So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate to

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate to

Post by 133743Hokie »

"gross negligence". Interesting since the former is a definition of the later. But now we know why the FBI made the recommendation to not move forward against Clinton.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

133743Hokie wrote:"gross negligence". Interesting since the former is a definition of the later. But now we know why the FBI made the recommendation to not move forward against Clinton.
I'm pretty sure Comey said he could prove "gross negligence" during his congressional hearing. He just said he could not prove intent - which is just a BS cop out. Plus, Gowdy owned him on that whole "intent" baloney.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

REP TIM WALBERG (R-MI): With the training we receive and certainly a secretary of state would receive or someone who lives the White House, it goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site ought to cause pause there, shouldn’t it?

COMEY: Yeah, and if you’re a government official you should be attentive to it because you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. So sure.

WALBERG: So Secretary Clinton’s revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue?

COMEY: Yeah I don’t want to comment on people’s public statements. We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that — the intent standard. Like I said, I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

WALBERG: 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 far conversation.

COMEY: I stand by that.

WALBERG: That’s very clear.

COMEY: That’s the definition of carelessness, of negligence.

WALBERG: Which happened.

COMEY: Oh, yeah.

WALBERG: As a result of our secretary of state — former secretary of state’s decisions.

COMEY: Yes.

WALBERG: 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 classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/ ... egligence/
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by 133743Hokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:"gross negligence". Interesting since the former is a definition of the later. But now we know why the FBI made the recommendation to not move forward against Clinton.
I'm pretty sure Comey said he could prove "gross negligence" during his congressional hearing. He just said he could not prove intent - which is just a BS cop out. Plus, Gowdy owned him on that whole "intent" baloney.
That contradicts the deputy directors letter to congress that accompanied the investigative documents yesterday that specifically made the statement that I referenced above as their rational for not pressing charges.
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
REP TIM WALBERG (R-MI): With the training we receive and certainly a secretary of state would receive or someone who lives the White House, it goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site ought to cause pause there, shouldn’t it?

COMEY: Yeah, and if you’re a government official you should be attentive to it because you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. So sure.

WALBERG: So Secretary Clinton’s revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue?

COMEY: Yeah I don’t want to comment on people’s public statements. We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that — the intent standard. Like I said, I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

WALBERG: 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 far conversation.

COMEY: I stand by that.

WALBERG: That’s very clear.

COMEY: That’s the definition of carelessness, of negligence.

WALBERG: Which happened.

COMEY: Oh, yeah.

WALBERG: As a result of our secretary of state — former secretary of state’s decisions.

COMEY: Yes.

WALBERG: 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 classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/ ... egligence/
You recognize the difference between "I think she was negligent" and "he could prove 'gross negligence'", right?
Mcl3 Hokie
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by Mcl3 Hokie »

No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.


ieatbacon wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
REP TIM WALBERG (R-MI): With the training we receive and certainly a secretary of state would receive or someone who lives the White House, it goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site ought to cause pause there, shouldn’t it?

COMEY: Yeah, and if you’re a government official you should be attentive to it because you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. So sure.

WALBERG: So Secretary Clinton’s revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue?

COMEY: Yeah I don’t want to comment on people’s public statements. We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that — the intent standard. Like I said, I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

WALBERG: 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 far conversation.

COMEY: I stand by that.

WALBERG: That’s very clear.

COMEY: That’s the definition of carelessness, of negligence.

WALBERG: Which happened.

COMEY: Oh, yeah.

WALBERG: As a result of our secretary of state — former secretary of state’s decisions.

COMEY: Yes.

WALBERG: 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 classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/ ... egligence/
You recognize the difference between "I think she was negligent" and "he could prove 'gross negligence'", right?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ieatbacon wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
REP TIM WALBERG (R-MI): With the training we receive and certainly a secretary of state would receive or someone who lives the White House, it goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site ought to cause pause there, shouldn’t it?

COMEY: Yeah, and if you’re a government official you should be attentive to it because you know the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. So sure.

WALBERG: So Secretary Clinton’s revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue?

COMEY: Yeah I don’t want to comment on people’s public statements. We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that — the intent standard. Like I said, I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

WALBERG: 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 far conversation.

COMEY: I stand by that.

WALBERG: That’s very clear.

COMEY: That’s the definition of carelessness, of negligence.

WALBERG: Which happened.

COMEY: Oh, yeah.

WALBERG: As a result of our secretary of state — former secretary of state’s decisions.

