It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
36ChambersOfWuThe proof is in the video pal. You probably should have watched it
I don't see any proof...I see one former AG who is a staunch Republican, and Trump supporter, who injects his own personal take on the case.
Again, this is America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There has been ONE case in the history of the US that focused on gross negligence and confidential information. Why? Because it is so INSANELY difficult to prove.
californiagrownsooooo you dont belive in innocent until proven guilty? Interesting.
I very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. If you watched the video the FBI's investigation found her to be "extremely careless" which is the definition of gross negligence. That's all the proof you need.
.MASSHOLE.I don't see any proof...I see one former AG who is a staunch Republican, and Trump supporter, who injects his own personal take on the case.
Again, this is America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There has been ONE case in the history of the US that focused on gross negligence and confidential information. Why? Because it is so INSANELY difficult to prove.
36ChambersOfWuI very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. If you watched the video the FBI's investigation found her to be "extremely careless" which is the definition of gross negligence. That's all the proof you need.
Christ kid, how old are you? Gross Negligence is a legal term, being extremely careless is not. They are not synonymous in the court of law. She may have been extremely careless, but proving she was "intentionally" grossly negligent is not the same thing.
.MASSHOLE.Christ kid, how old are you? Gross Negligence is a legal term, being extremely careless is not. They are not synonymous in the court of law. She may have been extremely careless, but proving she was "intentionally" grossly negligent is not the same thing.
If you look up gross negligence definition, the second link goes to dictionary.law.com. The first word in that definition is carelessness. It goes on to say "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others". So if someone was "extremely careless" with classified and top secret information that could have put American lives in jeopardy, why wouldn't you be able to charge them. Keep in mind this definition does not mention intent once. And even if it did she knew what she was doing and if you are saying she didn't then you are a fucking idiot
36ChambersOfWuIf you look up gross negligence definition, the second link goes to dictionary.law.com. The first word in that definition is carelessness. It goes on to say "carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others". So if someone was "extremely careless" with classified and top secret information that could have put American lives in jeopardy, why wouldn't you be able to charge them. Keep in mind this definition does not mention intent once. And even if it did she knew what she was doing and if you are saying she didn't then you are a fucking idiot
Nice job leaving out this "is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety". Conscious decision indicates intent.
Here, lets look at some legal cases involving it.
Sommers v Federal Signal: The court said that gross negligence [. . .] must “smack of intentional wrongdoing” and that it is conduct that evinces a “reckless indifference to the rights of others.”
Colnaghi v Jewelers Protection Services: gross negligence differs “in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” and that gross negligence is “conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or ‘smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing.”
Now, try to prove Hillary showed reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. You are purely basing your opinion off of right wing talking heads without having seen an inkling of evidence.
I am not saying she didn't, she almost certainly did, but good luck proving it. Burden of proof falls on the prosecution, which is why you have seen ONE case in the history of the US involving Gross Negligence and confidential information reach a court case.
.MASSHOLE.Nice job leaving out this "is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety". Conscious decision indicates intent.
Here, lets look at some legal cases involving it.
Sommers v Federal Signal: The court said that gross negligence [. . .] must “smack of intentional wrongdoing” and that it is conduct that evinces a “reckless indifference to the rights of others.”
Colnaghi v Jewelers Protection Services: gross negligence differs “in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” and that gross negligence is “conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or ‘smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing.”
Now, try to prove Hillary showed reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. You are purely basing your opinion off of right wing talking heads without having seen an inkling of evidence.
I am not saying she didn't, she almost certainly did, but good luck proving it. Burden of proof falls on the prosecution, which is why you have seen ONE case in the history of the US involving Gross Negligence and confidential information reach a court case.
Those things you quoted are not helping your case.
She was "reckless indifference to the rights of others.” When she put American lives in jeopardy by sending and receiving top secret emails on a nonsecure server
She did "disregard for the rights of others or ‘smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing.” When she knowingly did this
I am basing my opinion on what the FBI found. They found enough evidence to convict her IMO.
36ChambersOfWuThose things you quoted are not helping your case.
She was "reckless indifference to the rights of others.” When she put American lives in jeopardy by sending and receiving top secret emails on a nonsecure server
She did "disregard for the rights of others or ‘smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing.” When she knowingly did this
I am basing my opinion on what the FBI found. They found enough evidence to convict her IMO.
You're basing your opinion off of what the FBI said, not what they found. That is the difference.
But you're a 18? year old armchair lawyer, you obviously know better than the AG and head of FBI.
36ChambersOfWuI very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. If you watched the video the FBI's investigation found her to be "extremely careless" which is the definition of gross negligence. That's all the proof you need.
