Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by lsutiga, May 13, 2017.
Have it your way. For your sake I hope no Clinton ever buys a mattress from you and is dissatisfied.
"Why Tiger in NC are we cross?" If I thought you weren't my friend anymore don't think I could bear it"
I hope the heartbreak won't kill you. Cross? Nah.....I'm just an ass hole.
True. But you can't not knowingly remove classified info without knowing you are breaking the laws. That's the point.
As Comey stated during his testimony there is enough subjective territory there to give her the benefit of the doubt. I would guess that if she had established some kind of patterns for sending these emails it might be easier to infer intent on her part but that wasn't the case. Comey was clear that she sent classified materials but found no evidence that she had the intent of harming the national security of the US by doing so. This tells me that she was "careless," just as Comey said she was, but nothing that she did rose to the level of needing to question her intent. That's my point.
For the record my helmet time was in the military 64 to 68. Second helmet time was football USL 72 to 74 probably havent been right since but I do see what the democrats have become, open your eyes bro'.
Again you ignore my point. Corey wanted to hang Petreaus but Holder made a deal on lesser charges because supposedly Holder didn't think he could prove intent. This wasn't Comey's interpretation and really pissed him off. However Comey decided Holder's decision set a precedent that intent needed to be clearly proven. This limited his options on HRC's case. As you said Comey told us he couldn't prosecute HRC because he couldn't prove intent. According to the interviewee on MJ that was because of what happened in Petreaus.
It's not that the actions of Petreaus and HRC were the same. It's that the requirement to prove intent prevented Comey from further action His own testimony is explicit in saying he couldn't prove intent about HRC's actions and is why it was not prosecuted.
Again remedial lessons are available.
True, but gross negligence is Also covered under DOD laws and US law.
But this goes back further than Petreaus. The issue of proving intent has been the hallmark of that particular statute all along, beginning with Benedict Arnold I suppose (I'm exaggerating by using Arnold obviously). Petreaus' case was more cut and dry than Clinton's because he willfully passed along classified material knowing that he was violating the law by doing so and then he lied to the FBI about it. Clinton's was not because, as Comey said during his testimony, the FBI simply did not believe that Clinton had the intention of passing the data along to our enemies nor did she show patterns that might indicate intent. I guess you could say that Petreaus was another case in the line of many others that set precedent.
GROSS negligence. still does not apply. the fbi says so.