2016 Postmortem

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)

77. Gross negligence

Reply to MineralMan (Original post)

Mon May 30, 2016, 05:55 PM

May 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

123 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Criminal Intent - That's what's missing and why no indictment will ensue. [View all] MineralMan May 2016 OP

Speculation pmorlan1 May 2016 #1

One thing that's not a speculation would be the statment's she's made. Loudestlib May 2016 #104

what about criminal negligence? eom Karma13612 May 2016 #2

She Is Guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE Which IS Sufficient To Bring An FBI Rec For INDICTMENT! CorporatistNation May 2016 #7

That is only your opinion, and should be stated as such. MineralMan May 2016 #16

As is your OP. NorthCarolina May 2016 #19

Look at the signature line at the bottom of this post. MineralMan May 2016 #22

I read posts, but I rarely if ever read signature lines. NorthCarolina May 2016 #24

I'm not sure how anyone would see a post MineralMan May 2016 #30

Doesn't show on mobile. Desert805 May 2016 #27

Can't help you there. I'm not going to put a disclaimer MineralMan May 2016 #28

Maybe you should consider deleting your post above NorthCarolina May 2016 #35

I wasn't asking for help. Desert805 May 2016 #40

Just an FYI, but my tablet doesn't show sig lines for some reason, including my own. Not sure GreenPartyVoter May 2016 #119

No, it's actually in the law. Press Virginia May 2016 #101

Do you even know what 'gross negligence' means? COLGATE4 May 2016 #81

It was IN ALL CAPS, so he must. Hortensis May 2016 #120

Yeah, I forgot about the 'all caps' rule. COLGATE4 May 2016 #123

Unless you are a lawyer and an expert in the relevant law, yours is an opinion. kstewart33 May 2016 #114

Maybe. Maybe not. HassleCat May 2016 #3

Document security violations do not allow for intent. hobbit709 May 2016 #4

Intent is not an element of the alleged crime hootinholler May 2016 #5

That's the 2 sections her supporters will ignore or twist. Incredible the denial level that is merbex May 2016 #85

There are unbiased legal experts who disagree. RDANGELO May 2016 #6

Obstructing FOIA! Not A Trustworthy Person Is That Hillary... Hiding , Hiding, Hiding! CorporatistNation May 2016 #11

...'intent to commit a crime'... HumanityExperiment May 2016 #8

Is this the new talking point? nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #9

He never has good talking points Ichingcarpenter May 2016 #12

The goalposts have been moved yet again AgingAmerican May 2016 #10

Great bumper sticker: "Hillary: Not Indicted 2016"!! nt Bonobo May 2016 #13

I'm not an attorney, but I do play one on the internet.... Bluenorthwest May 2016 #14

Thank you -- I keep trying to explain that obamanut2012 May 2016 #15

Yes, policy. MineralMan May 2016 #18

If a Secretary of State decided as a matter of "policy" The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #60

She won't be indicted because she's Hillary, mens rea or not. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #17

I don't think it's simple, but when you get to cabinet department heads MineralMan May 2016 #20

No indictment will happen because she's Hillary, and that's enough. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #21

Actually, because she was Secretary of State. MineralMan May 2016 #23

Cabinet secretaries have been variously charged, indicted, etc. on a number of occasions. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #38

Guess what isn't required to charge Clinton with a crime over her emails? jeff47 May 2016 #25

There's one other thing hat is considered when charging someone with a crime... napi21 May 2016 #31

It doesn't work that way. A crime occurs if a criminal statute is violated, The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #41

You are conflating intent and harm. Nt msanthrope May 2016 #58

No, I am not. You can be guilty of a crime The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #59

Well, therein lies your conflation....you seem to to think HRC committed a strict liability msanthrope May 2016 #62

No, I'm not applying any of this discussion to Hillary. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #65

Strict liability sctrict liability. So long as you're outraged, it's a crime COLGATE4 May 2016 #83

Well, I love the explanation downthread. Apparently he isn't talking about HRC, now. nt msanthrope May 2016 #118

"One is the "criminal intent" route, where they sell classified or hand it over to a foreign . . . brush May 2016 #33

Initially, it was not what Snowden did. jeff47 May 2016 #46

I thought the statute required gross negligence?? COLGATE4 May 2016 #82

Well, Patreus was charged under it. jeff47 May 2016 #84

I posted excerpts from the charging document i the Petraeaus case and they find intent Gothmog May 2016 #93

What I know is that gross negligence is required under the statute, not ordinary COLGATE4 May 2016 #110

Again, what do you think the threshold for gross negligence is? jeff47 May 2016 #112