COMEY: Yes.

WALBERG: 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 classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/ ... egligence/
You recognize the difference between "I think she was negligent" and "he could prove 'gross negligence'", right?

LOL, come on man, that's a lame excuse.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
LOL. He could prove it and said he could, he added on the nonexistent requirement of intent which he can also show if he weren't corrupt.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
I agree the media is bias (probably not to the extent that many believe) and I agree this year is the extreme. But a lot of that is Trump's own doing - it's been his strategy from the beginning to dominate the news cycle. Ultimately the media is driven by profits more than anything else and Trump, for all of his faults, is extremely good at getting people to watch him. There's no chance a profit-driven media outlet can resist the latest crazy thing Donald said.

But Trump isn't a victim in this - if he says ridiculous things everyday that are detached from reality, the media should point that out.
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ElbertoHokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
Hilary has enough baggage for a union pacific train, but Trump ALWAYS does something that gives the MSM an excuse to run from it. If he could just shake hands and kiss babies for a few weeks, I think Hilary would be sinking her own campaign. I honestly think it's a sociopathic need for him to see his name in the headlines. Even though it's scuttling his own chances, he can't accept that Hilary is being talked about(even if negatively) and he's not.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ieatbacon wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
I agree the media is bias (probably not to the extent that many believe) and I agree this year is the extreme. But a lot of that is Trump's own doing - it's been his strategy from the beginning to dominate the news cycle. Ultimately the media is driven by profits more than anything else and Trump, for all of his faults, is extremely good at getting people to watch him. There's no chance a profit-driven media outlet can resist the latest crazy thing Donald said.

But Trump isn't a victim in this - if he says ridiculous things everyday that are detached from reality, the media should point that out.
He says ridiculous things because that's all the media will cover because of their ideology. They're not profit driven in their attacks as they lose viewers the more LWNJ they go. They're true believers in liberal kookery.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ElbertoHokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
I agree the media is bias (probably not to the extent that many believe) and I agree this year is the extreme. But a lot of that is Trump's own doing - it's been his strategy from the beginning to dominate the news cycle. Ultimately the media is driven by profits more than anything else and Trump, for all of his faults, is extremely good at getting people to watch him. There's no chance a profit-driven media outlet can resist the latest crazy thing Donald said.

But Trump isn't a victim in this - if he says ridiculous things everyday that are detached from reality, the media should point that out.
He says ridiculous things because that's all the media will cover because of their ideology. They're not profit driven in their attacks as they lose viewers the more LWNJ they go. They're true believers in liberal kookery.
The media is focused 100% on the election. If he could just tone it down for 2 weeks and let the people outside the campaign(congress) bash hilary over and over, she might actually bump down in the polls. But he can't. He's trump. He has to respond to every perceived slight. Thus his numbers are tanking.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ElbertoHokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
I agree trump is off the cuff to often but if the MSM would ever concentrate on her illegal activities and other issues then maybe it would be a fair media. its not, it is way way way bias and this year they are not even trying to hide it
I agree the media is bias (probably not to the extent that many believe) and I agree this year is the extreme. But a lot of that is Trump's own doing - it's been his strategy from the beginning to dominate the news cycle. Ultimately the media is driven by profits more than anything else and Trump, for all of his faults, is extremely good at getting people to watch him. There's no chance a profit-driven media outlet can resist the latest crazy thing Donald said.

But Trump isn't a victim in this - if he says ridiculous things everyday that are detached from reality, the media should point that out.
He says ridiculous things because that's all the media will cover because of their ideology. They're not profit driven in their attacks as they lose viewers the more LWNJ they go. They're true believers in liberal kookery.
The media is focused 100% on the election. If he could just tone it down for 2 weeks and let the people outside the campaign(congress) bash hilary over and over, she might actually bump down in the polls. But he can't. He's trump. He has to respond to every perceived slight. Thus his numbers are tanking.
Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
ElbertoHokie
Posts: 1355
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:24 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ElbertoHokie »

awesome guy wrote: Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
Do you even look at the polls? Are you getting these feelings from your magic 8-ball?

