Nevermind, see below...

 

To me, as I predicted, the term "gross negligence" is the thing that Comey probably felt was not met, and is what this whole thing boils down to.  Could he have recommended an indictment?  Yes, but he felt based on the facts political implications that it not not reach the criminality threshold.

 

(f)

<div style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
<p style="font-size:10pt;">Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


 

</div>

 

FTFY.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

 

Nevermind, see below...

 

To me, as I predicted, the term "gross negligence" is the thing that Comey probably felt was not met, and is what this whole thing boils down to.  Could he have recommended an indictment?  Yes, but he felt based on the facts that it not not reach the criminality threshold.

 

(f)

<div style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
<p style="font-size:10pt;">Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


 

</div>

 

No, that's not what he said.  The legal definition of Gross Negligence is Carelessness in the extreme.  When you use the words "extremely careless," then that means that you are acknowledging that the standard of Gross Negligence has been met. 

 

What Comey said was that "Ususally when someone is prosecuted they demonstrate some clear intent to harm the united states."  1.) That doesn't meet the text of the statute, it re-writes it.  2.) there were at least 8 chains of conversation that included SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM intelligence.  That is the highest level of classification.  Usually, that kind of information is housed in a stand alone system that only a few people have access to.  It is speculated to have been a satellite image of NK or something to that affect.  The presence of that information on any system outside the SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM system is plain evidence of gross criminal misconduct simply by it being moved.

 

Further, under the freedom of information act and other record keeping requirements of the federal government the Secretary of state is responsible to archive ALL work related E-mails, classified or otherwise.  The idea that any work e-mails were deleted demonstrates criminal misconduct. 

 

It is also applicable that in most circumstances once a method of communication or storage facility is contaminated with classified or work e-mails that the entire system rises to that level of classification, or in the case of record keeping under federal law once you use it for work then the entire server should have become public records which she was obligated to maintain (Comey specifically mentioned her affirmative obligation to maintain a record of her work.) 

 

The Idea that she could have a server DECOMISSIONED and have the email software stripped, Selectively delete emails that her lawyers never actually read, or set up a private server without the express permission of the federal government is a fundamental act of obstruction of justice.  James Comey Dismissed this entire line of criminal inquiry. 

 

This was a set up.  There were roughly 15 to 18 different statutes that she plainly violated and they only focused on one.  This is an affront to anyone who has ever actually had to interact with the Criminal justice system.  It's a real affront to anyone who was ever arrested for a crime they didn't commit and had to plea bargain because they couldn't afford a high priced team of attorneys and just wanted to be able to talk to their families again. 

 

I used to be a more committed Democrat that anyone on this board.  As a young black kid it was important to me to find what I thought was the best party or group to look out for my specific interests as I went into the work force.  I was especially concerned with the miscarriage of justice against people of color.  what I found out was, that when push comes to shove the political elites that claim to care so much still take their get out of jail free cards just like the rest of them. 

---

I don't think she's getting preferential treatment because she's a Clinton. It's because she's running for president.

 

I think Comey saw it as 50/50 and said "You know what? I'm going to let the American people decide."

 

As it should be.

 

As it should be?

 

So you are openly in favor of application of the law being different for two different types of people?

---

As it should be?

 

So you are openly in favor of application of the law being different for two different types of people?

 

Naw man, people vote on criminality all the time. ALL. THE. TIME.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Take the word of the guy who actually SAW the emails over what I make up in my head about what was on the server?

 

Yeah, I'll take it.  Comey knows the facts, you and I don't.  You obviously don't trust him, I do.

 

I would postulate that you have no ability for even basic analysis.  Comey said Clinton was "extremely careless".  That is a lie.  There's only one way for that classified material to get on Hillary's server.  It cannot be sent via the internet.  SIPRNet is a closed system.  Somebody on her staff had to open the classified documents on the secure system, then copy and paste the material onto a flash drive, stripping away classified markings from each paragraph, then put the documents on an unsecure system to transmit to Hillary's server.  This is not careless, it is criminal.  That is not an opinion. 

 

By lying, Comey has made himself complicit in these crimes.  He is now part of the cover-up.  

---

Naw man, people vote on criminality all the time. ALL. THE. TIME.

 

Adam2012 is going to get his $15 an hour no matter what it takes.

---

No, that's not what he said. The legal definition of Gross Negligence is Carelessness in the extreme. When you use the words "extremely careless," then that means that you are acknowledging that the standard of Gross Negligence has been met.


What Comey said was that "Ususally when someone is prosecuted they demonstrate some clear intent to harm the united states." 1.) That doesn't meet the text of the statute, it re-writes it. 2.) there were at least 8 chains of conversation that included SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM intelligence. That is the highest level of classification. Usually, that kind of information is housed in a stand alone system that only a few people have access to. It is speculated to have been a satellite image of NK or something to that affect. The presence of that information on any system outside the SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM system is plain evidence of gross criminal misconduct simply by it being moved.


