Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

This is not a justice system.
Do you understand how an internet forum works?

This is not a justice system, this is the Internet, so you don't decide the innocence or guilt of anybody.

You have just made an argument against your own position, namely that you on the Internet can be a justice system.

 

[Meadmaker]

wrong.

They won't bring charges, of course, because Hillary is a broken husk, and her erstwhile supporters are left to howling angrily in the wind.

You have hit the nail on the head, Big Dog.

Now that she is a political has-been, there's no point to bringing charges.

 

[The Big Dog]

I will not take your word for it, because you have shown yourself to be
wrong about this statute.

Gross negligence is not extremely careless.

Try reading the article I posted.
It might clear up some things for you.

Um, I said do not take my word for it, read the statute.

That article you posted was a *********** dumpster fire as it invloves a prosecution under another section of the statute that DOES NOT MENTION GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm still wondering why no prosecution.

Will there ever be a better time than now?

**Needs to be better than "she's a broken husk"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I've cited the statute, it specifically refers to negligence.

hell, look at it yourself:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

It requires gross negligence, Comey himself said she was extremely careless.

He was wrong when he said that intent was a consideration.

Do not take my word for it, read the statute yourself.

No worries, I do not take your word for anything after reading this thread.

Especially when you conflate "gross negligence" with "extremely careless"

 

[The Big Dog]

No worries, I do not take your word for anything after reading this thread.

Especially when you conflate "gross negligence" with "extremely careless"

ZOUNDS! who would ever, ever, ever do something so CRAZEE!!!

The Southern District has defined gross negligence as meaning that "defendant has not only acted carelessly in making a mistake, but that it was so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness." Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. v. Dun & Bradstreet (S.D.N.Y.1975) 414 F.Supp. 153, 160.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

ZOUNDS! who would ever, ever, ever do something so CRAZEE!!!

The Southern District has defined gross negligence as meaning that "defendant has not only acted carelessly in making a mistake, but that it was so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness." Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. v. Dun & Bradstreet (S.D.N.Y.1975) 414 F.Supp. 153, 160.

And now you conflate "extremely careless" with "recklessness"

Thanks, but I'll pass on your Internet legal advice.

 

[WilliamSeger]

ZOUNDS! who would ever, ever, ever do something so CRAZEE!!!

The Southern District has defined gross negligence as meaning that "defendant has not only acted carelessly in making a mistake, but that it was so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness." Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. v. Dun & Bradstreet (S.D.N.Y.1975) 414 F.Supp. 153, 160.

So, Comey says it wasn't "so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness?"

 

[NoahFence]

And still - no hint of why she wasn't prosecuted. Its almost as if actually saying the answer will cause harm?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And still - no hint of why she wasn't prosecuted. Its almost as if actually saying the answer will cause harm?

Ockhams razor says she wasn't prosecuted for the reasons already given by Comey.

I, too, would like to hear from TBD and others why they believe Clinton wasn't charged, since they believe she was so obviously guilty of easily prosecutable offenses.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an honest answer, though.

 

[The Big Dog]

And now you conflate "extremely careless" with "recklessness"

Thanks, but I'll pass on your Internet legal advice.

I am not the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They wrote the definition, and I do not even think they are the intenet either (nice try tho!)

So, Comey says it wasn't "so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness?"

No, he did not consider gross negligence which was why he was wrong.

And still - no hint of why she wasn't prosecuted. Its almost as if actually saying the answer will cause harm?

No hint? I already explained it, i.e. she is a worthless husk.

You want more reasons? 'k: Sword of Damocles

 

[Newtons Bit]

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

Comey said on July 5th,



From the linked article:



There are some who quote the statute who do not understand the statute
and refuse to understand that willful and clearly intentional mishandling is
required to get a conviction.

There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton ever willfully or intentionally
mishandled classified information.

To keep repeating this statute is to keep misinterpreting the law.

There's plenty of evidence that she willfully and intentionally mishandled classified information. She instructed aides to remove classified markings from documents and send it via unsecured means. She sent and received emails with classified markings. She sent emails that contained information that was "born" classified.

However that information isn't the type of classified information that is criminal to mishandle. It's illegal: a person can lose their job and clearance over it. There's just no criminal sanction associated to it.

