which most certainly applies to the situation. Two completely different things. I'm also not here to defend her stupidity and laziness but we live in an evolving world and when f*** ups happen we hopefully learn from them. People are inherently lazy, not just politicians. That's why things like workplace accidents happen all the time. People get complacent and then bad things can happen. That's life.

The only 2 viable options are a career politician who has lots of experience and qualifications and is probably a bit too ambitious and/or pragmatic for her own good. Or a petulant manchild narcissistic psychopath who's only claim to fame is making people think he's better at business than he actually is who also has a nasty habit of arguing with idiots on the internet.

I voted for Bernie but this is what we have to choose from so given those options there is only one sane and logical choice.

 

[Sithborg]

Even in the four way, there is one sane choice.

 

[2kt09]

They have not proven gross negligence. That has a legal definition which would be on par with her email password as password. You are confusing negligence which most certainly applies to the situation. Two completely different things.

They have enough evidence to prove gross negligence according to the FBI & DOJ, but the decision was made not to prosecute because now all of sudden you need both gross negligence and criminal intent.

I'm also not here to defend her stupidity and laziness but we live in an evolving world and when f*** ups happen we hopefully learn from them.
People are inherently lazy, not just politicians. That's why things like workplace accidents happen all the time. People get complacent and then bad things can happen. That's life.

When you have to go to this length just to email people & officials, it's paranoia or worse (Sure, hope this News is Faux) (Further Detail)
She's f***ed up far too much and far too long to redeem or is that just the right-wing conspiracy against her?

The only 2 viable options are a career politician who has lots of experience and qualifications and is probably a bit too ambitious and/or pragmatic for her own good. Or a petulant manchild narcissistic psychopath who's only claim to fame is making people think he's better at business than he actually is who also has a nasty habit of arguing with idiots on the internet.

Yeah, what a wonderfully democratic process for leaving me with only 2 options. Let's get that money, yellow journalism, and party system out of the election and keep the primaries going to the bitter end!

I'll stick to my more local elections as the best case AND likely scenario Thundercrack's dystopic prediction is BTFO regardless of those 2 is elected / of the 5 on my ballot I choose to vote for.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

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.

That is the legal definition. That can not be proven based solely on the fact that her predecessors did almost the exact same thing while in office. One does not need criminal intent to base charges on because they are two completely separate issues. In fact, you can not have gross negligence with criminal intent because intent means you mean to do something whereas gross negligence would mean that one was so careless their actions caused great harm. Wherever you are getting your is formation from is flawed if they can't differentiate between the two.

As far as the 2 party system goes and money politics as well as the same few billionaires controlling g most media outlets we are in agreement that it is a broken system in need of a vast overhaul.

 

[2kt09]

That is the legal definition. That can not be proven based solely on the fact that her predecessors did almost the exact same thing while in office.

The FBI & DOJ proved it. If her predecessors violated their briefing with just private emails and not also a private server with "security worse than Gmail", go ahead and prosecute them. Their offenses do not absolve Hillary nor her staff from this laundry list attributing to the gross negligence diagnosis.

One does not need criminal intent to base charges on because they are two completely separate issues. In fact, you can not have gross negligence with criminal intent because intent means you mean to do something whereas gross negligence would mean that one was so careless their actions caused great harm.

Reread the legal definition because now you're overthinking it.

You CAN criminally intend to break the law via "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" like risking the national security by mishandling classified info.

Wherever you are getting your is formation from is flawed if they can't differentiate between the two.

It's literally the hearing posted through C-SPAN between the congressmen and the FBI director.

 

[Matt]

The FBI & DOJ proved it. If her predecessors violated their briefing with just private emails and not also a private server with "security worse than Gmail", go ahead and prosecute them. Their offenses do not absolve Hillary nor her staff from this laundry list attributing to the gross negligence diagnosis.


Reread the legal definition because now you're overthinking it.

You CAN criminally intend to break the law via "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" like risking the national security by mishandling classified info.


It's literally the hearing posted through C-SPAN between the congressmen and the FBI director.

Actually DJ is spot on. Now I don't know where you got your JD from or what states you are barred in...I, on the other hand, have a JD from Pitt Law and am licensed to practice in several states. I practice both criminal and civil law, and my scholarly work on criminal law has been published in academic journals. I can tell you, the fact is, this wouldn't even survive a motion for judgement on the pleadings. It would never even go to jury. Not even in a civil suit with a lower standard of proof. Her actions simply do not meet the legal elements of the statute needed to sustain a prosecution.

Why? For the exact reason you said: gross negligence is voluntary disregard for the standard of care. What is the standard of care? That is established by looking at the relevant community. Standard of care for heart surgery, for example, differs from standard of care for driving. One is a common activity so you would look to what any reasonably prudent person would do. The other is a specialized community so you would look into the norms and practices of that community to determine what a reasonably prudent heart surgeon would do.

