But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

Game, Set, Match!!! I do not think you could spell this out any simpler than you did.

 

I have to admit I'm impressed with GR's determination to defend Comey's decision to ignore the law here. It's wrong of course, but a case study in deception. You'd make a fine defense attorney.

Gross negligence matters. If it DIDN'T matter, it wouldn't be in the statute to begin with.

With regards to "gross negligence" intent is irrelevant.

This of course assumes that Hillary didn't "intend" for the classified information to be out in the open which of course is laughable since she is the one who instructed it to be set up. In addition, at ANY time throughout her tenure as Sec State she could have terminated its use but instead chose not to even when she and her staff were concerned it had been hacked....AS EARLY AS 2011 according to this Politico article.

 

Yeah, at this point I'm not sure I can spell it out any better than I already did, hopefully he'll either finally just admit that he was off base....something that can happen to anyone or at very least just drop it. I honestly don't think there's any way he can spin this.

 

Can you name one vital piece of classified information that has leaked from her emails?

It's hilarious you find this more important which has no tangible impact for the American people over something like Trump pardoning a god damn sherrif for violating court orders to cease and desist violating the 4th amendment. Like that actually sets precident that is dangerous to Americans.

At this point I wish Hillary just goes to prison for all these allegations just so people like Bobby and you can **** up about a politically irellevent individual.

It's hilarious because the narrative is that we attack Trump because we want Hillary to magically circumvent Pence, Ryan and so forth and make Hillary president. We don't give a **** about Hillary.

I know you couldn't give two ***** about this email scandal other than partisan reasons. You aren't really irked that Hillary used a private email server. I know you never worried that state secrets that could tangibly harm us were leaked. It was never an concern other than a talking point for you to hate Hillary.

 

Not even remotely, boy. You're the one giving out "spin," but you don't seem to have enough self awareness to be embarrassed over your stunning lack of performance in this thread.

Never even alleged to have been compromised, another lie.

If she had sent them to people who were not authorized to receive them, it would be a violation. She sent them to people who were authorized to see them.

Aww, isn't that cute, bobby can't respond to the arguments and so repeats the same statute, just as devoid of the relevant precedent as every other time.

You send me claims, not backed by anything but your word, which isn't worth the pixels they are being displayed with. Link to the decisions so that we can all see if the cases are similar or, more likely, if there are significant differences between those cases and Clinton's.

Yes, and I posted the relevant quote which clearly indicates that more than just mishandling of these documents is required to prosecute under the statute. You're ignoring that plain fact.

No, we haven't "found" anything. You claimed that people went to jail for substantially similar cases, but those cases haven't been presented, except for their names and the only place those case names can be found are in the context of some pundit talking about them in an opinion piece.

I did. The only examples you have proffered, even if I took them to mean EXACTLY what you claim (without substantiation) are from military courts. The plain fact is that the Justice Department, the body which would actually prosecute this case were it to come to that, has never in its entire history prosecuted a case like this where there was no intent to provide the documents to people not authorized to see them.

It has never happened, but in the minds of biased partisans such as yourself, unprecedented action is necessary because you just plain hate Clinton.

No, you have continued to ignore the "relevant" precedent and the precedent you have "presented," even if I accept it without question even though you haven't actually offered links to the decisions, isn't relevant. The three examples you posted were from military courts while the statute you keep parroting has never been used to prosecute someone in civilian criminal court in the absence of intent.

No, the appellate court clearly said that intent was needed.

My game is stepped up, boy. Now substantiate your claims with links to the opinions or STFU.

 

It certainly makes sense to simple minds like yours.

 

#ReleaseTheMemo got trending on Twitter overnight. What the hell is that about? I saw Hillary and Obama both mentioned in some of the top tweets.

 

No, it is incredibly relevant. Nobody has ever been prosecuted under this statute in the absence of intent. Never, not once. You're asking for a prosecution that goes against all precedent merely because you despise Hillary Clinton.

 

No spin from this side, you're the one claiming (inaccurately) that precedent is on your side when there hasn't ever been a single case brought by DoJ under this statute in the absence of intent.

Try again, rookie, I love to watch you flail like this!

 

Sorry if this has been covered already, but I've been away. Is Clinton in prison yet?

 

Russian twitter bots engaged...

 

I'll just go on record here and say that if 4 years after Trump has left office (the length at which Clinton has been out of office), us Democrats are still trying to go after Trump for crimes he's already been absolved of years ago, we deserve to be ridiculed as Democrats.

You guys on the right need to get a grip on reality.

