Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

No - Comey didn't. If she had lied to the FBI, she would be up on charges.

Has every person who ever committed a crime actually been charged with that crime? It's downright ignorant to make such a claim.

[carpedm9587]

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."

You need a membership, but this article goes into it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/825950?...n_tab_contents

The bottom line is that the terms "grossly negligent" and "criminally negligent" are essentially synonymous. "Extremely careless" is not even a legal term, as far as I have been able to determine. Grossly negligent carries with it the concept that the actions were not only careless/negligent, but that there is reason to believe the person in question knew of the defficiency and ought to have taken steps to correct it to avoid a violation of statute.

That is the crux of the discussion here. Everything I have seen indicates that Clinton simply did not know enough about what email servers were, how they worked, how they were protected, to even be aware of the negligence. That was also apparently Comey's findings - because that is what he said in his statement.

[carpedm9587]

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.

The legal opinion of the head of the FBI carries a great deal of weight with me, for the same reason you claim the manager of the mall's statement carries a lot of weight with you. He was functioning, in the present (not the past) as the chief office of that organization, had access to all of the physical evidence and investigations, and made the conclusions he areticulated at his conference. I am not in a position to second guess him - nor do I have reason to.

[Sparko]

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.

Lipscomb seems to be saying Christians shouldn't get involved in anything worldly or political. That is what I was commenting on. Yet Christians are supposed to be part of God's work in the world. Helping others, making changes for the better. Sometimes that requires voting someone who is not quite as evil in power and working from there.

Let's say you have the standard streetcar dilemma. You are in control of a runaway streetcar. You can do nothing, which will end up with the streetcar hitting a mother and her two kids, or you can switch tracks and run over a 10 year old boy. What do you do?

[carpedm9587]

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?

Not how to recognize classified information - and that is anotther huge area of confusion, as to what was marked and how and when. But she was not an IT person and did not have, as best I can tell, a qualified IT person on staff. I have dealt with people who you would think would be "smart enough to know," and have no clue about the internal workings of an email system. She didn't know, as best I can tell, and did not surround herself with the right people. She was extremely careless - and showed incredibly poor judgment. I see no basis for accusations of "criminal behavior."

[Cow Poke]

That is the crux of the discussion here. Everything I have seen indicates that Clinton simply did not know enough about what email servers were, how they worked, how they were protected, to even be aware of the negligence.

Bullpucky!!!

Either Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI or she lied on a State Department form as she began her tenure as Secretary of State. This conclusion appears inescapable after Friday's FBI document release related to the Clinton email investigation.

As revealed by those FBI documents, Clinton told agents that she could not recall "any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information".

But the second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that "I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information." A composite of the FBI documents and the nondisclosure agreement is shown below:

Screen%u00252BShot%u00252B2016-09-02%u00252Bat%u00252B3.32.54%u00252BPM.jpg

That was also apparently Comey's findings - because that is what he said in his statement.

And Comey can't POSSIBLY be wrong.

[carpedm9587]

OK - I cannot keep up with the apparent outrage, so I'm going to stop trying. That you all have an axe to grind with Ms. Clinton is clear. That you are reading into Comey's statements what you apparently want to see there is also clear. I am going by his own words and statement: no prosecutor would indict on the basis of the evidence they have, and extremely careless in her choices/actions, but not criminally or grossly negligent - which is the bar the law requires.

That we disagree on this is clear. I'm just repeating myself at this point, so I'll leave the last words to all of you. I promise to read them, but I won't be posting on this further. If you truly feel a need to continue the discussion, please feel free to PM me.

[Mountain Man]

The legal opinion of the head of the FBI carries a great deal of weight with me, for the same reason you claim the manager of the mall's statement carries a lot of weight with you. He was functioning, in the present (not the past) as the chief office of that organization, had access to all of the physical evidence and investigations, and made the conclusions he areticulated at his conference. I am not in a position to second guess him - nor do I have reason to.

The difference here is that we can look at the case Comey laid out, the clear evidence of negligence, his admission that his own people would have never gotten away with what Hillary did, and then watch in dumbfounded disbelief as he recommends no indictment.