Further, under the freedom of information act and other record keeping requirements of the federal government the Secretary of state is responsible to archive ALL work related E-mails, classified or otherwise. The idea that any work e-mails were deleted demonstrates criminal misconduct.


It is also applicable that in most circumstances once a method of communication or storage facility is contaminated with classified or work e-mails that the entire system rises to that level of classification, or in the case of record keeping under federal law once you use it for work then the entire server should have become public records which she was obligated to maintain (Comey specifically mentioned her affirmative obligation to maintain a record of her work.)


The Idea that she could have a server DECOMISSIONED and have the email software stripped, Selectively delete emails that her lawyers never actually read, or set up a private server without the express permission of the federal government is a fundamental act of obstruction of justice. James Comey Dismissed this entire line of criminal inquiry.


This was a set up. There were roughly 15 to 18 different statutes that she plainly violated and they only focused on one. This is an affront to anyone who has ever actually had to interact with the Criminal justice system. It's a real affront to anyone who was ever arrested for a crime they didn't commit and had to plea bargain because they couldn't afford a high priced team of attorneys and just wanted to be able to talk to their families again.


I used to be a more committed Democrat that anyone on this board. As a young black kid it was important to me to find what I thought was the best party or group to look out for my specific interests as I went into the work force. I was especially concerned with the miscarriage of justice against people of color. what I found out was, that when push comes to shove the political elites that claim to care so much still take their get out of jail free cards just like the rest of them.

The Clintons suck. There's no doubt about it. This was my last hope of Bernie getting momentum to make a run during the convention to grab the nomination from Clinton.


But it's not going to happen, I've resigned myself to it. The entire democratic primary had me scratching my head. Bernie was drawing HUGE crowds, Clinton could barely fill ballrooms, and Bernie was filling stadiums. The polls would have Bernie close in many states, but the night of so many primaries had Hillary blowing him out. It was frustrating to watch as a liberal/progressive the Clintons represent blue dog democrats that are basically republicans in disguise.


That's the bottom line, Hillary is gonna keep free trade, she'll get a pro wall street, socially liberal, corporate shill of a supreme court justice (or 2) appointed, and our global occupation of the middle east will continue for another 8 years. And of course, the gridlock in Washington, and the corruption of that cesspool of a god forsaken town will continue.


The Clintons, even though they are basically wall street republicans have lucked out this election cycle.


But, I'm sorry, the alternative that you people chose is not acceptable to 99% of democrats.

---

Adam2012 is going to get his $15 an hour no matter what it takes.

 

Does FBT know you've stolen that tired routine he always used with TMD? You truly do aspire to be FBT jr. For you, a worthy objective.

 

Since you never seem to have anything to add, other than being Donbo's apologist, I can see why you'd steal a tired old cliche. It's kind of who you are.

 

I look forward to more insight.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Does FBT know you've stolen that tired routine he always used with TMD? You truly do aspire to be FBT jr. For you, a worthy objective.

 

Since you never seem to have anything to add, other than being Donbo's apologist, I can see why you'd steal a tired old cliche. It's kind of who you are.

 

I look forward to more insight.

 

 

So, answer the question:

 

 

 

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As it should be?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So you are openly in favor of application of the law being different for two different types of people?

---

Like I have said before. Clinton? Trump? We are royally screwed. My father is 86 and has voted always. He is not going to vote. Nor shall I. A truly sad state of affairs for our country. When these two kooks are the only choices we are probably getting close to collapse.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I would postulate that you have no ability for even basic analysis.  Comey said Clinton was "extremely careless".  That is a lie.  There's only one way for that classified material to get on Hillary's server.  It cannot be sent via the internet.  SIPRNet is a closed system.  Somebody on her staff had to open the classified documents on the secure system, then copy and paste the material onto a flash drive, stripping away classified markings from each paragraph, then put the documents on an unsecure system to transmit to Hillary's server.  This is not careless, it is criminal.  That is not an opinion. 

 

By lying, Comey has made himself complicit in these crimes.  He is now part of the cover-up.  

 

Hahahaha - keep on trolling! I was sorry to see the Orlando conspiracy thread end. But good to see you have a new subject to keep you busy.

 

Oh, and James Comey is really bummed that you've lost faith in him. But he'll get by.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

As it should be?

 

So you are openly in favor of application of the law being different for two different types of people?

 

Read it again. I'm saying Comey decided to go with a political decision being made by the voting public rather than the FBI.

 

Wouldn't you rather have a voice? Or do you want "the Establishment" to make the decisions? You really need to make up your mind.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Does FBT know you've stolen that tired routine he always used with TMD? You truly do aspire to be FBT jr. For you, a worthy objective.


Since you never seem to have anything to add, other than being Donbo's apologist, I can see why you'd steal a tired old cliche. It's kind of who you are.


I look forward to more insight.

I agree with Adam on this one. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it does not bode well for your discussion skills. This is like the 4th insult of Adam in this thread.