Here, the relevant community is Secretaries of State in the digital era. Since every SecState preceding Clinton who has used email (Albright, Powell and Rice) have admitted to this behavior it is the industry norm. By LEGAL DEFINITION the industry norm CANNOT be gross negligence.

And it's not as simple as saying "well her predecessors did it so prosecute them too!" There is no statute explicitly prohibiting this. The statute only prohibits gross negligence. Again, industry norm is never gross negligence. Ergo, no gross negligence.

Now by today's standard, in light of the outrage and adoption, by the State Department, of protocols designed to avoid this, it would NOW be gross negligence. But her standard of care in 2010 is not determined by today's standard of care.

Call Clinton reckless or careless, but legally she is not a criminal.

P..S. I love that you cite to a congressional hearing as your source. A politically motivated congressman trying to grandstand is not exactly a neutral arbiter of law.

 

[Matt]

In fact, to take it a step farther: because, based on the facts as they exist, the core elements of the crime are undisputedly unsatisfied, it would actually be professional misconduct for a prosecutor to bring this case as they cannot do so with a good faith belief that the charge COULD sustain a conviction (which it can't as any charge in which there is not a prima facie case showing all elements of the crime is incurably flawed). In other words, at best it would be unethical and grounds for disbarment to even bring these charges. At worst, it would, in most jurisdictions, be illegal.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Actually DJ is spot on. Now I don't know where you got your JD from or what states you are barred in...I, on the other hand, have a JD from Pitt Law and am licensed to practice in several states. I practice both criminal and civil law, and my scholarly work on criminal law has been published in academic journals. I can tell you, the fact is, this wouldn't even survive a motion for judgement on the pleadings. It would never even go to jury. Not even in a civil suit with a lower standard of proof. Her actions simply do not meet the legal elements of the statute needed to sustain a prosecution.

Why? For the exact reason you said: gross negligence is voluntary disregard for the standard of care. What is the standard of care? That is established by looking at the relevant community. Standard of care for heart surgery, for example, differs from standard of care for driving. One is a common activity so you would look to what any reasonably prudent person would do. The other is a specialized community so you would look into the norms and practices of that community to determine what a reasonably prudent heart surgeon would do.

Here, the relevant community is Secretaries of State in the digital era. Since every SecState preceding Clinton who has used email (Albright, Powell and Rice) have admitted to this behavior it is the industry norm. By LEGAL DEFINITION the industry norm CANNOT be gross negligence.

And it's not as simple as saying "well her predecessors did it so prosecute them too!" There is no statute explicitly prohibiting this. The statute only prohibits gross negligence. Again, industry norm is never gross negligence. Ergo, no gross negligence.

Now by today's standard, in light of the outrage and adoption, by the State Department, of protocols designed to avoid this, it would NOW be gross negligence. But her standard of care in 2010 is not determined by today's standard of care.

Call Clinton reckless or careless, but legally she is not a criminal.

P..S. I love that you cite to a congressional hearing as your source. A politically motivated congressman trying to grandstand is not exactly a neutral arbiter of law.

I bow to you sir, and the Buddha nature in you.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Actually DJ is spot on. Now I don't know where you got your JD from or what states you are barred in...I, on the other hand, have a JD from Pitt Law and am licensed to practice in several states. I practice both criminal and civil law, and my scholarly work on criminal law has been published in academic journals. I can tell you, the fact is, this wouldn't even survive a motion for judgement on the pleadings. It would never even go to jury. Not even in a civil suit with a lower standard of proof. Her actions simply do not meet the legal elements of the statute needed to sustain a prosecution.

Why? For the exact reason you said: gross negligence is voluntary disregard for the standard of care. What is the standard of care? That is established by looking at the relevant community. Standard of care for heart surgery, for example, differs from standard of care for driving. One is a common activity so you would look to what any reasonably prudent person would do. The other is a specialized community so you would look into the norms and practices of that community to determine what a reasonably prudent heart surgeon would do.

Here, the relevant community is Secretaries of State in the digital era. Since every SecState preceding Clinton who has used email (Albright, Powell and Rice) have admitted to this behavior it is the industry norm. By LEGAL DEFINITION the industry norm CANNOT be gross negligence.

And it's not as simple as saying "well her predecessors did it so prosecute them too!" There is no statute explicitly prohibiting this. The statute only prohibits gross negligence. Again, industry norm is never gross negligence. Ergo, no gross negligence.

Now by today's standard, in light of the outrage and adoption, by the State Department, of protocols designed to avoid this, it would NOW be gross negligence. But her standard of care in 2010 is not determined by today's standard of care.

Call Clinton reckless or careless, but legally she is not a criminal.

P..S. I love that you cite to a congressional hearing as your source. A politically motivated congressman trying to grandstand is not exactly a neutral arbiter of law.

Nice work. Proud of ya.

I remember back in the day giving you law school advice. t:

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Got real quiet in this thread all of the sudden haha.

