President Trump Fires James Comey

a reply to: introvert

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

Again, Petraeus.

But if you want to get more general, me. I have been tried and convicted for accidentally speeding. I just didn't notice the posted signs. No intent, but none needed. I still got a fine.

TheRedneck

a reply to: alphabetaone

Yeah the standard is gross negligence sparky. If you disagree take it up with Congress, who passed the law and established gross negligence as the standard.

That doesnt even cover the other laws she violated.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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 question is now considered insinuation?

That's odd.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Still not a hole I want to go down. It serves no purpose and is not comparable to the simple concerns I have.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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 question is now considered insinuation?

That's odd.

No but taking it upon yourself to answer the question on our behalf is...

you up to speed or do I need to keep explaining it until you understand or until you stop feigning ignorance.

a reply to: introvert

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

He is not part of the DoJ. He does not speak for the DoJ. He was out of line to try and explain how the DoJ approaches cases.

Comey is a cop, not a lawyer. Tip: never get legal advice from a cop. Always consult a lawyer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

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.

Not illegal.

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.

Did Clinton send anything classified she was unsure of? That could prove intent.

a reply to: face23785

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.

This is an old argument that has been put to bed by the terminated one himself:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

fbi.gov

But these facts are ignored by those who wish they were otherwise.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Again, Petraeus.

They had proof of his intent by his own actions. They do not have the same with Clinton. Patraeus pled guilty.

But if you want to get more general, me. I have been tried and convicted for accidentally speeding. I just didn't notice the posted signs. No intent, but none needed. I still got a fine.

It's not that simple and you know it. You're not a dummy.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

Yeah the standard is gross negligence sparky. If you disagree take it up with Congress, who passed the law and established gross negligence as the standard.

That doesnt even cover the other laws she violated.

I'm not arguing that law. Nor do I honestly care to. The general concensus here is that Comey is a dreg of society because his recommendation was that prosecution was folly at best because a "reasonable prosecutor" wouldn't touch it. In that vein and in that respect he would have been correct simply because a prosecutor will weigh malicious intent no matter how vociferously you want to eschew the laws that you believe you know so well. They will, have, and do take that into account......sparky.

a reply to: introvert

Well actually it is illegal and just because you refuse t acknowledge a law doesnt mean it doesnt exist or apply.

If she was unsure of any status she is required by law to check before taking action. Secondly Comey already stated she sent classified material that was properly marked. Huma did the same thing.

and again intent is not a requirement and again, repeating intent doesnt make it into what you are desperately hoping for.

But hey if the DOJ reopens the case we will find out.

a reply to: introvert

Ah, that's right. Trump should be subject to scrutiny, by all, but it's NBD that Obama was protected from scrutiny.

Gotcha. Please don't wonder why half the country doesn't give a rat's ass why Trump fired Comey. You have your answer.

a reply to: alphabetaone

and by law it was not his place to make that decision to not file charges.

gross negligence is the requirement and intent is not needed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm in no position to answer on your behalf. I can give my opinion on how you may answer my questions, but the questions still remained.

Do with it what you will.

a reply to: introvert

Petraus was never found guilty. He took a plea deal. Show me a list of people who accepted ple deals under 793F.

a reply to: introvert

Not illegal.

Oh, dear me, yes it is!

My last internship was working with NASA on research... mishandling sensitive, not even classified, data, including carrying it on personal devices, is highly illegal even if one does not hold a security clearance!

ALL my data was safely stored on an official PC and I refused to even bring my laptop in.

TheRedneck

a reply to: introvert

and yet you answered on my behalf.. maybe next time read your entire post before hitting reply to avoid insinuations.

Meanwhile, I don't think any of us is any closer to the truth about Director Comey's termination than we were 92 pages ago. If anything, it seems farther away than ever.

Mission Accomplished?

a reply to: TheRedneck

He is not part of the DoJ. He does not speak for the DoJ. He was out of line to try and explain how the DoJ approaches cases.

True. He is/was the head of the FBI and can only speak to the protocols they would use in a recommendation. And that he did.

Comey is a cop, not a lawyer. Tip: never get legal advice from a cop. Always consult a lawyer.

That is not true. Comey was/is a lawyer and understands the American legal system. That experience, combined with legal precedence, is what informed his decision.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

and by law it was not his place to make that decision to not file charges.

gross negligence is the requirement and intent is not needed.

As FBI director it WAS his choice to make, just as much as it is a local PD's choice to make whether or not to file charges against someone for lesser crimes.

The decision to or not can be challenged, but it was absolutely his place to make that decision.