Personal insults just make it look like you can't actually argue against Adam's opinions.


Besides, fry cook jokes are so played out...

---

Read it again. I'm saying Comey decided to go with a political decision being made by the voting public rather than the FBI.

 

Wouldn't you rather have a voice? Or do you want "the Establishment" to make the decisions? You really need to make up your mind.

 

I have read it. You implied because she is running for president she is getting preferential treatment. 

 

You want to wait to see if the American people decide if she is guilty in November by not voting for her rather than the FBI actually doing what is right in the current moment.

 

What am I not understanding from your post? Please elaborate.

---

I agree with Adam on this one. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it does not bode well for your discussion skills. This is like the 4th insult of Adam in this thread.


Personal insults just make it look like you can't actually argue against Adam's opinions.


Besides, fry cook jokes are so played out...

 

Adam's opinions are loony. What is there to argue?

 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">I don't think she's getting preferential treatment because she's a Clinton. It's because she's running for president.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">I think Comey saw it as 50/50 and said "You know what? I'm going to let the American people decide."

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">As it should be.

---

I have read it. You implied because she is running for president she is getting preferential treatment. 

 

You want to wait to see if the American people decide if she is guilty in November by not voting for her rather than the FBI actually doing what is right in the current moment.

 

What am I not understanding from your post? Please elaborate.

 

"The FBI doing what is right'? The FBI did what was right, according to it's Director. And by doing so he's allowing the people an opportunity to have a voice as to if they agree.

 

Of course you know the truth and the Director is just - what? Since you are so willing to question Comey's professional integrity, please tell me what his objective was, and how you know it.

 

And no fair in going to Byron LeftTown for the answers.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Adam's opinions are loony. What is there to argue?
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">

I don't think she's getting preferential treatment because she's a Clinton. It's because she's running for president.
</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">

I think Comey saw it as 50/50 and said "You know what? I'm going to let the American people decide."
</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">

As it should be.
</span>

I don't know, I think it's plausible that the decision was political....


Even flsprt fixed one of my comments to point out the decision was political...


It's my opinion that comey should be given more deference based on the fact that he's a republican appointed official. He was hired on by the W Bush administration for crying out loud. The fact that he remained on under Obama shows he's not a partisan hack, but a true professional.


Let's not pretend like he let her off the hook. He put a pretty big albatross around her neck, politically speaking...


He just doesn't think there is a criminal case to be made here, a competency case on the other hand can absolutely be made...

---

"The FBI doing what is right'? The FBI did what was right, according to it's Director. And by doing so he's allowing the people an opportunity to have a voice as to if they agree.

 

Of course you know the truth and the Director is just - what? Since you are so willing to question Comey's professional integrity, please tell me what his objective was, and how you know it.

 

And no fair in going to Byron LeftTown for the answers.

The FBI did not do what is right. #1 It isn't the FBIs role to speak publicly of criminal matters. #2 It isn't the role of the FBI to recommend or not indictment. He is bowing to political pressure which is not within the system. He is to be impartial and allow the courts to rule. Yes, his professional integrity is in question. I'm hoping this wasn't stupidity and more of a calculated risk to advance this further in the public eye.

---

I don't know, I think it's plausible that the decision was political....


Even flsprt fixed one of my comments to point out the decision was political...


It's my opinion that comey should be given more deference based on the fact that he's a republican appointed official. He was hired on by the W Bush administration for crying out loud. The fact that he remained on under Obama shows he's not a partisan hack, but a true professional.


Let's not pretend like he let her off the hook. He put a pretty big albatross around her neck, politically speaking...


He just doesn't think there is a criminal case to be made here, a competency case on the other hand can absolutely be made...

Agreed this could be more political than anything, but I think a lot of folks are glossing over a real issue... It is not the role of the FBI to publicly speak about criminal investigations, nor is it their role to recommend what direction the case goes, i.e. indictment. This smells bad!

---

I don't know, I think it's plausible that the decision was political....


Even flsprt fixed one of my comments to point out the decision was political...


It's my opinion that comey should be given more deference based on the fact that he's a republican appointed official. He was hired on by the W Bush administration for crying out loud. The fact that he remained on under Obama shows he's not a partisan hack, but a true professional.


Let's not pretend like he let her off the hook. He put a pretty big albatross around her neck, politically speaking...


He just doesn't think there is a criminal case to be made here, a competency case on the other hand can absolutely be made...

 

What I find interesting is that so many are claiming the decision of the FBI was political, but they think the decision should have gone the other way for political reasons!

 

None of this really matters. Are there more than 12 people (who can read and write) that haven't a clue as to who they prefer and are going to use this decision as to who to vote for?

 

All the Clarence Darrows on here would be arguing the other way under different circumstances. What I find really amusing is the fact that because they would have acted for political reasons they assume everyone would - without any proof.

 

I'm still waiting to hear what was in it for Comey.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.