FBI completes Clinton email probe, recommends no criminal charges

anatta said:
^ :rant:

are you still blathering about "intent?" do you KNOW what section of the Espionage act is even relevant?
Have you bothered to try and find out? ( no & no) or have you stuck your brain on MSNBC and let Howard Dean do it for you?
You are the most dumb ass worthless uninformed Goober I've ever com across online

here you go: see if you can comprehend English. 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(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 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.
Click to expand...

Nice selective editing.
Start with A. as the law is written.
Whoever...with intent...
It is clear as day that Hillary did not intend to release classified data.
Laughing out loud @anatta's childish attempt to decieve.
 
Rune said:
Nice selective editing.
Start with A. Whoever...with intent...
Laughing out loud @anatta's childish attempt to decieve.
Click to expand...
full statute - you stupid chowderhead..here it is.. 18 U.S.C § 793(f)(1) where do you see ANYTHING requiring intent:
++
(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.
++

she clearly had document/instrument on national defense on an unclassified platform. Comey even called it "extreme carelessness"
 
Rune said:
Nice selective editing.
Start with A. as the law is written.
Whoever...with intent...
It is clear as day that Hillary did not intend to release classified data.
Laughing out loud @anatta's childish attempt to decieve.
Click to expand...

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "INTENT TO RELEASE"..Hay Zeus Christo on a pretzel stick..my fucking cat is smarter then this!:palm:
 
Rana said:
It doesn't mean she did, either, that can only be determined by a judge or a jury of her peers, correct?
Click to expand...

Its proven FACT by her own words and what the FBI is telling us.....are you such a fool as you seem.
 
anatta said:
full statute - you stupid chowderhead..here it is.. 18 U.S.C § 793(f)(1) where do you see ANYTHING requiring intent:
++
(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.
++

she clearly had document/instrument on national defense on an unclassified platform. Comey even called it "extreme carelessness"
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The complete text is at your link.
It starts with section a.

Start over,try ro get it right.
It is ALL about intent.
 
Extreme carelessness does not rise to gross negligence.
For the last G.D. time words have actual meanings, ESPECIALLY.LEGAL TERMS.
FOOL.
 
Rune said:
Wrong.
The complete text is at your link.
It starts with section a.

Start over,try ro get it right.
It is ALL about intent.
Click to expand...
subsection (a). idiot. which is not the relevant subsection to gross negligence.
Chapter 37 = the Espionage Act
§ 793 = Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
 
Rune said:
Extreme carelessness does not rise to gross negligence.
For the last G.D. time words have actual meanings, ESPECIALLY.LEGAL TERMS.
FOOL.
Click to expand...
they are one and the same. carelessness = negligence. extreme=gross
good gawd. now you can't even See Spot Run..

Moreover READ the Comey statement and you see how the extreme carelessness is laid out to equate
to the statutory language of gross negligence.

My god man, use a thesaurus if the meanings escape you.
 
Rune said:
Extreme carelessness does not rise to gross negligence.
For the last G.D. time words have actual meanings, ESPECIALLY.LEGAL TERMS.
FOOL.
Click to expand...

Dude, if extreme carelessness isn't gross negligence, what is gross negligence? Ultra-uber carelessness lol?

You're flailing.
 
anatta said:
they are one and the same. carelessness = negligence. extreme=gross
good gawd. now you can't even See Spot Run..

Moreover READ the Comey statement and you see how the extreme carelessness is laid out to equate
to the statutory language of gross negligence.

My god man, use a thesaurus if the meanings escape you.
Click to expand...

So sorry but for legal terms one must rely upon a dictionary not a thesaurus.
As I keep trying to tell you words have actual specific meanings.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Dude, if extreme carelessness isn't gross negligence, what is gross negligence? Ultra-uber carelessness lol?

You're flailing.
Click to expand...

No, I think it is you that is desperate. We don't prosecute people who mishandle information, they may get fired, but she did not steal or try to sell or use the information to benefit herself, so it doesn't rise to prosecutable level as in other cases.
 
Rune said:
So sorry but for legal terms one must rely upon a dictionary not a thesaurus.
As I keep trying to tell you words have actual specific meanings.
Click to expand...
Facepalm3.jpg
 
Comey is a Republican who had no business offering a judgement on whether her actions were careless, or anything else Other. Than. Criminal.