Please go here. Look around a bit.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

awesome guy wrote: Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
It's a good thing Trump didn't support the pull out of Iraq.... Crazy like a fox, I suppose... A fox that is losing to the 2nd worst presidential candidate of our lifetime.
Donald Trump, 2007 wrote: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave. Because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.
Donald Trump, 2008 wrote: I’d get out of Iraq right now
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ieatbacon wrote:
awesome guy wrote: Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
It's a good thing Trump didn't support the pull out of Iraq.... Crazy like a fox, I suppose... A fox that is losing to the 2nd worst presidential candidate of our lifetime.
Donald Trump, 2007 wrote: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave. Because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.
Donald Trump, 2008 wrote: I’d get out of Iraq right now

I imagine a world where we could have a conversation if you could keep on topic. Trump only gets coverage if he speaks with hyperbole. That's his strategy and that's how he's kept it close spending $0 on ads while Clinton has spent over $100 million on ads. Next week we'll see the first ads from Trump and he just raised 80 million last month for it. He's within 3 points in the latest polls and so is in a good place to win over the worst candidate in our nation's history.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by HokieJoe »

Why the F are we discussing Trump in this thread?
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

awesome guy wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
awesome guy wrote: Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
It's a good thing Trump didn't support the pull out of Iraq.... Crazy like a fox, I suppose... A fox that is losing to the 2nd worst presidential candidate of our lifetime.
Donald Trump, 2007 wrote: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave. Because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.
Donald Trump, 2008 wrote: I’d get out of Iraq right now

I imagine a world where we could have a conversation if you could keep on topic. Trump only gets coverage if he speaks with hyperbole. That's his strategy and that's how he's kept it close spending $0 on ads while Clinton has spent over $100 million on ads. Next week we'll see the first ads from Trump and he just raised 80 million last month for it. He's within 3 points in the latest polls and so is in a good place to win over the worst candidate in our nation's history.
You're right, back on topic. Comey never said Clinton was "grossly negligent". Pretending that he did is like Clinton pretending that Comey said she was completely honest. "Hyperbole" isn't helping Trump, it's making him looked even more detached from reality than Clinton is.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by awesome guy »

ieatbacon wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ieatbacon wrote:
awesome guy wrote: Nope. For example, he's already said multiple times that Obama and Clinton pulling out of Iraq without leaving a contingency force lead to ISIS being created and the threat it is now. They didn't say a word about that. So he changed it to them founding ISIS which the media covered for days. He's crazy like a fox and he has to be because the LWNJs will only cover statements that they think damage him while simultaneously reporting things they think help Clinton. The hyperbole gets the message out where it's tamed to what he already said, but wasn't reported.
It's a good thing Trump didn't support the pull out of Iraq.... Crazy like a fox, I suppose... A fox that is losing to the 2nd worst presidential candidate of our lifetime.
Donald Trump, 2007 wrote: You know how they get out? They get out. That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave. Because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.
Donald Trump, 2008 wrote: I’d get out of Iraq right now

I imagine a world where we could have a conversation if you could keep on topic. Trump only gets coverage if he speaks with hyperbole. That's his strategy and that's how he's kept it close spending $0 on ads while Clinton has spent over $100 million on ads. Next week we'll see the first ads from Trump and he just raised 80 million last month for it. He's within 3 points in the latest polls and so is in a good place to win over the worst candidate in our nation's history.
You're right, back on topic. Comey never said Clinton was "grossly negligent". Pretending that he did is like Clinton pretending that Comey said she was completely honest. "Hyperbole" isn't helping Trump, it's making him looked even more detached from reality than Clinton is.
he said "extremely careless" which is the definition of "gross negligence". He used those words because he knew Obama wasn't going to let him prosecute, but you can't honestly say they're different in meaning.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
ieatbacon
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by ieatbacon »

HokieJoe wrote:Why the F are we discussing Trump in this thread?
My bad. I felt the need to point out exaggerating the case against Clinton undermines the effectiveness of that case. The topic shifted to Trump because nearly everyone on this board agrees that Clinton is unfit for office, but a large portion of the board doesn't agree that Trump is also unfit for office. The conversation naturally drifts towards where there's disagreement.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ieatbacon wrote: You're right, back on topic. Comey never said Clinton was "grossly negligent". Pretending that he did is like Clinton pretending that Comey said she was completely honest. "Hyperbole" isn't helping Trump, it's making him looked even more detached from reality than Clinton is.
Seriously dude? Did you even watch his testimony? The whole time they were talking about "gross negligence" and "negligence" almost interchangeably. His argument was he did not believe the DOJ would prosecute under the "gross negligence" part of the statute because he questioned its Constitutionality, and only 1 person had been charged with that in the past 100 years. He repeatedly said he would not charge because he could not prove intent.