I have a broader concern that still hasn't been addressed by the FBI or by Clinton: how in the **** did information with classified markings make it on to an unsecured network? After the Manning affair, it's basically impossible to get a classified document off the classified network and plop in on to a computer that has access to the broader internet.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

ZOUNDS! who would ever, ever, ever do something so CRAZEE!!!

The Southern District has defined gross negligence as meaning that "defendant has not only acted carelessly in making a mistake, but that it was so extremely careless that it was equivalent to recklessness." Hong Kong Export Credit Ins. v. Dun & Bradstreet (S.D.N.Y.1975) 414 F.Supp. 153, 160.

This is not a law school nor a court of law, so according to your own rule:

International Justice System Forum.

This is not a justice system.

Do you understand how an internet forum works?

So it appears that you don't abide by your own rule and that you indeed act as if this is a court of law and not an internet forum.

 

[plague311]

I have a broader concern that still hasn't been addressed by the FBI or by Clinton: how in the **** did information with classified markings make it on to an unsecured network? After the Manning affair, it's basically impossible to get a classified document off the classified network and plop in on to a computer that has access to the broader internet.

Just out of curiosity, I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but what are you basing this off of? What changes in technology, since Manning, can you point to that would enable this change? Let us not forget that Snowden happened after Manning, and we just had an intel leak.

Maybe I'm not up to date on this.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is not a law school nor a court of law, so according to your own rule:


So it appears that you don't abide by your own rule and that you indeed act as if this is a court of law and not an internet forum.

Still an internet forum, where people like me cite case law to explain the law to people who thirst for knowledge.

I appreciate your doggedness on making sure people know that this forum is not a court!

kudos.

 

[NoahFence]

No hint? I already explained it, i.e. she is a worthless husk.

You want more reasons? 'k: Sword of Damocles

Curiously we're still waiting to get "educated".

"Worthless husk" doesn't cut it.

I guess we're left with the obvious. She didn't do anything worthy of being prosecuted by anyone other than agenda-driven keyboard warriors.

 

[The Big Dog]

Curiously we're still waiting to get "educated".

"Worthless husk" doesn't cut it.

I guess we're left with the obvious. She didn't do anything worthy of being prosecuted by anyone other than agenda-driven keyboard warriors.

Well we all see that you don't believe the fact that she is an elderly washed up husk of no further significance who should be left allow to wander in the wilderness is sufficient.

Accordingly, i cited another: sword of damocles, i.e. the threat of future prosecution ensuring good behavior.

Tell you what the statute of limitations is five years or so, ask me in five years IF they have not prosecuted.

Plenty of time left, plenty of time....

 

[phiwum]

The fact that Hillary Clinton was using a cowboy server first came to light when Kerry was SoS.

Chuckle is you will, but facts are facts

What the hell is a "cowboy server"?

I run my own email server in my home. Does that qualify as a cowboy server? It's in the closet in the living room, not a repurposed bathroom. Is that disqualifying?

 

[phiwum]

No, she didn't. Because she is not convicted of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793 unless you can produce a transcript of a court sentence. Don't you understand how a justice system in a state of law works?

Sorry, but this is nonsense. One can break the law without being convicted. I broke the law decades ago when I drank beer before my 21st year. I was never convicted, but I certainly did break the law.

ETA: More interestingly, Aaron Hernandez was convicted of murder, but killed himself while awaiting appeal. In Massachusetts, when one dies after conviction but before a pending appeal, the conviction is vacated. Now, if we apply your reasoning, then it was true that he had committed murder before his suicide, but afterwards it was false that had done so.

 

[NoahFence]

Well we all see that you don't believe the fact that she is an elderly washed up husk of no further significance who should be left allow to wander in the wilderness is sufficient.

Accordingly, i cited another: sword of damocles, i.e. the threat of future prosecution ensuring good behavior.

Tell you what the statute of limitations is five years or so, ask me in five years IF they have not prosecuted.

Plenty of time left, plenty of time....

I imagine you were pained to see that Whitey Bulger was finally arrested, even though he was a "washed up husk of no further significance" as well?

Or does that only count to political opponents that you personally deem to be "washed up husks"?