FBI Clinton investigation - Comey delivers statement

[CosmicCowboy]

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

Hillary partisans say it didn't meet the threshold because she was too technically illiterate to understand that her unsecured email could put lives at risk. hmmmm

Personally I think putting her email completely out of the reach of government security officials to "protect her privacy" with total disregard for the implications to national security was pretty damn gross.

No point in arguing it, though. No one is going to change their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can someone explain what is the use of Congress writing laws if they aren't going to be used. Comey's excuse that it's been used once in almost 100 years is not an excuse not to use it. Doesn't someone have to the the first, second, third, etc.? And how would they change the gross negligence statute to include no willful intent (it currently doesn't mention it). I just don't understand why he used willful intent to disqualify prosecution - after all if I speed, the cop doesn't care whether I intended to or not - I'm gonna get a ticket.

So sad about the police killings. Disappointed with Federer CHOKING - up 40-0, double faults twice probably his last chance at a GS.

Ahh you are as clueless as CC.

IF Comey thought the standard for negligence had been met he would have said that it had been. The choice of similar words like 'extremely careless' was intentional doublespeak.

It's people like you that have led us into this Orwellian dystopia. Thanks for being incapable of thinking for yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hillary partisans say it didn't meet the threshold because she was too technically illiterate to understand that her unsecured email could put lives at risk. hmmmm

Personally I think putting her email completely out of the reach of government security officials to "protect her privacy" with total disregard for the implications to national security was pretty damn gross.

No point in arguing it, though. No one is going to change their mind.

Speak for yourself. The burden of proof is on demonstrating the 'likely' part. You cannot even articulate simple arguments and instead wishcast like everyone things as you do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

off Babyboo.

Surrender harder, pedobear.

[CosmicCowboy]

Speak for yourself. The burden of proof is on demonstrating the 'likely' part. You cannot even articulate simple arguments and instead wishcast like everyone things as you do.

Like I said...partisans will be partisans and no one is changing their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I said...partisans will be partisans and no one is changing their mind.

Burden of proof as a legal standard is an objective truth. Your inability to articulate is demonstrable by once again you parroting a cliche that is meaningless. Using the term 'extremely careless' when the legal standard is 'gross negligence' is objectively double speak.

I don't like either team. I just like your team less. I agree that your partisan approach to politics is a big part of the problem. Your ilk are dying off and change is coming. I am content.

[rmt]

Ahh you are as clueless as CC.

IF Comey thought the standard for negligence had been met he would have said that it had been. The choice of similar words like 'extremely careless' was intentional doublespeak.

It's people like you that have led us into this Orwellian dystopia. Thanks for being incapable of thinking for yourself.

From what I heard, Comey thinks she does meet the standard for negligence. What he can't prove is criminal intent.

BUT YOUR STATEMENT ON TUESDAY SAID THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN SECRETARY CLINTON'S POSITION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AN UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM WAS NO PLACE FOR THE CONVERSATION.

Comey: I STAND BY THAT. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CARELESSNESS, OF NEGLIGENCE.

WHICH HAPPENED.

Comey: OH, YEAH.

AS A RESULT OF OUR SECRETARY OF STATE'S -- FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISIONS.

Comey: YES

IS IT YOUR STATEMENT THEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND YET SHE DID.

Comey: CERTAINLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND HE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. AS I SAID, THAT'S THE DEFINITION NEGLIGENCE. I THINK SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HASN'T USED THE STATUTE CONGRESS PASSED, IT'S INVALID?

Comey: NO. I THINK THEY ARE WORRY IT IS INVALID, THAT IT WILL BE CHALLENGED ON CONS UTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS WHY THEY'VE USED IT EXTRAORDINARILY SPARINGLY IN THE DECADES.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-...ail-probe&live
Filter by Speaker: James Comey
Search this transcript: Negligence
02:07:04

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I heard, Comey thinks she does meet the standard for negligence. What he can't prove is criminal intent.

BUT YOUR STATEMENT ON TUESDAY SAID THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN SECRETARY CLINTON'S POSITION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AN UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM WAS NO PLACE FOR THE CONVERSATION.

