|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
So in this FBI statement what is the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent?
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
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.
|
On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”?
No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election.
|
On July 06 2016 06:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:So in this FBI statement what is the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent? Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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.
Yes. One is a legal standard, the other is just some words.
|
On July 06 2016 06:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:So in this FBI statement what is the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent? 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 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. Yes. One is a legal standard, the other is just some words.
Oh okay that's how it works
|
On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election.
The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch.
|
On July 06 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? i didnt say anything. i just found it funny that this is the way the system worked out in this case, which i hope more people would find depressing regardless of the results. I question why you are in the legal field at all if you have so little faith in people to be impartial.
that makes no sense. the legal field is an adversarial system because its assumed that people are going to be partial (from the judges to the jury to the witnesses to the lawyers).
|
On July 06 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? i didnt say anything. i just found it funny that this is the way the system worked out in this case, which i hope more people would find depressing regardless of the results. I question why you are in the legal field at all if you have so little faith in people to be impartial.
"California lawyers do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other lawyers or judges."-CalBar "i do not think its a problem." - DaPhreak (California lawyer) #SandraBland
From GH's signature, huh.
|
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread.
here is what i actually said:
On March 12 2015 02:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
the misconduct was by way of "discovery" and i filed appropriate motions to compel with the court. i have also had a breach of a preliminary injunction, which i handled by way of a contempt motion. these are mixed attorney/client misconduct.
with respect to my own firm, yes. internal oversight was sufficient. nobody cares more about pleasing our clients than us. we handle business accounts. the loss of a fortune 100 company would greatly harm our firm, and is not taken lightly.
philosophically speaking, yes, i think its odd that i dont have to report misconduct that would harm someone. realistically speaking, i have never been in a situation where i even considered reporting something to the bar (other than the sanctions i discussed above, but that was more because the guy was an ass). practically speaking, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has committed reportable misconduct. couple that with the animosity that would accompany a false report to the bar, which would greatly disadvantage informal resolution in the cases (to the disadvantage of both clients), and you have a recipe for disaster.
greenhorizon left a bit out, didnt he?
|
On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread.
You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment.
But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not.
|
On July 06 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election. The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch.
Doesn't that actually make it worse ? Maybe it's my taking as an outsider but it seems like there is a conflict of interest nonetheless.
|
Based upon the litany of evidence recited by Comey, they absolutely could have gotten a guilty verdict against Hillary on gross negligence, and possibly perjury.
|
On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not.
where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family?
i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result.
|
On July 06 2016 06:36 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On July 06 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
not a criminal, just incompetent.
interesting that the FBI director was appointed by Obama. the attorney general was appointed by Obama, and previously by Bill Clinton. i wonder where the justice department is going to come out on this. is there any indication there will be independent counsel/investigation into this?
Bill Clinton meets privately with Attorney General.
Hillary Clinton vows to reappoint current Attorney General.
lol. So what you are saying is that there is no way you would believed them unless they said “We are coming for her, she will never be president as long as we live!”? No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election. The FBI is part of the executive branch, they all have a stake in the election that determines who runs the executive branch. Doesn't that actually make it worse ? Maybe it's my taking as an outsider but it seems like there is a conflict of interest nonetheless.
Who else can appoint someone who reports to the president?
Congress? That is just as biased and would make for yet another public theater.
|
On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. here is what i actually said: Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 02:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
the misconduct was by way of "discovery" and i filed appropriate motions to compel with the court. i have also had a breach of a preliminary injunction, which i handled by way of a contempt motion. these are mixed attorney/client misconduct.
with respect to my own firm, yes. internal oversight was sufficient. nobody cares more about pleasing our clients than us. we handle business accounts. the loss of a fortune 100 company would greatly harm our firm, and is not taken lightly.
philosophically speaking, yes, i think its odd that i dont have to report misconduct that would harm someone. realistically speaking, i have never been in a situation where i even considered reporting something to the bar (other than the sanctions i discussed above, but that was more because the guy was an ass). practically speaking, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has committed reportable misconduct. couple that with the animosity that would accompany a false report to the bar, which would greatly disadvantage informal resolution in the cases (to the disadvantage of both clients), and you have a recipe for disaster. greenhorizon left a bit out, didnt he?
The issue of whether attorneys should be obliged to report the misconduct of other attorneys should not be the subject of conversation by people who are not attorneys. This is doubly true when misconduct arises in litigation cases where the interests of clients are at stake.
|
On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result.
You literally just did it in your post?
|
On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result.
We're just acting like crazy conspiracy theorists for doubting the impartial judgment of these investigators - they're professionals who get paid to be impartial it's absurd for us to doubt them!
|
On July 06 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. here is what i actually said: On March 12 2015 02:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
the misconduct was by way of "discovery" and i filed appropriate motions to compel with the court. i have also had a breach of a preliminary injunction, which i handled by way of a contempt motion. these are mixed attorney/client misconduct.
with respect to my own firm, yes. internal oversight was sufficient. nobody cares more about pleasing our clients than us. we handle business accounts. the loss of a fortune 100 company would greatly harm our firm, and is not taken lightly.
philosophically speaking, yes, i think its odd that i dont have to report misconduct that would harm someone. realistically speaking, i have never been in a situation where i even considered reporting something to the bar (other than the sanctions i discussed above, but that was more because the guy was an ass). practically speaking, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has committed reportable misconduct. couple that with the animosity that would accompany a false report to the bar, which would greatly disadvantage informal resolution in the cases (to the disadvantage of both clients), and you have a recipe for disaster. greenhorizon left a bit out, didnt he? The issue of whether attorneys should be obliged to report the misconduct of other attorneys should not be the subject of conversation by people who are not attorneys. This is doubly true when misconduct arises in litigation cases where the interests of clients are at stake.
Should people who are not climate scientists comment on the feasibility of human-created climate change?
|
On July 06 2016 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. We're just acting like crazy conspiracy theorists for doubting the impartial judgment of these investigators - they're professionals who get paid to be impartial it's absurd for us to doubt them!
I understand your being sarcastic but without proof yes you certainly should not be doubting them.
|
On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post?
i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents.
|
On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 06 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2016 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is about what i have come to expect from this thread. You didn’t’ really open up with a bang, suggesting corruption purely based on the fact that democrats appointed the heading of the FBI. One of the two parties has to have appointed the head of the FBI, so I really don’t get the point of the comment. But here is the real question, do you believe the case would have resulted in a guilty verdict? Because most of the attorneys I know and have read have said it would not. where did i imply or say corruption? does no one else find it interesting that the investigators and people responsible for addressing this issue are politcal appointees tied to the clinton family? i dont know if it would be guilty or not because I havent seen any of the evidence, nor do i have any reason to believe the investigators didnt actually do their job correctly and properly. i am more interested in the process than the result. You literally just did it in your post? i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents.
Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
