Russia probe pile-on: No fewer than 9 teams investigating collusion, meddling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

And again you have been shown the SCOTUS decision that weighs the various statutes and case law telling how these cases are to be tried and judged.

You are on repeat and apparently too stupid to understand the difference between individual legislation and the role of the SCOTUS and their rulings.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/19/case.html

Apparently you are so pigheaded you think you can interpret law better than SCOTUS.

---

You don't have the correct statute.

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

18 US Code 793 (f)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

She had 7 email chains containing Top Secret/SAP level classifications.

And after your edit I see you did indeed buy the bullshit. Comey went through an entire list of Clinton's gross negligence, even you could have won that case against her.

---

Great. So when Trump prosecute her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

he went through mistakes she made and careless decisions. that's not the same as gross negligence, which is a legal standard, not a just two words that you interpret through a dictionary or thesaurus

---

what's the legal standard of gross negligence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You don't have the correct statute.

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

18 US Code 793 (f)

---

the purpose of that case is to show how they define national defense in the espionage act altogether. "military or naval establishments and related activities of national preparedness for war"

you dont need a case on the espionage act to get a definition for gross negligence. that's a legal standard used in dozens/hundreds of different applications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

the purpose of that case is to show how they define national defense in the espionage act altogether. "military or naval establishments and related activities of national preparedness for war"

you dont need a case on the espionage act to get a definition for gross negligence. that's a legal standard used in dozens/hundreds of different applications

---

Are you now claiming none of the Clinton emails had anything to do with national defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Are you now claiming none of the Clinton emails had anything to do with national defense?

---

i have not read through clinton's emails, so im not making that claim. im pointing out the relevance of that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

what's the legal standard of gross negligence?

---

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard... which is why he brought up the statute you refer to (where only gross negligence, as opposed to specific intent, is required), said she was careless, and still didn't recommend prosecution based on their investigation.

i'm sure you can look through a bunch of online dictionaries and find places where they say negligence = careless as one of the definitions and say "a-ha!"... but that has no bearing in court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard

---

Will let voat decide.

All I know is Hillary eat children and Trump do nothing!

its frustrating that the answer tends to be "need to look up the case law" but that's simply a result of setting up standards like negligence/recklessness/specific intent rather than spelling out every possible way in which the statute can be violated

my point in all this is that you cant simply say "lol he said careless and careless = negligent so she's guilty"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

unfortunatley, it varies on subject matter. gross negligence in a contract claim is different than it would be in a criminal matter. and even within the scope of crimes, it would be different in the context of a homicide vs unauthorized use/access of classified data. you'd need to review case law on similar crimes to see the federal standard. generally speaking, negligence is a deviation from the reasonable standard of care, and gross negligence is a gross deviation. what constitutes a gross deviation is based on precedent and interpretation, and it's not defined in the statute.

so comey saying she was extremely careless isn't the same as saying she was grossly negligent by any legal standard... which is why he brought up the statute you refer to (where only gross negligence, as opposed to specific intent, is required), said she was careless, and still didn't recommend prosecution based on their investigation.

i'm sure you can look through a bunch of online dictionaries and find places where they say negligence = careless as one of the definitions and say "a-ha!"... but that has no bearing in court

---

You should re-read his statement after his recent testimony concerning Lynch

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

its frustrating that the answer tends to be "need to look up the case law" but that's simply a result of setting up standards like negligence/recklessness/specific intent rather than spelling out every possible way in which the statute can be violated

my point in all this is that you cant simply say "lol he said careless and careless = negligent so she's guilty"

---

If you think he just said she was extremely careless you do in fact need to re-read his statement.

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You should re-read his statement after his recent testimony concerning Lynch

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system

---

this is the july 2016 statement where he just says careless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

---

they bring up intent because the statute in question in that case required intent.

i do get that they are trying to warn that "national defense" could be dangerously vague, and in the context of this case, the intent requirement alleviated that concern. still, i dont know that they have made any sort of determination specific to section F that doesn't require intent. it would stand to reason that they would think it's too vague, but it hasn't been challenged yet to my knowledge. i haven't done comprehensive research to answer either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

this is the july 2016 statement where he just says careless

---

He says much more than just careless when describing her illegally set up unsecured servers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

You don't have the correct statute.

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

18 US Code 793 (f)

---

That is a subsection of the espionage act, dumbfuck.

Quote:

---

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ense-info.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In the case the defense argued that "relating to the national defense" was too vague and there was no way for the defendant to know what fell under that definition. The majority disagreed as long as was present "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States."

TSA's poor memory and generally poor intellect strikes again.

You are wasting your time on a red herring. The need for intent arises from a different part of the law.

---

why did you leave this part out? "or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

That is a subsection of the espionage act, dumbfuck.

---

Can you find the word intent in section (f) ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

He says much more than just careless when describing her illegally set up unsecured servers.

---

not really. he said they were careless and then gave a few examples to demonstrate the carelessness. he didnt give a separate legal determination and never suggested their actions rose to the level of gross negligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

Can you find the word intent in section (f) ?

---

Again, SCOTUS addresses that directly. Can you find the phrase "related to the national defense?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

why did you leave this part out? "or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

---

Take it up with the Supreme Court, dim.

TSA... the point is,

1 - you keep bringing up subsection F which does not require specific intent, only gross negligence.

2 - in comey's address, he agrees that it was proper to look at that subsection (he doesn't recite the statute code, but he says "either intentionally or a grossly negligent way"). so he's on the same page that 793(F) is appropriate

3 - comey said they were extremely careless, and gave examples to show it

4 - however, he did not recommend charges

the disconnect in my eyes is that you are equating the extremely careless comment with the legal standard of gross negligence. they sound similar-ish, and i'm sure some dictionaries will equate them. but the legal standard is defined through case law and precedent, not by websters dictionary. to get a good answer to the question, you'd have to have somebody dive through a bunch of appellate level decisions relating to gross negligence under the espionage act or other similar statutes with a gross negligence quality. comey said they looked into past cases and could not come across case with this set of facts that was prosecuted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Take it up with the Supreme Court, dim.

---

You specifaccly left that part out. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

they bring up intent because the statute in question in that case required intent.

i do get that they are trying to warn that "national defense" could be dangerously vague, and in the context of this case, the intent requirement alleviated that concern. still, i dont know that they have made any sort of determination specific to section F that doesn't require intent. it would stand to reason that they would think it's too vague, but it hasn't been challenged yet to my knowledge. i haven't done comprehensive research to answer either way

---

Quote:

---

We there said that the statute "condemns no act or omission;" that the vagueness is such as to violate due process. [Footnote 12]

But we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. [Footnote 13] The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign

Page 312 U. S. 28

nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.

---

Please point to me that part that speaks to the specifics of the case and not the Espionage Act itself.

So when Trump lock Clinton up for espionage?

TSA say is slam dunk.