And as pretty much all legal experts have said all along, and the FBI now agrees, there were no criminal actions.

Now, I don't know if that unprofessional rant was because he's a Republican, or if it was because he wanted to cover his ass, and I don't care. He's got Trump lying about the case and using Comey's own words to...indict Comey. He accused the FBI director of taking bribes.

Now that is hilarious.

My personal opinion is Hillary put her emails on a private server precisely to avoid the right wing witch hunts especially from Judicial Watch. That backfired. I understand why she did it though, and the bottom line is; nothing happened as a result. Nothing happened.

Nothing. Happened.

Now Donald Trump is complimenting Saddam Hussein and accusing the FBI director of taking bribes. You couldn't make this shit up. But the rage furby will vote for him. I love it.
 
Darla said:
Comey is a Republican who had no business offering a judgement on whether her actions were careless, or anything else Other. Than. Criminal.

And as pretty much all legal experts have said all along, and the FBI now agrees, there were no criminal actions.

Now, I don't know if that unprofessional rant was because he's a Republican, or if it was because he wanted to cover his ass, and I don't care. He's got Trump lying about the case and using Comey's own words to...indict Comey. He accused the FBI director of taking bribes.

Now that is hilarious.

My personal opinion is Hillary put her emails on a private server precisely to avoid the right wing witch hunts especially from Judicial Watch. That backfired. I understand why she did it though, and the bottom line is; nothing happened as a result. Nothing happened.

Nothing. Happened.

Now Donald Trump is complimenting Saddam Hussein and accusing the FBI director of taking bribes. You couldn't make this shit up. But the rage furby will vote for him. I love it.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you can't make it up and good response to Comey's remarks.
 
Rune said:
Thank you retard.
Now go back, read the distinction between gross and ordinary negligence.
You will then be apprised of the fact that a finding of gross negligence requires....wait for it....wait for it....INTENT to cause grevious harm.
Fucking idiots, losers and conservatards. Does the old white racist butthurt ever end?
Click to expand...

What would happen to you.....if a Trooper pulled you over after clocking you doing 90 in a 65....and you said, My INTENT was not harmful regardless of the potential of killing innocent people? Your ass would be convicted ON THE SPOT, and if you chose to defend the charges.... A JUDGE would decide if you got the chance...not the Boss of the one issuing the ticket.

Question for all YOU LEFTTARDS out there? Just what qualifies this FBI BOSS individual to determine and issue an OPINION of standing law.....he is not a member in good standing of the court system as all those whose duty it is to STUDY LAW And issue an OPINION. In refusing to CHARGE/INDICT....that is exactly what HE DID, he issued a court opinion as to what constitutes INTENT...either willful or neglectful. That is not in his MISSION STATEMENT....his duty is to charge ANYONE that he understands (and he clearly let it be known that he did) broke the law...through ignorance or intent, his duty is not to issue a trial decision from a news conference....without ever having a trail. There is such a thing as THE RULE OF LAW in this nation.

There is such a thing as "EX POST FACTO"....considering the seriousness and nature of this REVIEWED crime....a potential sentence of TREASON, the rule of law in all its potential should have been observed to the letter.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
Comey is a Republican who had no business offering a judgement on whether her actions were careless, or anything else Other. Than. Criminal.

And as pretty much all legal experts have said all along, and the FBI now agrees, there were no criminal actions.

Now, I don't know if that unprofessional rant was because he's a Republican, or if it was because he wanted to cover his ass, and I don't care. He's got Trump lying about the case and using Comey's own words to...indict Comey. He accused the FBI director of taking bribes.

Now that is hilarious.

My personal opinion is Hillary put her emails on a private server precisely to avoid the right wing witch hunts especially from Judicial Watch. That backfired. I understand why she did it though, and the bottom line is; nothing happened as a result. Nothing happened.

Nothing. Happened.

Now Donald Trump is complimenting Saddam Hussein and accusing the FBI director of taking bribes. You couldn't make this shit up. But the rage furby will vote for him. I love it.
Click to expand...
I hope he keeps up with the conspiracy theories, it makes him sound crazy! Go ask Alice!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top