Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

My favorite is the premise that a reasonable prosecutor would shy away from a career-making slam-dunk case against a high-ranking, high-profile government official.

And [looking around to see if Jesse is watching] maybe end up dead!









Note that my "outtie" emoticon/smiley/whatever indicates I'm being somewhat facetious

[Zymologist]

Unless someone can clearly define the difference between "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless," then according to Comey's own statement Clinton violated the relevant statute. All of his talk about "intent" is pretty much irrelevant in light of the phrasing of the statute that he quotes.

Source: Comey's statement

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

snip

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

Oh, bullpucky!

Why don't you actually read was written instead of doing a goofy "spotted word search"?

This is what you erroneously claimed....



Here is the relevant part of the actual FBI statement from their website...

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

That's a FAR cry from your claim that he said "there was not adequate evidence to even indict".

So, again, bullpucky!!!!

As I said, I reread it - and then reverified my observations by doing a selective word search (to make sure I had not missed anything and that my impressions were correct). The quote you just posted above is perfectly in line with what I sad. I'm not sure where you are seeing a disconnect. There actually was NOT adequate evidence to indict, or they would have indicted. The reason for this is that intent is also part of what causes a prosecutor to make a decision about what to prosecute and what NOT to prosecute.

A sixteen year old who pulls out dad's gun and accidentally shoots his father dead could prosecuted under existing laws prohibiting "man slaughter." But a prosecutor will examine circumstances, including intent, and many times will determine that prosecution is not advised because intent cannot be shown, and because there is adequate existing harm (i.e., loss of father). So they will choose not to indict.

Likewise, Clinton is guilty of grossly negligent handling of information, and poor choice of staffing. She is guilty of being lazy in her use of client devices. But the investigation showed no basis for "intent" and not enough evidence to move forward with an indictment.

Frankly, IMO, the entire email thing was more political than legal. We can essentially see that in the speed with which it was dropped the moment the election was over - and the speed with which it was then refocused on by Trump as soon as he was criticized or felt the legitimacy of his election was being challenged.

Clinton was stupid. There is no basis, IMO, for saying she was criminal, except possibly in the context of "criminally stupid."

[Cow Poke]

I stand by my original post - which was NOT biased - it was based on the statements made, the evidence I have been able to examine as a private citizen, and my experience in IT.

The only person on this board who may have more IT experience (especially in security) than me is BTC. Don't give me that "my experience in IT" bullpucky, young man!

[Cow Poke]

As I said, I reread it - ...

So, you're going with "She was just way too sloppy and ignorant to be POTUS" defense?

[Cow Poke]

There actually was NOT adequate evidence to indict, or they would have indicted.

You can't know that. There are other reasons not to indict.

[carpedm9587]

Unless someone can clearly define the difference between "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless," then according to Comey's own statement Clinton violated the relevant statute. All of his talk about "intent" is pretty much irrelevant in light of the phrasing of the statute that he quotes.

Source: Comey's statement

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

snip

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

© Copyright Original Source

Look - I realize the right needs to make hay with these issues. Clinton has been hated since she was First Lady. I suspect history will show her to be one of the most maligned politicians in (recent?) American history. But I go with what I am told until I have reason to question the teller. 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.

I know it's not the outcome the right wanted. They wanted, "lock her up." Well, sorry - not likely to happen. But this, and other issues like it, did help to ensure she was not elected - so at least you have that!

[carpedm9587]

You can't know that. There are other reasons not to indict.

If you have more evidence I have not seen, CP, feel free to present it. I'll look at it.

Otherwise, I take Comey at his word. I don't pick and choose who to believe. I give people the benefit of the doubt until there is cause for me not to.

[Cow Poke]

Unless someone can clearly define the difference between "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless," then according to Comey's own statement Clinton violated the relevant statute. All of his talk about "intent" is pretty much irrelevant in light of the phrasing of the statute that he quotes.

Source: Comey's statement

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

snip

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

© Copyright Original Source

Further, from CNN....

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.

[carpedm9587]

So, you're going with "She was just way too sloppy and ignorant to be POTUS" defense?

I'm not going with ANY defense. I think Clinton would have been a FAR better POTUS than the buffoon we have now. But she would have been far from perfect. I'm just not willing to jump on the "hang Clinton" bandwagon on the basis of the evidence presented. As I noted before - Clinton was tried in the media - not in the American judicial system. It has repeatedly refused to indict or convict.

The American legal precept is "innocent until proven guilty." I take that seriously, and am not a fan of "trial by press."

[Sparko]

See my response to CP below.

As much as I have been accused of bias - your reading of this statement smacks of bias. Comey goes out of his way to distinguish between sloppy behavior and criminal activity in this statement. He explicitly does NOT accuse them of breaking the law, and specifically notes that there is inadequate evidence to file criminal charges or indict.

I stand by my original statement.

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

[carpedm9587]

Further, from CNN....

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.

And this matters because...?

[Zymologist]

Look - I realize the right needs to make hay with these issues. Clinton has been hated since she was First Lady. I suspect history will show her to be one of the most maligned politicians in (recent?) American history. But I go with what I am told until I have reason to question the teller. 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.

I know it's not the outcome the right wanted. They wanted, "lock her up." Well, sorry - not likely to happen. But this, and other issues like it, did help to ensure she was not elected - so at least you have that!

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.

[Cow Poke]

If you have more evidence I have not seen, CP, feel free to present it. I'll look at it.

Otherwise,

I take Comey at his word.

I don't pick and choose who to believe. I give people the benefit of the doubt until there is cause for me not to.

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.

[Cow Poke]

And this matters because...?

wow