New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Yes he did, legally "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" is the same thing. Again, do your homework man.

 

I did. I provided you with a direct quote from a legal expert. Might I suggest you do the same rather than repeating the same mantra over and over again? I have actually provided way more information than you- who, typically, thinks that if you repeat something over and over and over, people will just give up and agree with you. This is what young children do to get their way. You may want to try the adult method for a while.

 

“Extreme carelessness doesn’t necessarily translate into gross negligence,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and former federal prosecutor.

 

"The only times I have seen these statutes used has been situations in which people knew they were disclosing classified, confidential information, or they could show they didn’t really care"

Hillary knew that she was sending classified, confidential information and she simply didn't care. That suggests her "extreme carelessness was "gross negligence"

 

In their determination, she did care, apparently. Again, you can keep making the same point over and over again to make yourself happy, but you're no closer to proving any point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another source:

Gross negligence and extreme carelessness are not the same. Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care. Clinton clearly understood the need for reasonable care as she took some security measures and asked people not to email her confidential materials. She merely did a poor job executing on the knowledge that care was needed, which in this case is not actually illegal (especially when grave harms did not occur, which is an additional legal factor).

The laws are written around consent because the goal of the law is to enable punishment of people who intend to harm the US government. Note that Comey said that it's the individual's responsibility to know when material is confidential, even if that is not marked. Yet even information that is widely reported on in the media can still be considered confidential. The law is written to protect those who take "careless" or "negligent" actions in light of the difficulty of the task of maintaining confidentiality during the kind of extensive communications required to execute the business of government.

 

SMH, that's not true.

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

That's the FBI suggesting that there is reason to assume that Clinton knew that the information should not be sent via an unclassified system yet she did it anyway. That makes her carelessness qualify as negligence.

 

THERE'S MY SIDE:

ABC’s Dan Abrams: Prosecuting Clinton Would “Warp The Intent And Interpretation” Of The Law. In February, ABC News’ legal analyst Dan Abrams explained that prosecuting Clinton for “gross negligence” regarding her emails “would … warp the intent and interpretation” of existing law, which requires both “intent” and “bad faith” to prove a violation of the Espionage Act

Legal Expert Stephen Vladeck: Prosecuting Clinton For Gross Negligence “Would Have Been A Novel Application Of An Already Controversial Criminal Statute.” Stephen Vladeck, a national security law professor at the University of Texas, Austin, told Bloomberg that charges against Clinton were always “a real long-shot” because “we don’t have a criminal statute that generally prohibits the mishandling of government communications.” According to Vladeck, attempting to charge Clinton for that would have required “a novel application” of the Espionage Act

Government Security Expert Steven Aftergood: Case Law Indicated “Threshold For Culpable Negligence” Was Not Met. As reported by The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, experts indicated that “Clinton was never likely to be indicted, because no one has ever been prosecuted before in a situation similar to hers.” Steven Aftergood, a national security expert, pointed out that Comey’s review determined that “The threshold for culpable negligence is evidently higher than what was met in this case

 

THERE'S YOUR SIDE:

National Review: According To Comey, Clinton “Acted With Gross Negligence,” And FBI Rewrote Federal Law To Let Her Off The Hook. National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy wrote that “there is no way of getting around” that Clinton “acted with gross negligence” regarding her emails, adding, “Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’” in her actions

Rudy Giuliani: “The Minute You Say Someone Is Extremely Careless, You Are Saying They’re Grossly Negligent.” Frequent Fox guest Rudy Giuliani claimed that “the first definition of gross negligence” in the dictionary is “being extremely careless.” Giuliani added that “the minute you say someone is extremely careless,” as Comey did, “you are saying they’re grossly negligent.

Fox’s Peter Johnson Jr.: Comey “Depict[ed], In My Mind, What Defines Gross Negligence.” On the July 5 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, Fox News contributor Peter Johnson, Jr stated that Director Comey was “parsing his words carefully”, and that Comey’s words communicated to Johnson “what defines gross negligence”

Fox Host Gregg Jarrett: Comey “Seemed To Contradict Himself And The Law.” On the July 5 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox host Gregg Jarrett claimed the phrase “extremely careless” “means something to lawyers and judges” since that phrase is how they describe “gross negligence

 

AND THERE'S THE COLD, HARD TRUTH:

?