=====================================
WALBERG: So you stated you had found 110 e-mails on Secretary Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. Yet Secretary Clinton has insisted for over a year, publicly, that she never sent or received any classified e-mails.

The question I have from that, would it be difficult for any Cabinet- level official -- specifically, any Cabinet official, let alone one who is a former White House resident or U.S. Senator, to determine if information is classified?

COMEY: Would fit be difficult?

WALBERG: Would it be difficult?

COMEY: That's hard to answer in the abstract. It would depend upon the context in which they are hearing it or seeing it. Obviously, if it's marked, which is why we require markings, it's easy.

It's too hard to answer because there are so many situations you might encounter it.

WALBERG: But with the -- the training that we receive and certainly a secretary Of state would receive or someone who lives in the White House, that goes a little above and beyond just the common sense individual out there trying to determine.

Knowing that classified information will be brought and to remove to an unauthorized site ought to cause a bit of pause applause there, shouldn't it?

COMEY: Yeah and if you're a government official, you should be attentive to it because you know that the matters you deal with could involve sensitive information. So sure.

WALBERG: So Secretary Clinton's revised statement she never knowingly sent or received any classified information is probably also untrue.

COMEY: Yeah, I don't want to comment on people's public statements.

We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard.

Like I said, I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

WALBERG: 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.

WALBERG: Now that's very clear.

COMEY: That's the definition of carelessness, of negligence.

WALBERG: Which happened.

COMEY: Oh, yeah.

WALBERG: As a result of our secretary of state's -- former secretary of state's decisions.

COMEY: Yes.

WALBERG: 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 classified information. As I said, that's the definition negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That, I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.

WALBERG: Do you believe that the -- that since the Department of Justice hasn't used the statute Congress passed, it's invalid?

COMEY: No. I think they are worried that it is invalid, that it will be challenged on Constitutional grounds, which is why they've used it extraordinarily sparingly in the decades.

WALBERG: Thank you. I yield back.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... ab.01.html
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

ieatbacon wrote: You're right, back on topic. Comey never said Clinton was "grossly negligent". Pretending that he did is like Clinton pretending that Comey said she was completely honest. "Hyperbole" isn't helping Trump, it's making him looked even more detached from reality than Clinton is.
And here Comey basically admits she was extremely negligent, but he plays word games and claims there's no real definition of "gross negligence" but only a moron would think that "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are not the same thing after listening to this.

========================
DUNCAN: Do you agree that there is a very thin line between gross negligence and extreme 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 (ph) extremely careless is trying to be kind of an ordinary person. That's a common-sense way of describing it; it sure looks real 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 from 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.
[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/07/ath.02.html
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: So the FBI says "extreme carelessness" does not equate t

Post by 133743Hokie »

ieatbacon wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:No educate us. As I see it she did the following:

Set up a private server without State Department authorization.
Transferred classified information from government servers to her personal server.
Sent and received email with said classified information on her private server.
Allowed her lawyers to have a copy of her emails with classified information stored in another unsecured location
Oh, and don't forget, lied about the whole thing throughout the investigation.

All of this was done intentionally to avoid FOIA requests. I'm not sure how they can't prove intent since this whole fiasco was created because of her actions to avoid FOIA.
Ok, I will repeat, Director Comey did not say he could prove gross negligence. To make that claim, it is distorting his words, which undermines your legitimate criticism of her. I don't know if Clinton's actions are criminal (I'm no lawyer), but they definitely should be disqualifying from the presidency. I've said that consistently on this board, long before Comey's comments.

There's a larger and important point. The vast majority of voters don't take Trump, or Breitbart news readers, seriously because they say crazy things. From claiming Obama was born in Kenya to a Trump adviser suggesting Hillary should face a firing squad for Treason (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ro/496199/). You may want to say "The Clinton's lie too", and you'd be right, but pointing that out is deflecting from the stupid stuff being said by the Trump campaign.

Trump manages to undermine every legitimate criticism of Clinton - Look no further than a couple weeks ago regarding the $400M cash payment to Iran. The news *should* be focusing on that for weeks, but Trump had to tell a detailed story about a video he watched that Iran provided showing the cash being delivered. That video doesn't exist. Instead of using facts to attack Clinton, he made up a easily disproved story, distracting everyone from Clinton. Trump's antics worked in the primary, with a much smaller voter pool, but they're a disaster so far in the general.
What does any of this have to do with this thread?
Post Reply