Comey: I STAND BY THAT. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CARELESSNESS, OF NEGLIGENCE.

WHICH HAPPENED.

Comey: OH, YEAH.

AS A RESULT OF OUR SECRETARY OF STATE'S -- FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISIONS.

Comey: YES

IS IT YOUR STATEMENT THEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND YET SHE DID.

Comey: CERTAINLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND HE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. AS I SAID, THAT'S THE DEFINITION NEGLIGENCE. I THINK SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HASN'T USED THE STATUTE CONGRESS PASSED, IT'S INVALID?

Comey: NO. I THINK THEY ARE WORRY IT IS INVALID, THAT IT WILL BE CHALLENGED ON CONS UTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS WHY THEY'VE USED IT EXTRAORDINARILY SPARINGLY IN THE DECADES.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-...ail-probe&live
Filter by Speaker: James Comey
Search this transcript: Negligence
02:07:04

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

[tlongII]

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

What is that specific legal definition?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is that specific legal definition?

What difference does it make? Fact is that it is different than the legal standard.

[rmt]

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

Comey explains that he establishes that she was negligent (whether gross or not) - what he can't prove is the necessary criminal intent. If you read/listen to the entire interview, he acknowledges she did many things that were negligent but it's almost like because only one other case had used that statute, he couldn't recommend the prosecution.

Comey: IT'S A COMPLICATED MATTER. IT INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS ACROSS DECADES, HOW PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS EXERCISED. I GET THAT FOLKS SEE DISCONNECTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SEE A STATUTE THAT SAYS GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

THE DIRECTOR JUST SAID SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. HOW IS THAT NOT PROSECUTABLE.

Comey: IT TAKES AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GONE ON OVER THE LAST 99 YEARS, WHAT'S THE PRECEDENT. I GET PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE IN GOOD FAITH.

DO YOU -- WE TALKED ABOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE HERE, AND YOU SAID THAT SECRETARY CLINTON WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS WITH THIS CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. AND HOW DANGEROUS IT COULD BE, HOW THREATENING TO EVEN TO PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT IT COULD BE TO DISCLOSE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A VERY THIN LINE BETWEEN GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND EXTREME CARELESS CARELESSNESS? AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THAT DIFFERENCE?

Comey: SURE, JUDGE. CONGRESSMAN. AS A FORMER JUDGE, YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A GREAT DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. OTHERS DROP IT LOWER. MY TERM EXTREMELY CARELESS, TRYING TO BE KIND OF AN ORDINARY PERSON, A COMMONSENSE WAY OF DESCRIBING IT SURE LOOKS CARELESS TO ME. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT AMOUNTS TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE FRANKLY IS REALLY NOT AT THE CENTER OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE.

Comey: I SMILE BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER.

[Reck]

^So if I killed someone with a cup, does that mean I wouldn't get charged because it was however many years ago that someone got prosecuted with killing someone with a cup?

Comey and his team didn't find sufficient evidence or intent. That's why he couldn't reccomend indictment, not because it has been a 100 years since someone got indicted of a crime because of it.

A crime is a crime and if you committed one and were proven GUILTY of it, it wouldn't matter that the last person to commit said crime was 100 years ago.

[boutons_deux]

As many commentators said, since their was no recommendations to indict, he should not have even held a press conference, which is the convention, even protocol for no-indictment cases. Comey went in to smear Hillary severely in the middle of a Presidential campaign, which is typical for a rightwing politicized asshole govt official.

Hilarious that he got pissed before Congress when his integrity was questioned.

Just a typical ing cop,

"Don't EVER ing criticize or even doubt me. All cops are perfect and above reproach. You're under arrest for resisting arrest. BLAM BLAM BLAM"

[rmt]

Take off your partisan hats and read Comey's OWN words:

DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG

I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT

WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

boutons, I listened to his entire interview and he was not pissed - quite the opposite - he was very accommodating and bent over backwards to explain his reasoning.

Would you all re-read my post #225 and comment on how to FIX this problem because it has to be fixed. I am puzzled by his reasoning.

