President Trump Fires James Comey

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Intent is not a requirement and constantly repeating it doesnt make it true.

The standard is gross negligence. The intent bs was used to get her out of charges.

Wrong. The "intent bs" was not used to get her "out of charges", but because of precedent.

Some argue that prosecution was warranted because not all of the relevant laws require intent (an important potentially applicable one, 18 USC 793(f), requires only “gross negligence”), and because the government needs to send a strong signal to protect the integrity of the classified information system. I do not view this as an unreasonable position, at least based on the information Comey provided yesterday. On the other hand, there are many hurdles to a successful prosecution even assuming the “gross negligence” standard is the right one here.
The prosecution would be entirely novel, and would turn in part on very tricky questions about how email exchanges fit into language written with physical removal of classified information in mind. Though he did not say so explicitly, Comey might have concluded that a conviction in this context was, for many reasons, unlikely—a clear reason not to prosecute. He probably also considered broader public policy considerations that prosecutors often take into account—considerations that cut in many different directions, to be sure. It’s unclear whether Comey was right to say that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case against Clinton—it is just hard to say, one way or another, based on the information he provided yesterday. But Comey explained the general basis for his decision and took full responsibility for it.

...

[I]t's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

I'd like to know why Obama's short form birth certificate bears a fraudulent debossed seal instead of the requisite official embossed seal. But I am never going to get that answer because...well, it was *cough* racist to even want an answer.

He was protected from scrutiny.

It's your right to question it. Have at it.

As far as the racist aspect and the protection, I don't go that far down the nutter rabbit hole.

My apologies.

a reply to: introvert

Not what I think but what 'I know based on my experience and training.

Intent is not a requirement.... Gross negligence is.

Charges without intent?

Research drunk driving accidents where a death occurred. The persons arent charged with murder because they had no intent of killing anyone. The death resulted by gross negligence.

Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

Many cases that have been appealed that made it into the Federal system, where the convictions are upheld.

Intent is NOT a requirement in all crimes, including 18 USC 793 F.

a reply to: introvert

Comey made it clear

Comey is not a legislator... or even a prosecutor.

we have yet to find one case in which someone was charged without showing direct intent or action to prove intent.

Petraeus

TheRedneck

a reply to: alphabetaone

wrong.

again

Intent is not a requirement.... Gross negligence is.

Charges without intent?

Research drunk driving accidents where a death occurred. The persons arent charged with murder because they had no intent of killing anyone. The death resulted by gross negligence.

Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

Many cases that have been appealed that made it into the Federal system, where the convictions are upheld.

Intent is NOT a requirement in all crimes, including 18 USC 793 F.

a reply to: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

So it was in the form of a question.

Glad we cleared that up.

Anything else?

Not that I can think of.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Precedence indicates otherwise, in cases such as this.

Again, please provide a case in which someone was taken to court without the prosecutor having proof of intent.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gandalf77

For what, those that are blind to their believes will never accept anything.

So I don't even bother.

Right. So much easier to just barf up generalizations like that without being willing to go to the effort of actually articulating anything. There are those of us who will listen to a cogent argument if you really have it. If you were to go to the trouble of creating a separate thread to prove any of that out, I would read it with an open mind.

Here is precedent -

18 USC 1112 - Manslaughter

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:

Voluntary—Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Involuntary—In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both;

Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Intent is not a requirement.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785

Intent is considered in minor violations. What she did was a major breach of national security. And as I stated, intent was obvious because it's just not realistic that someone with her extensive experience, including holding a security clearance in the Senate to receive classified briefings, would not know she couldn't do that. It's not nuanced, it's not easy to make a mistake just misunderstanding some obscure clause, it's black and white that what she did was highly illegal and there's no way she wasn't aware of it.

I'll ask the same of you as I did another. Please provide an example as precedence.

