Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

[COLGATE4]

203. Negligence is generally defined as either 'doing something that a reasonable person of

ordinary prudence (a term of art) would not do" or "failure to do something that a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have done". What you don't understand is that this shoebox definition is only a point of departure. What those words mean in terms of their application in real life is dependent upon 100's of cases which have been litigated over the past 200 years or so and where each case has added to just what those terms mean when they are applied to a real life court case. That's why our system is based on case law. And why that simple definition requires professionals to consult a hornbook which has (if memory serves) well over 1000 pages explaining each little twist and turn before jumping up and saying that 'such and such' is negligent.

Gross negligence is an entirely different animal. It is generally understood to be an offense of a much higher degree, usually described as "wanton or wilful misconduct" or a "reckless disregard to the results of the action". (To be wilful, there first thing that has to be proved is that there was scienter, the legal term for intent.) And, just like simple negilgence, the definition is only the starting point. Decisions taken in hundreds of prior cases will determine just how it should be applied, if at all. And gross negligence is the standard that would have had to have been violated in order to find Hillary guilty in the e-mail kerfluffle. And that's virtually all attorneys who have looked at this have stated that Hillary will not be indicted.