US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5628

On October 18 2016 06:49 Danglars wrote:

That's not the criterion here for determination. XDaunt did the quick outline in two posts right after the press conference, simply search for negligence with the content restriction. The section of the statute involved makes very clear the lack of intent necessary (compare with reckless driving versus intent to destroy) since you don't need to be in league with America's enemies to endanger her operatives by exercising no caution in handling privileged information.

On October 18 2016 07:37 Hexe wrote:
Wasnt one of the first things HRC was supposed to do was to turn in all work related emails after her tenure as SoS? After like a year she finally did, which her lawyers and her selectively chose which ones to send in.

After she was forced to turn over the ones she didnt, she wiped the server clean, (the week after it broke she used a personal email server.) Isn't that obstruction of justice at that point? Even if there was no classified emails on her server / sent and other shit, wouldn't that be enough?

Nearly 1 in 5 children each year suffer a psychiatric illness, according to research estimates. But a national shortage of medical specialists and inpatient facilities means that many still go untreated — despite national efforts to improve mental health care.

New research is driving home the consequences. Scientific abstracts presented Monday in Las Vegas, at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, offer insights into how frequently patients with mental health issues land in the emergency room — often because opportunities to intervene earlier are missed. Pediatricians and child psychiatrists say children are among the hardest hit.

The researchers analyzed data compiled by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, which tracked mental health visits to hospital emergency departments between 2001 and 2011.

Compared with physically ill patients, people with mental health conditions rely more on the emergency department for treatment, and are more often admitted to the hospital from the ER, the scientists found. Also, they tended to be stuck in the ER longer than people who show up in the ER with physical symptoms.

Specifically, the researchers found that about 6 percent of all the emergency department patients — of all ages — had a psychiatric condition. More than 20 percent of these psychiatric patients were admitted to the hospital, compared to just over 13 percent of the medical patients. About 11 percent of these patients with mental health problems required transfer to another facility, compared with 1.4 percent of the patients with physical ailments.

About 23 percent of mental health patients stayed in emergency care for longer than six hours, and about 1.3 percent for more than 24 hours. Only 10 percent of medical patients were under treatment in the ER for more than six hours, and just half a percent were there for more than 24 hours.

The researchers have not yet determined the distribution of ages among the patients in their study who came to the ER because of mental health symptoms. Anecdotally, though, ER patients with psychiatric problems tend to include more children and elderly patients than you'd expect to see based on the age range of the general population, says Suzanne Lippert, a clinical assistant professor in emergency medicine at Stanford University, and lead author on the study.

The findings highlight what can happen when patients can't find good outpatient treatment for mental health problems, Lippert says. The evidence also underscores, she says, that when psychiatric patients arrive at the ER in a crisis, there is often no good place where they can continue treatment, once the immediate issue has been addressed.

On October 18 2016 07:50 Nevuk wrote:
For a nice dose of criticism of Hillary from a non-conservative source (and a bit on wikileak's problematic habits)

On October 18 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:

But if they can’t prove the server was breached, doesn’t that undercut the charge of “risk to others?” They have to prove that her actions lead to harm in some way.

Second: Will the court accept that “top secret” or “classified information” is automatically harmful is released, or would they need to prove that the specific information that was exposed put people at risk? Or do they need to go further and show that a specific set of information lead to harm of a specific person(s)?

On October 18 2016 06:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


What law are you talking about? Comey doesn't have to stretch very hard for 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information. See the bolded below.

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

...

(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


Now perhaps you are talking about the 1917 law (§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information**) that Comey says was only used once in 99 years. That only plainly says INTENT in the first line. Either way, this "no intent" talking point I see right wingers use is totally fact-free.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime

** http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim

On October 18 2016 08:30 Danglars wrote:

The relevant section is 793. Previously in the thread.

If we're being complete, she was also in violation of the federal records act, but the far more pernicious offense was excrcising gross negligence (extreme carelessness if you're Comey) in handling classified information.

On October 18 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:

But if they can’t prove the server was breached, doesn’t that undercut the charge of “risk to others?” They have to prove that her actions lead to harm in some way.

Second: Will the court accept that “top secret” or “classified information” is automatically harmful is released, or would they need to prove that the specific information that was exposed put people at risk? Or do they need to go further and show that a specific set of information lead to harm of a specific person(s)?

On October 18 2016 08:30 Danglars wrote:

The relevant section is 793. Previously in the thread.

If we're being complete, she was also in violation of the federal records act, but the far more pernicious offense was excrcising gross negligence (extreme carelessness if you're Comey) in handling classified information.

"But Comey noted that at the time Congress passed the law in 1917, "there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. And so there was a lot of concern when the statute was passed.

"As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern," he said.

"I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of, in a case involving espionage.

"And so when I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that's sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it that they were doing something that was against the law.

"So given that assessment of the facts, and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains, no reasonable proseuctor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence.""

On October 18 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:

If we're being complete, there was no "gross negligence" involved, meaning the section doesn't apply.

On October 18 2016 08:44 Danglars wrote:

Maybe if the jury was made up of twelve of you. She didn't exercise precautions in a sustained manner over years. Put together a jury of twelve peers with average distribution of Hillary shills and we'll see. But if you want to argue semantics to protect your dear lady until people give up trying, you're fully welcome to.

On October 18 2016 08:41 CannonsNCarriers wrote:


I did cite 793. 793(a) requires intent, 793(f) uses Gross Negligence. I also cited Comey's remarks on that very (f) provision. If you think Comey is wrong, then you need to show exactly where he went wrong in discussing 793(f). It isn't enough to just say "bias". Show the work (you have the burden because Comey is the professional with actual authority here and engaged in a due process backed determination that recommended no charges).


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/comey-nobody-uses-1917-law-making-gross-negligence-crime

On October 18 2016 08:44 Danglars wrote:

Maybe if the jury was made up of twelve of you. She didn't exercise precautions in a sustained manner over years. Put together a jury of twelve peers with average distribution of Hillary shills and we'll see. But if you want to argue semantics to protect your dear lady until people give up trying, you're fully welcome to.