 

[samsnee]

So they released more of her speeches. As a headline, it sounds like she's cozying up to Wall Street. But when you read them in context, I honestly don't find them offensive.

 

[Marvolo]

I like when Matt does his lawyer thing.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

So they released more of her speeches. As a headline, it sounds like she's cozying up to Wall Street. But when you read them in context, I honestly don't find them offensive.

All any of that has been is a sad attempt to take things she said out of context to make them look like something else.

The thing that came up during the last debate where they claimed she said something like "you need to tell the public one thing but elected officials something else" was basically just her talking about Speilberg's Lincoln movie and how she pointed out he had to sell his policies to the public using one set of points and to the legislature using others, was laughable.

 

[samsnee]

Anyone who thinks that politicians or anyone in a leadership role doesn't have the PR speak, but then speaks more truthfully behind closed doors, is truly naive.

 

[Sithborg]

So they released more of her speeches. As a headline, it sounds like she's cozying up to Wall Street. But when you read them in context, I honestly don't find them offensive.

Shocking in paid speeches to Wall Street.

 

[chaseter]

So ano has a Bill Clinton underage sex tape?

 

[Handsome Rob]

So ano has a Bill Clinton underage sex tape?

That's totally impossible. We know that all allegations of sexual assault and/or rape against Bill Clinton are categorically false and part of a vast, right wing conspiracy, as surely as all accusations of sexual assault and/or rape against Trump are automatically true.

Because a woman who says she is a victim of either is entitled to be believed . . . as long as her accusation doesn't threaten the Democrats' hold on power.

 

[chaseter]

You see Behar on the View refer to Bill's accusers/victims as 'tramps'?

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

That's totally impossible. We know that all allegations of sexual assault and/or rape against Bill Clinton are categorically false and part of a vast, right wing conspiracy, as surely as all accusations of sexual assault and/or rape against Trump are automatically true.

yeah I mean multiple corroborated stories from varying legitimate media outlets vs a veiled threat from Anonymous that sounds eerily similar to Trump's recent alleged Epstein scandal... They're basically the same thing.

It's also crazy how Bill Clinton is apparently allowed to run for a 3rd term as President. And all of his alleged scandals are given equivalency to those of the GOP candidate.

Because a woman who says she is a victim of either is entitled to be believed . . . as long as her accusation doesn't threaten the Democrats' hold on power.

ah yes, the mighty Dems, who control only one of the branches of Federal govt and who have only 11 out of 50 governors. Tis a tenuous hold indeed.

 

[Donner]

Remember to always find an opportunity to take a jab at the "other side" and spout off conspiracy theories about liberal bias and Democratic tyranny because partisan politics is cool.

 

[Handsome Rob]

You see Behar on the View refer to Bill's accusers/victims as 'tramps'?

No, but that's not surprising--she's been nothing but a shrieking harpy from what I've heard from her. Again, these jackass leftists* who degrade or lift up women making accusations of sexual assault based on their lust for power really make clear that they don't actually care about women.

They care about winning. Victims of sexual assault are at best useful tools for them, and they are the vilest enemy at worst. I can think of few things more degrading than that.

Spoiler

*Unnecessary clarification: The qualifiers behind the accusation against leftists makes it clear that this criticism is leveled against certain leftists and not the left as a whole. If you, the leftist, don't base your belief about sexual assault claims on whether you can benefit politically from it or not, I'm not talking about you.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Remember to always find an opportunity to take a jab at the "other side" and spout off conspiracy theories about liberal bias and Democratic tyranny because partisan politics is cool.

Will do.

 

[childeroland]

Early voting offers positive signs in key states for Clinton

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Advance voting shows positive signs for Hillary Clinton in two states that could help her lock up the presidency, North Carolina and Florida, as the election enters a critical, final stretch.

There are encouraging signs for Donald Trump in Ohio. That's a vital state for the Republican presidential nominee, but a victory there would be only one of many steps he would need to win.

The latest data, representing at least 758,000 ballots cast — and millions more requested — highlight Trump's difficult path to the White House. And these numbers may understate his problems: The figures don't yet reflect any voter response to the recording released last Friday of Trump making crude remarks about women.

Even if Trump can capture two states he's targeted — Pennsylvania and Ohio — he would need to pull off major upsets in multiple Democratic-leaning states to reach the 270 electoral votes in the state-by-state contest for the presidency. If Clinton picks up states Republicans won in 2012, Trump's task becomes harder.

In a statement, the Republican National Committee, which provides much of the get-out-the-vote effort for Trump as well as congressional candidates, said it remained confident its "significant and early investment" will put the party in a strong position.

So far in 2016, white votes are down by more than one-third while the number of black voters, who tend to favor Democrats, slipped lower. In-person voting, critical for Clinton, begins in the state next Thursday.

 

[Boom]

I thought Clinton was polling better in Ohio as of late.

 

[chaseter]

Clinton campaign insulting everyone now:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/hillary-clinton-campaigns-wikileaks-emails-reveal-/