Let it go.. Let it go.

 

It's old news that at least one account on that server was for sure compromised and that they had numerous attacks and that it is very likely that hackers gained access to the emails on the server.....but it doesn't really matter, the simple act of putting classified information on the server is illegal. Your "nuh uh" tactic is pretty pathetic.

See, part of the problem here is that you know so very little about handling classified information that just about everything you say is adorably ignorant. Even if someone is authorized to view classified information, you still can't send them the classified information via unclassified means. When classified information sent by Hillary goes to Anthony Weiner's p*rn laptop, it's clear that it was mishandled.....hell just the fact that it was sent via the unclassified server is bad enough.

I sent you relevant precedent and posted the actual statute....you've merely said "nuh uh"....you've yet to send relevant precedent backing your claims.....when I give you court cases, and quote the decision by the judge....which you back up with a link to another judge repeating and defending that judge's interpretation of the statute, you don't have to go on my word, you get to go on the word of justices who have handled relevant cases.

No, that's not what you did, and I even spelled this out to you. You posted a link to a different court case which suggested that the interpretation of the statute in the case I presented was accurate. You then posted out of context quotes about another unrelated case where someone was being prosecuted under a different section of the statute. In short, it's clear you didn't even read your own link or that you were incapable of comprehending what was said in your own link.

That's pretty sad actually.

Sure, it has been done in military courts much more often, but it's the same statute being enforced and that precedent is still relevant. The fact that civilian instances usually plea to a lesser charge rather than being prosecuted for this specific violation is irrelevant to this discussion.

In the cases I've cited, the judges have stated exactly how the statute is to be interpreted and it's essentially settled law given that thus far every justice that has had the issue come up has agreed with that interpretation.....you know, the interpretation that I supported and you thought was wrong based on nothing but talking points you've been given.

Anyway, I think this has gone about as far as it can, I'll just have to accept that your shortcomings (whatever they happen to be) will prevent this conversation from being productive. When you spell out the exact language in a statute and back it up with relevant precedent spelling out exactly how judges have ruled that the statute is to be interpreted and people still fail to follow along you just have to give up on them.

 

HUR DERRRR BUT THE CLINTONS THE CLINTONS CLINTONS LIBERALS CLINTONS OBAMA BARRACK HUSSEIN CLINTONS MAH RADIO PRPGRAM TELL ME CLINTONS DERRR YEEEEHAWWWW

 

And you still say things like this after I gave you multiple examples of it.....you're hopeless kid.

 

No, you gave references to cases that can't be found which you claim back your story. If, as the opinion pieces that cite those cases say, they were cases prosecuted in the military courts, then you're just plain wrong since this case wouldn't be tried in a military court, military personnel are held to different standards.

Give up, boy, you're wrong.

 

Not even indicted, after a year under a partisan Republican AG.

 

If it is "old news," you can provide some evidence.

Awww, more insults, how adorably inane.

Except that intent matters. You're welcome to respond to that simple fact with repeated versions of "nuh-uhhh," but doing so doesn't change that one simple fact.

No, you need to read again, the passage I posted and even the one you tried to use to rebut it both clearly say that intent matters. That's the relevant precedent.

If you would like to post links to the actual court cases, which I've asked for several times only to be ignored, then we can discuss this intelligently. If you continue to refuse to provide this material, I can only conclude that you got those names from the opinion pieces I found when I Googled them and that you haven't done any research past the opinions of biased partisans.

The sad part is that you don't seem to be able to read clearly enough to see that the passages quoted clearly indicate that intent matters.

No, it isn't. Military courts have different standards. Military personnel are held to different standards. You're asking for a case to be brought in what would literally be an unprecedented action. DoJ has never, not even once, brought such a case in the absence of intent.

The fact that civilian instances don't have such prosecutions brought forward at all is perfectly relevant.

Except that you haven't truly "cited" a thing. You have made claims, but they can't be verified because you're unable to produce the actual court cases themselves.

It doesn't have anything to do with my shortcomings, the lack of conversational productivity is due to your biased partisanship.

Except that you haven't backed anything up. You gave some names that can't be found on the internet, except in references in opinion pieces that don't link back to the cases either.

Try again when you understand that simply making a claim without support doesn't count as "evidence," boy.

 

Why are the words "Gross Negligence" included in the statute?

 

Why hasn't anyone ever been prosecuted by DoJ when there wasn't intent to distribute classified material? Why has the only place where "gross negligence" has been applied were in cases where classified material actually made its way into the hands of people who weren't authorized to handle it?