Early Comey Memo on Clinton Accused Her of Gross Negligence

While this isn't surprising to anyone who has had any sort of legal education, it's very damning. They changed the terminology to extremely careless, which is just gross negligence by another name. The real question is why and who changed it? The why we can infer that they had to because otherwise they would have described a crime perfectly, then said "but we're not going to charge her because she's the dem nominee."

The who? is another matter. Did comey change it? Was it someone else? Were they directed to change it or was it just a given that they had to change it since the term gross negligence is laid out in the law.

LINK

Whoever changed it is grossly negligent, too, I'd say.

Really, grossely to extremely, jesus christ all mighty, the spin needed by the right is on another level.

So on a scale level of 1 to 10 whats the difference between the 2.


I nearly forgot to add this lovely gem, much softer accusation, hahahhahahaah, who writes this #.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I never thought it was negligence at all. She purposely set up the private server so her comms didn't go through proper channels.

To me, that's worse than negligence, and the wiping of the server was down right criminal.

a reply to: Dfairlite

How many times are we going to hear this tripe. She didn't win. The election is over. She's not in government.

Doesn't this country have any pressing social problems worth addressing?

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The difference is Obstruction Of Justice,
Committed by Loretta Lynch.

"Just call it a matter"

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Dfairlite


Doesn't this country have any pressing social problems worth addressing?

Yes, the Swamp. It's what we're discussing here. It's our most pressing issue because it's the "poison inside." Pay attention, lad.

a reply to: Mach2

Exactly right!

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Really, grossely to extremely, jesus christ all mighty, the spin needed by the right is on another level.

So on a scale level of 1 to 10 whats the difference between the 2.


I nearly forgot to add this lovely gem, much softer accusation, hahahhahahaah, who writes this #.

It's In the article....the reason for the significance...I'll quote it for you as you obviously didn't read it nor care that it was changed.

The change is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.

a reply to: dfnj2015

No, we need to get to the truth and expose it to all. Only then can we move forward.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Dfairlite

I never thought it was negligence at all. She purposely set up the private server so her comms didn't go through proper channels.

To me, that's worse than negligence, and the wiping of the server was down right criminal.

This is the most important point that shockingly high numbers of "educated" people can not understand.

She is a career criminal and her behavior shows it.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

The difference is Obstruction Of Justice,
Committed by Loretta Lynch.

"Just call it a matter"

Oh it was just somebody's "matter" of opinion.

Somebody like Loretta and Barack.

a reply to: Dfairlite

But the clincher was 'WITHOUT INTENT' - gross negligence / extreme carelessness are secondary to the action.

It is a blessing in disguise because moving forward, elected representatives can be as reckless as they like, as long as they answer 'I don't recall' and conduct themselves such that it's near-impossible to prove 'intent' - even when it's clear as day they intended to do 'it'.

originally posted by: The GUT
Whoever changed it is grossly negligent, too, I'd say.

Hillary was just plain "incompetently gross".

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Dfairlite

How many times are we going to hear this tripe. She didn't win. The election is over. She's not in government.

Doesn't this country have any pressing social problems worth addressing?

You are failing to put the pieces together as to why we have "pressing" social problems.

She did not win (thank god) but she is simply the puppet of the criminal deep state that has incrementally and insidiously destroyed the fabric of our society.

We have a rare opportunity for them to be exposed, this is why we are hearing it time and time again.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Dfairlite


Doesn't this country have any pressing social problems worth addressing?

Yes, the Swamp. It's what we're discussing here. It's our most pressing issue because it's the "poison inside." Pay attention, lad.

Clinton is not in the swamp. So why do you pretend she is?

a reply to: elementalgrove

I'm all for justice. If a politician breaks the law put them in jail. But with Clinton there is never any real evidence. There's never any indictments. There's always no there-there. Everything is pure conjecture and subjective judgments designed to score cheap political points with the base. The base loves red meat Clinton bashing. It's like political heroin.

In the meantime, either indict Hillary or shut the farkle up. Besides superstitious opinions there's NO EVIDENCE of laws bein broken.

And if there were laws broken then why haven't Republicans setup a special counsel to investigate. Either Republicans are incompetent or complicit. But scoring cheap political points are baseless opinions is mind numbingly stupid.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well looks like Senate Judiciary has an opinion just now,
Grassley Demands Original Comey Documents.

Lindsay Graham is calling for a Special Counsel.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Dfairlite


Doesn't this country have any pressing social problems worth addressing?

Yes, the Swamp. It's what we're discussing here. It's our most pressing issue because it's the "poison inside." Pay attention, lad.

Clinton is not in the swamp. So why do you pretend she is?

Uhh What ?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But with Clinton there is never any real evidence.

Except for all the classified material in emails flying all over unsecured systems.