Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[carpedm9587]

He specifically said that she sent out classified information improperly. He called it extreme carelessness. The law says that it is criminal to be grossly negligent in the handling of classified information. He originally had written "grossly negligent" but changed it to "extreme carelessness" - except when you look up what gross negligence means, it means "extreme carelessness" so in the end, he said Clinton broke the law. that makes her a criminal.

18 US Code 793 (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

A "criminal" is someone who has "commited a crime." In the U.S., someone who has committed a crime is indicted, tried, and (hopefully) convicted. The system is not perfect, and sometimes people who are not criminals are convicted, and sometimes people who have are not. But the precept is "innocent until proven guilty." I take that seriously.

That Clinton was accused is clear. By the press and by the media and by the right. That her actions rise to the level of "criminal" is not. Comey is a reasonable, rational adult human being. If the language was changed from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," I'm going to assume he had a reason for doing so. I have no reason to attribute nefarious purposes to the man. The fact is the legal hurdle is "grossly negligent" and Comey chose not to characterize her actions that way. From what I have discovered, it's not even clear to me that Clinton even KNEW how compromised her email system was - though some of the people she surrounded herself with should have.

You folks are not really putting forward anything other than the "outrage" of the right at a person they clearly dislike. I stand by my original post - and point to Comey's own words for it.

[carpedm9587]

Again....

Washington (CNN)A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

Your amusement is clear, CP, but your argument is not...

[carpedm9587]

wow

That's it?

And I have to admit, CP, I expected a more civil level of discourse from you. It's disappointing to see your approach.

[carpedm9587]

He specifically said that she sent out classified information improperly. He called it extreme carelessness. The law says that it is criminal to be grossly negligent in the handling of classified information. He originally had written "grossly negligent" but changed it to "extreme carelessness" - except when you look up what gross negligence means, it means "extreme carelessness" so in the end, he said Clinton broke the law. that makes her a criminal.

18 US Code 793 (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 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lear-submarine

So you're comparing a person who knowingly and willingly did something he knew was wrong so he could "show his family" with someone who, as best I can tell, wasn't necessarily even aware of the compromised level of her communications? You're comparing someone with clear and admitted intent of a known illegal act to someone for whom the FBI says it could not show intent?

And these are equal to you?

[Adrift]

The bible is chock full of people NOT sitting on their hands waiting for God to fix everything via miracles. God uses people and sometimes he even used evil people to accomplish his goals. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where the guy who did nothing for fear of messing up was the one who got chastised.

I'm not saying that anyone should sit on their hands. I'm saying that people shouldn't choose the lesser of evils if they're choice still means choosing evil. And while God can make good come from evil, Romans tells us that directly as Lipscomb reminds us, that we shouldn't do evil that good may come of it.

[carpedm9587]

I quoted Comey directly; I don't see how there's any argument here. The statute says it's a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, and then in the very same statement Comey says there's evidence that Clinton was "extremely careless."

She violated the statute, as Comey stated it.

No - the legal language of "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless" are not the same. In fact, if Comey had originally put "grossly negligent" and the phrase was changed to "extremely careless" and Comey read it as the latter, the message to ME is that he realized "grossly negligent" did not apply and would essentially contradict his original point - that there was insufficient basis for bringing charges. Comey does not strike me as a sloppy man - or an unethical one. So, again, benefit of the doubt until I have cause to question this integrity. I do not have such cause.

[Sparko]

A "criminal" is someone who has "commited a crime." In the U.S., someone who has committed a crime is indicted, tried, and (hopefully) convicted. The system is not perfect, and sometimes people who are not criminals are convicted, and sometimes people who have are not. But the precept is "innocent until proven guilty." I take that seriously.

She committed a crime and Comey said she did. She also lied to the FBI. That is also a crime. She is a criminal. The facts are not in dispute here. Just what they decided to do about it. It is like the police catch a criminal in the act but don't prosecute them - maybe to get them to roll over on their boss. It doesn't mean they are not criminals.

That Clinton was accused is clear. By the press and by the media and by the right. That her actions rise to the level of "criminal" is not. Comey is a reasonable, rational adult human being. If the language was changed from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," I'm going to assume he had a reason for doing so. I have no reason to attribute nefarious purposes to the man. The fact is the legal hurdle is "grossly negligent" and Comey chose not to characterize her actions that way. From what I have discovered, it's not even clear to me that Clinton even KNEW how compromised her email system was - though some of the people she surrounded herself with should have.

You folks are not really putting forward anything other than the "outrage" of the right at a person they clearly dislike. I stand by my original post - and point to Comey's own words for it.

except legally "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are equivalent.