And yes I know you're still here, despite 2 proclamations that you couldn't continue to argue with me because of my immaturity or something, another *gasp* personal attack that you found so offensive when I did it to you. So you are not only a hypocrite but a liar as well because you do indeed continue to argue and continue to be wrong.

I wasn't offended. You're wasting my time. Your debate approach is not only logically-fallacious, but immature.

Grow up and come talk to me with some maturity. We can agree or disagree and that's fine, but don't waste my time with such nonsense.

As I said there is no precedent. No SecState with access to some of the most sensitive materials our government produces has ever run them through an unprotected personal server before. And no what past SecStates have done is not the same as what she did, before you even try to claim that nonsense. When presented with something you can't refute, you claim it's logically fallacious, of course providing no evidence, because that's an easy way out. It's not logically fallacious because I know it's 100% correct and you can't change that because you simply don't have the requisite knowledge to. My debate approach is telling you what I know, which you obviously do not. I don't expect you to just take my word for it, because you are obviously biased. It's a fact she broke the law, it's a fact intent is not required for prosecution, and even if it was it's easily demonstrable that there's no way someone with her experience could've done it accidentally. Sorry, you're wrong. I know you're not adult enough to admit it, so you can get your little reply in so you can sleep tonight and we can get back to the subject at hand.

It was patently irresponsible for Comey to not recommend prosecution under those circumstances because it sets a dangerous precedent that someone who knowingly mishandles classified information to such an egregious degree, which has no precedent, will get away with it. It was my opinion that in order for Comey to do that, he either had to be corrupt or be influenced by those above him in his chain of command. Either way, there are numerous examples of him failing to properly do his job as were lined out by the Deputy AG's letter, and he needed to be fired. All the conspiracy theories about Trump firing him to derail the Russia investigation are still baseless and make no logical sense.

Double post

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

So it was in the form of a question.

Glad we cleared that up.

Anything else?

Not that I can think of.

That you decided to answer yourself, or insinuating our position, which was false.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not a good example. While the person may not of had the intent to kill someone while driving drunk, they made the conscious decision to get drunk and then get behind the wheel of the car.

There was no proof that Clinton intended to collect classified material and then send it though email.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Good to see you posting, J&C!

The Stonetear incident was painful to behold!

I remember it well.
Funny how fast it was forgotten or ignored by so many.

originally posted by: introvert

As far as the racist aspect and the protection, I don't go that far down the nutter rabbit hole.

My apologies.

It's a very shallow hole. I mean, it's not like it wasn't blatant and all-the-time.

a reply to: introvert

Almost missed this, sorry.

Simply griping about Trump for the sake of griping is not productive, but I would like to know why he did what he did.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

That's fair. Just not realistic. Trump made a decision, and it is his prerogative to share it or not with the public.

I suspect it was based on several factors, with the final straw being the request made by Rosenstein. But that's just my opinion. I don't speak for Trump.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Comey is not a legislator... or even a prosecutor.

True, but he made it clear the precedence they were working off of and how the JD approaches such cases.

Petraeus

His actions showed direct intent. Not a good example.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope. It is you who are wrong. While intent may not be a requirement, malicious intent with respect to mishandling classified material has always been the mainstay of a decision to prosecute. Some of us call that precedent.


Where you are wrong, was that the "intent bs" was some form of fabrication to "get Hillary out of charges". Stop trying to aggrandize yourself.

ETA: that a comparison between drunken driving, manslaughter (which are not tantamount to murder charges as you have implied) and mishandling classified information are an apples and oranges comparison.

a reply to: face23785

As I said there is no precedent.

Yes, there is. Please read up and respond accordingly.

a reply to: introvert


Clinton made the conscious decision of having a private server, obtaining an IT company to install it and run it and maintain it, all the while having the required briefings / classes on the handling of classified information, is proof.

the federal law also states if a person is unsure if something is classified they are REQUIRED to contact the controlling authority to determine its status.

Not to mention her classification status as a Senator on the armed forces committee...

nice try though.