Innocent until proven guilty... in a court of law.
But why let facts get in the way of your opinion, right?
californiagrownInnocent until proven guilty... in a court of law.
But why let facts get in the way of your opinion, right?
I think we all can agree on the fact that she was at least "extremely careless"
But your opinion will disregard that and still lead you to vote for her... lol
I will say, good or bad, the Dems are a lot more loyal to their nominee and party. Their candidate could be the perfect role model or an obviously corrupt politician and the party will always rally quite strongly behind him/her.
S-S-KI think we all can agree on the fact that she was at least "extremely careless"
But your opinion will disregard that and still lead you to vote for her... lol
I will say, good or bad, the Dems are a lot more loyal to their nominee and party. Their candidate could be the perfect role model or an obviously corrupt politician and the party will always rally quite strongly behind him/her.
Anyone who thinks she didn't have an inkling of an idea about what was going on is naive. She certainly had an idea, but she was clever/diabolical enough (depending on who you talk to) to be able to cover her tracks well enough so she couldn't be caught.
However, given the two candidates in this election cycle, one can choose between the known and predictable (Clinton) vs. the unknown and unpredictable (Trump).
The reason most Dems are backing their candidate is due to the fact she aligns with the "majority" of the party in their
ideologies while Trump goes against many GOP ideologies, both good ones and bad ones.
S-S-KI think we all can agree on the fact that she was at least "extremely careless"
But your opinion will disregard that and still lead you to vote for her... lol
How do you know what my opinion is? Or are you just connecting my belief in basic tenants of the Constitution to a backing of the Democratic party? In which case that would imply you believe Republicans do not believe in the Constitution.
Why are you asshats defending Hillary? She committed the crimes plain and simple. HUGE double standard at play in this situation. She is untouchable because she is part of the elite. Why are you fucktards bantering about negligence. You know her bitch ass knew what she was doing.
REGRESSIVELEFTWhy are you asshats defending Hillary? She committed the crimes plain and simple. HUGE double standard at play in this situation. She is untouchable because she is part of the elite. Why are you fucktards bantering about negligence. You know her bitch ass knew what she was doing.
Whether or not she did (she almost certainly did), in the eyes of the legal system she is innocent which is ultimately all that matters.
Where are the double standards? Please, find the cases that replicate this.
californiagrownHow do you know what my opinion is? Or are you just connecting my belief in basic tenants of the Constitution to a backing of the Democratic party? In which case that would imply you believe Republicans do not believe in the Constitution.
Not following you at all on your statements about the Constitution, I wasn't making that connection anyway...
From the few posts I've read of yours, you seem like you will be voting for Hillary. If that's true you will be voting for someone who has been factually "extremely careless". Maybe that doesn't matter for you, and I guess that's fine. Haha
Call me out if I'm wrong in judging you as a Hillary supporter, but if you can't, that's pretty much my point. There's some contradicting going on if you care intensely about truth and facts and will be voting for Hillary
Could someone explain to me why all you Trump supporters like the fact that he speaks his mind and doesn't care what people think? Sure it's entertaining and a refresher from typical politics, but it's also an extremely fucking scary trait to have in the president of the most powerful country in the world. I get that it's "cool" he's not PC and doesn't give a shit if he offends people, but I feel that is a dangerous characteristic to have in a president.
S-S-KNot following you at all on your statements about the Constitution, I wasn't making that connection anyway...
From the few posts I've read of yours, you seem like you will be voting for Hillary. If that's true you will be voting for someone who has been factually "extremely careless". Maybe that doesn't matter for you, and I guess that's fine. Haha
Call me out if I'm wrong in judging you as a Hillary supporter, but if you can't, that's pretty much my point. There's some contradicting going on if you care intensely about truth and facts and will be voting for Hillary
The ONLY thing you know about me is that I believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. Based on that little nugget of knowledge, you have decided I am a Democrat who will vote for Hilary. What is so hard to understand about that?
Maybe you will now realize how your bias paints your world.
.LeoCould someone explain to me why all you Trump supporters like the fact that he speaks his mind and doesn't care what people think? Sure it's entertaining and a refresher from typical politics, but it's also an extremely fucking scary trait to have in the president of the most powerful country in the world. I get that it's "cool" he's not PC and doesn't give a shit if he offends people, but I feel that is a dangerous characteristic to have in a president.
Actually securing the border and keeping out as many Muslims as possible would make the country safer.
Importing hundreds of thousands of "refugees" as Hillary wants to do (and Obama is already doing) is what is actually dangerous.
Or perhaps you missed the news that one of these new "refugees" already attempted to sexually assault a 13-year old girl at a public pool in Massachusetts? After seeing what is happening in Europe, it was only a matter of time.