 

It makes her ignorant in that matter, not grossly negligent as per the legal definition of the term.

And what's going to happen is that all this most likely won't stop her from winning the Presidency. You and I will have to live with her being President, with 50% of the population believing she's a criminal and 50% not. But thanks for playing, as they say.

 

That's only if you assume she was ignorant as to something that a reasonable person in her position could be assumed to not be ignorant to. Basically that's suspending disbelief simply because you don't want to have to admit she really was negligent. Anyone who had ever had a basic InfoSec briefing would know better.....but let's assume she didn't just so we don't have to prosecute.

 

But that is not what he said. He laid out a very strong case including plenty of clear evidence warranting an indictment...then concluded there wasn't. Even his own words don't jibe with his conclusion, as 'extremely careless' equates directly to 'gross negligence'. So, to paraphrase, he stated that she was guilty of gross negligence, for which intent is not necessary, then said there wasn't enough evidence to indict. Meaning that last part was factually incorrect.

 

Getting rather sick of the number of times the Clinton's get off 'merely' by being incompetent. Because if indeed she was ignorant of these things, she was grossly incompetent.

But we KNOW she wasn't ignorant of these things. She dismissed a diplomat precisely for using his own email to send sensitive documents. That rules out ignorance.

 

Well, they interrogated her and did almost a year of research on this, right? So, they drew their conclusions, you draw yours, and I'll draw mine.

Really, though, I do get it. It's just a ****ing mess all the way around. Can we just have a do-over and get two different people running? Geez.

 

Fair enough, but I'm basing my conclusions off of what they said their conclusions were.

The fact that this election could come down to Hillary vs Trump makes me absolutely ashamed to be an American. It's just pathetic that this could ever happen.

 

Or, could it be that, in his opinion, she was grossly negligent, but there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute? As in "In my personal opinion, I believe that Hillary Clinton was negligent. And if I could, I'd certainly prosecute her. But the law requires clear evidence, and there wasn't clear evidence, so as much as I'd like to go with my personal opinion, I can't base a recommendation on that alone."

I don't know. Like I said, it's a big hot mess and it's only going to get worse.

 

You know, I do not expect my Secretary Of State to have sophisticated knowledge of communications security but I sure as hell expect someone on the professional staff of the State Department to; and if not at least know how to phone over to the NSA and get some help. If Ms. Clinton had had nefarious intent she probably would have had a better system to cover her actions.

I sort of feel the same way about Benghazi, why did the so called expert operators let a high value target get so exposed? If the US is the gold standard of spy technology why do we look so simply wrong so often?

 

Well, on the Hillary side, we've had other Presidents commit criminal acts prior to being elected, so there's that. On the Trump side... have we ever had a President who's as dumb and/or divisive as him? I honestly can't think of one. As much as Hillary has reasons for us not to vote for her, it'd be hard to stomach Trump as President. I mean, he literally communicates at the level of an elementary/middle-school students. I suppose I'd have to support him if he were President (if only b/c I'm not going to be like these jerks who say everything Obama did was wrong just b/c he's a Democrat), but man, very difficult.

 

I look at those completely differently. I certainly understand the problems regarding this entire email controversy- they are legit concerns and the Republicans have a right to bring them up.

Benghazi? I agree with your point, but as far as the attention brought to it, absolutely utterly ridiculous compared with similar incidents under other Presidents- and also b/c when we talk about 9-11, or other embassy incidents, when the hell are we ever bring the SOS into the conversation? It doesn't matter that, yes, that should be done- are we bringing Powell into the conversation regarding 9-11? Hell no- it's about Bush. And all the embassy bombings under Bush- which are NEVER brought up, BTW- if they were, they are brought up regarding Bush's role.

So, sorry, Benghazi is nothing but a partisan witchhunt that has gone on for way too long and revealed nothing- except that if there is any blame, both parties deserve it. If the Republicans stick to what really matters, like this email situation, they'd be much better off than trying to manufacture controversies that just aren't there.

 

Well if we had Hillary as president then we'd have someone as dumb (especially if you believe your take on her incompetence while Secretary of State) and just as divisive.

I mean, It's just a disaster all around.