[Th'Pusher]

Take off your partisan hats and read Comey's OWN words:

DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG

I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT

WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

boutons, I listened to his entire interview and he was not pissed - quite the opposite - he was very accommodating and bent over backwards to explain his reasoning.

Would you all re-read my post #225 and comment on how to FIX this problem because it has to be fixed. I am puzzled by his reasoning.

Why are you so puzzled by his reasoning? He is simply saying that she did not intend to break the law and therefore he is not going to seek prosecution. Historically prosecution is sought when there is intent.

He did not believe she could be successfully prosecuted without proof of intent.

[rmt]

Why are you so puzzled by his reasoning? He is simply saying that she did not intend to break the law and therefore he is not going to seek prosecution. Historically prosecution is sought when there is intent.

He did not believe she could be successfully prosecuted without proof of intent.

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Comey explains that he establishes that she was negligent (whether gross or not) - what he can't prove is the necessary criminal intent. If you read/listen to the entire interview, he acknowledges she did many things that were negligent but it's almost like because only one other case had used that statute, he couldn't recommend the prosecution.

Comey: IT'S A COMPLICATED MATTER. IT INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS ACROSS DECADES, HOW PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS EXERCISED. I GET THAT FOLKS SEE DISCONNECTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SEE A STATUTE THAT SAYS GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

THE DIRECTOR JUST SAID SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. HOW IS THAT NOT PROSECUTABLE.

Comey: IT TAKES AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GONE ON OVER THE LAST 99 YEARS, WHAT'S THE PRECEDENT. I GET PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE IN GOOD FAITH.

DO YOU -- WE TALKED ABOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE HERE, AND YOU SAID THAT SECRETARY CLINTON WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS WITH THIS CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. AND HOW DANGEROUS IT COULD BE, HOW THREATENING TO EVEN TO PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT IT COULD BE TO DISCLOSE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A VERY THIN LINE BETWEEN GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND EXTREME CARELESS CARELESSNESS? AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THAT DIFFERENCE?

Comey: SURE, JUDGE. CONGRESSMAN. AS A FORMER JUDGE, YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A GREAT DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. OTHERS DROP IT LOWER. MY TERM EXTREMELY CARELESS, TRYING TO BE KIND OF AN ORDINARY PERSON, A COMMONSENSE WAY OF DESCRIBING IT SURE LOOKS CARELESS TO ME. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT AMOUNTS TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE FRANKLY IS REALLY NOT AT THE CENTER OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE.

Comey: I SMILE BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER.

So he is saying that there are different standards used in judicial review. Still doesn't change anything. If he thought she would meet any standard he would have said it.

His equivocation doesn't mean he thought her culpable of gross negligence. If anything he is saying what you are waving your hands at is a red herring.

As he says: where are the cases?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

What do you think he meant when he said 'necessary?' Necessary for what? A successful prosecution maybe? IOW, he thought that if it was a losing position.

And again while the law you are intent on fixating on doesn't state 'intent' it is part of the judicial review process for gross negligence. They did not create some special form of review for Clinton and she is treated like every other espionage case.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

There is nothing to "fix". He did not think he could successfully prosecute her based on the evidence so he chose not to indict her. It literally happens every day. I don't know why you're struggling with such a basic concept.

[boutons_deux]

People like rmt don't give a about the DoJ and SEC refusing to prosecute systemic theft and fraud in BigFinance, MILLIONS of homes foreclosed illegally, but absolutely must have Hillary prosecuted for a couple 100 emails.

[rmt]

There is nothing to "fix". He did not think he could successfully prosecute her based on the evidence so he chose not to indict her. It literally happens every day. I don't know why you're struggling with such a basic concept.

You think that someone should be allowed to do what she did and there be no consequences?

[Th'Pusher]

You think that someone should be allowed to do what she did and there be no consequences?

I think someone who "did what she did" would generally lose their security clearance. The fact that she is running for president does afford her a different status, as it does Donald. I'm not losing any sleep about it.

[ducks]

https://www.facebook.com/ChristianCo...type=3&theater

[rmt]

https://www.facebook.com/ChristianCo...type=3&theater

LOL

[Reck]

ZOMG what a burn! Doubt she'll ever recover.