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Clinton had training on how to handle classified information. She was even told not to have her own email server. And she didn't put safeguards in place to protect her server or the information. The server was kept in a freaking closet in someone's house! She didn't care. She had a legal duty and disregarded her training. Despite being warned.

There is no hurdle she did not cross here.

[Zymologist]

No - the legal language of "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless" are not the same. In fact, if Comey had originally put "grossly negligent" and the phrase was changed to "extremely careless" and Comey read it as the latter, the message to ME is that he realized "grossly negligent" did not apply and would essentially contradict his original point - that there was insufficient basis for bringing charges. Comey does not strike me as a sloppy man - or an unethical one. So, again, benefit of the doubt until I have cause to question this integrity. I do not have such cause.

What's the difference? Do you have a legal reference to explain the difference?

Btw, I note that you yourself used the phrase "grossly negligent."

[Mountain Man]

Comey is a man who was the leader of the FBI, in a position to know, and has an essentially spotless record. I have no reason to question him. If he has access to all of the information and says, "there is not enough here to indict or press criminal charges," then I take him at his word.

He expressed his opinion, nothing more. The fact is, he laid out a clear case of criminal negligence, and any competent prosecutor could have gotten a conviction based on Comey's testimony alone; countless people have been thrown in jail for less. But the fix was in when Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton to talk about "grandchildren" and suddenly declared that she would accept Comey's recommendation whether or not to indict.

[Sparko]

So you're comparing a person who knowingly and willingly did something he knew was wrong so he could "show his family" with someone who, as best I can tell, wasn't necessarily even aware of the compromised level of her communications? You're comparing someone with clear and admitted intent of a known illegal act to someone for whom the FBI says it could not show intent?

And these are equal to you?

She was the SECRETARY OF STATE! You are going to tell me that the SoS of the entire freaking US government is too clueless to understand what classified information is and how to handle it? After training? If that were the case, and our elected officials at the top of the government are that stupid, then we are in a lot more trouble than Clinton merely not giving a crap about it. It is a damn good thing she wasn't elected as President if she is that moronic. right?

[Mountain Man]

Comey does not strike me as a sloppy man - or an unethical one.

It doesn't get much more unethical than leaking classified conversations with the President to the media.

[Zymologist]

If Comey's reason for not pursuing Clinton further is the difference between the phrases "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless," then I would love to hear a more detailed explanation.

[Mountain Man]

She was the SECRETARY OF STATE! You are going to tell me that the SoS of the entire freaking US government is too clueless to understand what classified information is and how to handle it? After training? If that were the case, and our elected officials at the top of the government are that stupid, then we are in a lot more trouble than Clinton merely not giving a crap about it. It is a damn good thing she wasn't elected as President if she is that moronic. right?

The extent that liberals go to to try and defend this woman -- they claim that she's unfairly maligned and then turn around and imply that she was simply too stupid and incompetent to know how to safeguard national security secrets despite her decades in politics and extensive training.

And this is who they wanted to be president?

[carpedm9587]

She committed a crime and Comey said she did. She also lied to the FBI. That is also a crime. She is a criminal. The facts are not in dispute here. Just what they decided to do about it. It is like the police catch a criminal in the act but don't prosecute them - maybe to get them to roll over on their boss. It doesn't mean they are not criminals.

No - Comey didn't. If she had lied to the FBI, she would be up on charges. She is not. The "facts" you are presenting are nothing of the sort. They are media-driven opinion. And yes, there are many reasons someone is not convicted. Until they are, however, they are innocent under the law. Until then, Clinton's "guilt" is a media-driven, opinion.

except legally "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are equivalent.

Gross Negligence
An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Clinton had training on how to handle classified information. She was even told not to have her own email server. And she didn't put safeguards in place to protect her server or the information. The server was kept in a freaking closet in someone's house! She didn't care. She had a legal duty and disregarded her training. Despite being warned.

There is no hurdle she did not cross here.

In your opinion - with which I disagree. There is an excellent podcast on this subject. As usual, I checked several claims in this and the ones I checked out were spot-on, so my confidence in the accuracy of the research is high. Worth a listen: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/rad...er-domain-name

[Cow Poke]

The extent that liberals go to to try and defend this woman -- they claim that she's unfairly maligned and then turn around and imply that she was simply too stupid and incompetent to know how to safeguard national security secrets despite her decades in politics and extensive training.

And this is who they wanted to be president?

Yeah, at best, an incredibly sloppy ignorant woman who, when pressed for details, never seems to be able to "recall".