Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

9 (90%)

Yes.

1 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[sluissa]

As someone else put it:

 "Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

It's very good that it's just extremely careless rather than grossly negligent. Two completely different things!

I'll grant you it's nothing new, but at the same time I feel as if what's already been presented is more than enough evidence that she isn't qualified to be in ANY governmental position. I wouldn't trust her to pick up my trash, much less run the country. And there's only slight hyperbole there.

Did she though? It sounds to me like their IT department was negligent in their duties, resulting in Shadow IT, like it always does when an IT department prevents people from being able to do their jobs. A majority of US workers turn to the same sort of shadow IT solutions when their official IT department prevents them from doing their job.

We're not talking about some sort of low level desk sitter dealing with mundane, non-classified, trivialities. She was the head of the department of state. If anyone was in a position to make the changes needed to provide a workable and proper IT solution it would have been her. And there was evidence she and people around her were warned on multiple occasions and the warnings were responded to with "don't bring it up again."

[mainiac]

but I'm maintaining my ruinous Trump campaign leading to libertarian realignment hopes.

It is sorta vaguely plausible.

I think the problem with a libertarian realignment is that parties have to be built ground up and the libertarians dont care about that.  The democrats started as a grassroots corruption network for people opposed to the washington administration and grew from there.  The republicans started as a grassroots abolitionist network.  This meant that the democrats and republicans could run for local mayors offices and state government seats and have appeal, you wanted someone to keep the eggheads or slaves out of your own town.  But the libertarians solely care about national issues.  They could be immensely important on local issues of occupational licencing, zoning, drug enforcement and education but they dont even try.

But having opined my ass off against it I will say it's sorta plausible because there is a disatisfied faction in the republican party and ironically the libertarian conservatives like Jeb! and Ryan are better at being team players then the authoritarian conservatives like Trump and Cruz.  So the leadership is there.  But you can't have an army of nothing but generals and you can't have a political party of nothing but Michael Bloomberg national politiicans.

It's very good that it's just extremely careless rather than grossly negligent. Two completely different things!

Yes.  I am glad that you understand now.  Legal terms such as "gross negligence" used in a legal context have specific meanings.

[pisskop]

Im just happy that the standards of operation are set so low.  That way nobody is to blame so nobody feels as slimy as she is when they vote for her.

[mainiac]

Im just happy that the standards of operation are set so low.  That way nobody is to blame so nobody feels as slimy as she is when they vote for her.

Right after news that a fine toothed investigation of her life revealed nothing other then sloppiness seems like an odd time to call her slimey but that's your choice I suppose.  At least you aren't lying.

[Sheb]

"This may shock you but Hillary Clinton is honest"

[pisskop]

Sloppy is inadequete.

Moreso, her slimeyness comes from her playing the crowd and twofacing her way through her political career, not any recent scandal.

[mainiac]

Sloppy is inadequete.

Moreso, her slimeyness comes from her playing the crowd and twofacing her way through her political career, not any recent scandal.

Two facing her way through an entire career is awful vague.  Let's get specific.  At what point over the past 20+ years has she been particularly two faced.  What's the absolute best?

And before you answer that, allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis.  People's memories are strange.  They will remember the Benghazi hearings but not the fact that Clinton was found innocent of everything but sloppiness.  If you string together those kinds of manufactured scandals for 20 years a completely normal, decent human being can be lied about.

Remember, everyone knows that politics is full of lies and smears.  Is it strange to think that one of the highest profile politicians in the world would be a victim of lies and smears?

[sluissa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person." By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross." Prosser and Keeton describe gross negligence as being "the want of even slight or scant care", and note it as having been described as a lack of care that even a careless person would use. They further note that while some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most simply differentiate it from simple negligence in its degree.[1]

There's no set line as to what differentiates "gross" from "ordinary" especially in a case such as this.

[pisskop]

Sloppy is inadequete.

Moreso, her slimeyness comes from her playing the crowd and twofacing her way through her political career, not any recent scandal.

Two facing her way through an entire career is awful vague.  Let's get specific.  At what point over the past 20+ years has she been particularly two faced.  What's the absolute best?

And before you answer that, allow me to offer an alternative hypothesis.  People's memories are strange.  They will remember the Benghazi hearings but not the fact that Clinton was found innocent of everything but sloppiness.  If you string together those kinds of manufactured scandals for 20 years a completely normal, decent human being can be lied about.

Remember, everyone knows that politics is full of lies and smears.  Is it strange to think that one of the highest profile politicians in the world would be a victim of lies and smears?

I certainly lack the energy to do this one again.  Nope.

If youre willing to believe websites that advocate her virtue but pretend that anything approaching grey as a smear campaign than youre already decided.

Any political forum will have any arguement against her I can prooffer

[mainiac]

If youre willing to believe websites that advocate her virtue but pretend that anything approaching grey as a smear campaign

What part of my post lead you to believe I held such an attitude?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence

Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial "reasonable person." By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross." Prosser and Keeton describe gross negligence as being "the want of even slight or scant care", and note it as having been described as a lack of care that even a careless person would use. They further note that while some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most simply differentiate it from simple negligence in its degree.[1]

There's no set line as to what differentiates "gross" from "ordinary" especially in a case such as this.

Um... that's nice?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I did a search of the announcement for the word "ordinary negligence".  I didn't find it.  The closest I found were these:

"This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would"

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

Like this is a matter of public record.  You can call Comey a liar if you want.  But it is now trivially easy to check your descriptions against the actual statement.  But please, keep it up.  I am enjoying the FUCK out of this.  It's the most fun I've ever had with my pants on.  I really hope it opens a few eyes as to how big of bullshit this was all along.

[Sheb]

Thanks for that transcript mainiac. Your quotes of it aren't really convincing though. I prefer this one:

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

[mainiac]

That is a better general purpose quote.  I was just trying to address the "ordinary negligence" (his quotes, not mine).

[Frumple]

I guess the question this brings up in me is if those anonymous FBI sources were talking our their ass, or the folks quoting them were just pulling the sources out of theirs. They seemed to get brought up a lot, and now the completely official, entirely un-anonymous FBI source is saying, "Yeah, not so much."

What a terrible day for the american people, to have their trusts betrayed by unnamed figures making vague statements to random news sources. Country's going to hell when you apparently can't even believe the words of possibly fabricated individuals with less than zero credibility

[sluissa]

That is a better general purpose quote.  I was just trying to address the "ordinary negligence" (his quotes, not mine).

I have no idea what you were addressing there. But go ahead and have your fun. Just clean up afterwards.

[penguinofhonor]

This is just proof that the FBI is in on the conspiracy to cover up Clinton's wrongdoings. With her tyrannical control of the media, the electoral system, and law enforcement, it's a wonder why she hasn't ascended to power already.