Perhaps you should look up who appointed James Comey and Loretta Lynch.
Anyone besides crooked Hillary would've been prosecuted.
Wrong, both Bush and Karl Rove deleted 22 million internal White House emails held on a private server. Same goes for Colin Powel. This is why I can't take this email scandal seriously and everyone who gets all upset over it has some serious one eyed vision. It's nothing more than a witch hunt. Where's your outrage over those private emails and deleted emails???
S.J.WWrong, both Bush and Karl Rove deleted 22 million internal White House emails held on a private server. Same goes for Colin Powel. This is why I can't take this email scandal seriously and everyone who gets all upset over it has some serious one eyed vision. It's nothing more than a witch hunt. Where's your outrage over those private emails and deleted emails???
George Bush didn't transmit top-secret classified information on a private server in his basement, and from what I understand, other staff members never transmitted top-secret emails over private servers either (only internal WH emails). Furthermore, I never liked Bush, and I hate Karl Rove. Bush's fuck ups are not excuses for Hillary's gross incompetence.
This is what happens when you get all your news from Media Matters and left-wing social justice blogs.
I mean honestly, at one point you actually believed that only 18 muslims managed to sexually assault 1,200 girls in Cologne in one night.
Just so you know, that number has been revised upwards somewhat:
ToursGeorge Bush didn't transmit top-secret classified information on a private server in his basement, and from what I understand, other staff members never transmitted top-secret emails over private servers either (only internal WH emails). Furthermore, I never liked Bush, and I hate Karl Rove. Bush's fuck ups are not excuses for Hillary's gross incompetence.
This is what happens when you get all your news from Media Matters and left-wing social justice blogs.
I mean honestly, at one point you actually believed that only 18 muslims managed to sexually assault 1,200 girls in Cologne in one night.
Just so you know, that number has been revised upwards somewhat:
I actually get the majority of my news from aljezeriah and ABC (Australian). But I handle classified information for my job and I work in a surf shop. The idea of classified information is such a broad brush
ToursGeorge Bush didn't transmit top-secret classified information on a private server in his basement, and from what I understand, other staff members never transmitted top-secret emails over private servers either (only internal WH emails). Furthermore, I never liked Bush, and I hate Karl Rove. Bush's fuck ups are not excuses for Hillary's gross incompetence.
This is what happens when you get all your news from Media Matters and left-wing social justice blogs.
I mean honestly, at one point you actually believed that only 18 muslims managed to sexually assault 1,200 girls in Cologne in one night.
Just so you know, that number has been revised upwards somewhat:
ToursActually securing the border and keeping out as many Muslims as possible would make the country safer.
Importing hundreds of thousands of "refugees" as Hillary wants to do (and Obama is already doing) is what is actually dangerous.
Or perhaps you missed the news that one of these new "refugees" already attempted to sexually assault a 13-year old girl at a public pool in Massachusetts? After seeing what is happening in Europe, it was only a matter of time.
>illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime once in America than natural born Americans.
>Muslims aren't dangerous.
>no need for quotes on refugees, they are real refugees. Syria is a warzone.
S.J.WI actually get the majority of my news from aljezeriah and ABC (Australian). But I handle classified information for my job and I work in a surf shop. The idea of classified information is such a broad brush
I think you meant Al Jazeera, the Qatari / Muslim Brotherhood propaganda network. The "moderate" face of political Sharia Islam. No wonder you're so delusional.
And as to your "classified" surf shop emails, I can only assume that your warped mind cannot actually understand the concept of a false equivalence.
californiagrownYou sure it was top secret? Or was it secret, or was it classified? Or do you not know but are acting like you do?
Straight from the FBI Statement:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
About 1/5 of the world is Muslim (1.5b). If Islam really promoted an idea of conquering the whole world, I think they would have had a more profound impact by now.
.LeoAbout 1/5 of the world is Muslim (1.5b). If Islam really promoted an idea of conquering the whole world, I think they would have had a more profound impact by now.
Just because the majority of Muslims do not act like jihadists fighting for world domination, it doesn't mean that such prescriptions are absent from Islam. All your comment shows is that, just like most Christians and Jews, most Muslims (luckily) pick and choose what they follow out of the Qur'an and Hadith. Most do not literally believe that their holy books are the inerrant word of God and that they must follow every tenant that is written. But, these moderates are on the losing end of a theological argument because the prescriptions & commands are easily found in the religious texts.