In other words, his own opinion about whether or not Hillary could/should have been indicted directly contradicts the facts as he explained them. Either his facts were wrong, or his opinion was wrong. Which are you going with?

[Cow Poke]

Not how to recognize classified information - and that is anotther huge area of confusion, as to what was marked and how and when. But she was not an IT person and did not have, as best I can tell, a qualified IT person on staff.

Woah, wait... she did not have "a qualified IT person on staff"? If so, whose fault is that?

I have dealt with people who you would think would be "smart enough to know," and have no clue about the internal workings of an email system. She didn't know, as best I can tell, and did not surround herself with the right people. She was extremely careless - and showed incredibly poor judgment. I see no basis for accusations of "criminal behavior."

And you think such a clueless ignorant person could run this country?!?!?!

Screen%u00252BShot%u00252B2016-09-02%u00252Bat%u00252B3.32.54%u00252BPM.jpg

[Cow Poke]

OK - I cannot keep up with the apparent outrage,

Outrage? How bout... flabberghastedness.

[Zymologist]

Outrage? How bout... flabberghastedness.

I guess quoting Comey directly and inquiring as to the legal difference between semantically identical phrases is a symptom of my outrage, and I'm just reading into what Comey said.

[Cow Poke]

I guess quoting Comey directly and inquiring as to the legal difference between semantically identical phrases is a symptom of my outrage, and I'm just reading into what Comey said.

And posting proof that HRC, contrary to Carpe's attestations to her ignorance, actually signed the very document that torpedoes his "she's too stupid" defense.

[Sparko]

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.

They are the same. I work a law firm (not a lawyer) that specializes in civil law cases. He tried to soften the charge but didn't. What she did was at the very least grossly negligent. Or worse.

The legal term for gross negligence is Lata Culpa.

Black's Law Dictionary:

LATA CULPA Lat. In the law of bailment. Gross fault or neglect; extreme negligence or carelessness,

[One Bad Pig]

OK - I cannot keep up with the apparent outrage, so I'm going to stop trying. That you all have an axe to grind with Ms. Clinton is clear. That you are reading into Comey's statements what you apparently want to see there is also clear. I am going by his own words and statement: no prosecutor would indict on the basis of the evidence they have, and extremely careless in her choices/actions, but not criminally or grossly negligent - which is the bar the law requires.

That we disagree on this is clear. I'm just repeating myself at this point, so I'll leave the last words to all of you. I promise to read them, but I won't be posting on this further. If you truly feel a need to continue the discussion, please feel free to PM me.

You're allowed to take a man who'd made up his mind months before seeing all the evidence and permitted a Clinton partisan to edit his official memo about Clinton at his word. I don't think that's reasonable, but whatever floats your boat.

[Adrift]

Lipscomb seems to be saying Christians shouldn't get involved in anything worldly or political. That is what I was commenting on. Yet Christians are supposed to be part of God's work in the world. Helping others, making changes for the better. Sometimes that requires voting someone who is not quite as evil in power and working from there.

Let's say you have the standard streetcar dilemma. You are in control of a runaway streetcar. You can do nothing, which will end up with the streetcar hitting a mother and her two kids, or you can switch tracks and run over a 10 year old boy. What do you do?

My issue isn't necessarily with voting in general (though I realize that's where Lipscomb was going), it's specifically with this concept of voting for something the Christian believes to be an evil. A lesser evil maybe, but an evil all the same. In your streetcar scenario, it seems to me that we have a greater obligation not to kill an innocent person ourselves than we have to not allow an innocent person to be killed. So, in that scenario, I think the proper thing would probably be not to do anything. The world's way may be the more utilitarian way where we should kill the few in order that the many may survive, but scripture shows us time after time that when we bypass the world's way of doing things that God does greater things. I think the streetcar hypothetical is too passive though. Imagine instead you're given a gun by a psycho, and are forced to literally shoot either the mother and her two children or the 10 year old. By choosing neither, the psycho will choose for you. Would that change your answer compared to the streetcar example? I'm not culpable for what psychos do. I didn't create the system, and I'm not really in control of the runaway streetcar. My option would be to pray that God finds an alternative way, while I do everything I can on my own to stop the streetcar/psycho. Christ himself would likely rather we put ourselves in the place of the person killed.