The reason they have not conquered the world is because there are people of different faiths who think their own faith is right or people simply use common sense and tell them to fuck off.
onenerdykidJust because the majority of Muslims do not act like jihadists fighting for world domination, it doesn't mean that such prescriptions are absent from Islam. All your comment shows is that, just like most Christians and Jews, most Muslims (luckily) pick and choose what they follow out of the Qur'an and Hadith. Most do not literally believe that their holy books are the inerrant word of God and that they must follow every tenant that is written. But, these moderates are on the losing end of a theological argument because the prescriptions & commands are easily found in the religious texts.
The reason they have not conquered the world is because there are people of different faiths who think their own faith is right or people simply use common sense and tell them to fuck off.
Right. But it also means that we can't simply label all Muslims as bad and prevent them from entering the US. That was more what I was getting at. Whatever Islam may suggest, it is no more dangerous of a religion (in my opinion) than Christianity.
.LeoRight. But it also means that we can't simply label all Muslims as bad and prevent them from entering the US. That was more what I was getting at. Whatever Islam may suggest, it is no more dangerous of a religion (in my opinion) than Christianity.
I personally don't think we should prevent Muslims from entering the US (just because they are Muslim), as that's not what this country represents. But that last part is very debatable. While I am by no means a fan of Christianity, not all religions are created equal, and violence plays a much more central role in Islam than it does in Christianity. The ideal human figure of Christianity is Jesus, a peace loving hippie, whereas the ideal human figure in Islam is Muhammad, a warlord who took sex slaves. It is normal, main-stream Islam to believe that Muhammad led a perfect life- nothing he did is considered immoral. So knowing that, it's quite easy to see the emergence of groups like ISIS. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find the activities of ISIS not harmonizing with or taken straight from the life of Muhammad. At it's core, Islam is a much more violent religion that additionally has not undergone any sort of Reformation or Enlightenment or pressure from the secular world to soften its stance on any number of societal issues the way Christianity has.
.MASSHOLE.Whether or not she did (she almost certainly did), in the eyes of the legal system she is innocent which is ultimately all that matters.
Where are the double standards? Please, find the cases that replicate this.
Dude your are an idiot sometimes.
Former CIA director and four-star general David Petraeus, for example, was sentenced to probation for two years and a $100,000 fine for sharing notebooks containing classified information with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
Marine Maj. Jason Brezler used his personal email to send one classified report in an instance where reportedly the lives of his comrades were at risk. The Daily Beast outlined how the veteran of four deployments faced a discharge in connection with the three Marines who died as a result of his message going unheard. The ultimate decision on his discharge remains in federal court.
Former CIA director and four-star general David Petraeus, for example, was sentenced to probation for two years and a $100,000 fine for sharing notebooks containing classified information with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
Marine Maj. Jason Brezler used his personal email to send one classified report in an instance where reportedly the lives of his comrades were at risk. The Daily Beast outlined how the veteran of four deployments faced a discharge in connection with the three Marines who died as a result of his message going unheard. The ultimate decision on his discharge remains in federal court.
You're the idiot right now because you're comparing apples to oranges. Let me explain why:
1. Military courts and civilian courts are different hence why Bezler was discharged. Also, as Comey said, and I quote, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
If Hillary was still SoS, she likely would have had to step down and face sanctions. However, she is not.
2. The difference here is INTENT. Petraeus intentionally gave classified information to Broadwell, and then knowingly lied to the FBI about it.
"FBI Director James Comey was asked whether he agreed with the claim that Petraeus “got in trouble for far less” than Clinton. “No, it’s the reverse,” Comey said.
The Petraeus “illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute,” he said: A combination of obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of classified information. Petraeus admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do, Comey said."
tl;dr: Military vs. Civilian Court, punishment aligned with what Comey said it could be, Petraeus and Clinton cases are very different.
So, come again? Where are the similarities? You can prove
.MASSHOLE.You're the idiot right now because you're comparing apples to oranges. Let me explain why:
1. Military courts and civilian courts are different hence why Bezler was discharged. Also, as Comey said, and I quote, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
If Hillary was still SoS, she likely would have had to step down and face sanctions. However, she is not.
2. The difference here is INTENT. Petraeus intentionally gave classified information to Broadwell, and then knowingly lied to the FBI about it.
"FBI Director James Comey was asked whether he agreed with the claim that Petraeus “got in trouble for far less” than Clinton. “No, it’s the reverse,” Comey said.
The Petraeus “illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute,” he said: A combination of obstruction of justice, intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of classified information. Petraeus admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do, Comey said."
tl;dr: Military vs. Civilian Court, punishment aligned with what Comey said it could be, Petraeus and Clinton cases are very different.
So, come again? Where are the similarities? You can prove
Clearly a double standard regardless of the semantics of the situation. Please try harder tho.