Gross negligence has a specific meaning in the law. It is wanton or wilful misconduct with COLGATE4 May 2016 #113

Great, you can use google. Now, what do you think qualifies in this situation? jeff47 May 2016 #116

Actually, that isn't from Google. I don't think they come close COLGATE4 May 2016 #117

Ridiculous. Jester Messiah May 2016 #26

"Hillary Clinton admits that she wishes she had handled her email in a different way ... Martin Eden May 2016 #29

What you think is poor judgment and lying MineralMan May 2016 #32

cheney didn't get indicted for knowingly outing Valerie Plame MariaThinks May 2016 #37

I didn't say it was reason for indictment Martin Eden May 2016 #72

All opinions are not created equal... Melissa G May 2016 #109

Well stated MariaThinks May 2016 #34

So, tell me this, in your opinion this will not tarnish Hillary in the GE, IF she evades indictment? highprincipleswork May 2016 #36

I had expected a bit of a white wash from the Inspector General of Jarqui May 2016 #39

You misunderstand. She doesn't have to have "intent to commit a crime" just intent to commit the JudyM May 2016 #42

There are *two* types of Mens Rea: *specific* intent, and *general* intent. Look it up. Romulox May 2016 #43

+ A brazillian. opiate69 May 2016 #44

LOL! JudyM May 2016 #115

You don't need intent, but if you want some, she has it. Fawke Em May 2016 #45

Your attempt at analysis is wrong Gothmog May 2016 #86

So this is what it seems to come down to: libdem4life May 2016 #47

Not all crimes require proof of criminal intent. That's just not accurate. morningfog May 2016 #48

A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'knowingly' Gothmog May 2016 #50

Those are not the only laws at issue here. morningfog May 2016 #54

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server Gothmog May 2016 #87

A few points in response. morningfog May 2016 #103

Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy Gothmog May 2016 #49

Exactly. Wishful thinking will not change the facts. MineralMan May 2016 #52

Wishful thinking in this case is a grave failure of morality Hortensis May 2016 #121

Who gives a fuck about e-mail? Rattlesnake Chaser May 2016 #67

The e-mails were not marked classified and so no law was broken Gothmog May 2016 #96

She may not have willfully disclosed classified material but she willfully mishandled it. Nuclear Unicorn May 2016 #51

She intentionally violated State Department rules TeddyR May 2016 #53

She was the Secretary of State, you may remember. MineralMan May 2016 #55

Secretaries of State do not make laws. They are as bound by laws as everyone else. The Velveteen Ocelot May 2016 #63

Again, you're incorrect. Fawke Em May 2016 #64

You seriously think that is how the executive branch functions? Yurovsky May 2016 #70

Quite familiar, no? opiate69 May 2016 #76

Ironic how it all came full circle for HRC... Yurovsky May 2016 #80

I've always been a big fan of irony... Alanis Morrisette, notwithstanding lol opiate69 May 2016 #89

Yeah, that song proved she didn't know what the word means... Yurovsky May 2016 #94

I assume this is sarcasm TeddyR May 2016 #71

They say assumption... discntnt_irny_srcsm May 2016 #98

Oooh, open the prisons and let all of those that had no intent out. Haha, good one. nt Live and Learn May 2016 #56

OK. There are a helluva lot of people in prison who MineralMan May 2016 #57

Mineral Man, "Expert" Legal Analyst TheSarcastinator May 2016 #61

Actually MM did a pretty decent job on this thread Gothmog May 2016 #91

uhuh...except for that one little detail.... TheSarcastinator May 2016 #100

Laypersons are so cute and adorable when they attempt to understand legal concepts Gothmog May 2016 #106

Nonsense. The law is what it is, Hortensis May 2016 #122

seriously you're going to go with that-"she didn't know"? azurnoir May 2016 #66

From a legal standpoint, national security does need not fit this profile. Classified information Exilednight May 2016 #68

Republicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can�t say so. Gothmog May 2016 #88

Circumventing Federal Law without criminal intent? AgingAmerican May 2016 #69

Intent only matters if the specific statute requires it. Ash_F May 2016 #73

With all due respect DefenseLawyer May 2016 #74

I thought the difference between intentially committing security crimes trudyco May 2016 #75

Same rules apply Gothmog May 2016 #90

Gross negligence AgingAmerican May 2016 #77

What about using the private server she used to communicate with Blumenthal - who'd polly7 May 2016 #78

The element of mens really is established by the warnings she received from NSA leveymg May 2016 #79

You are wrong again Gothmog May 2016 #92

I think MM should answer that for himself. leveymg May 2016 #99

BTW, even a fox news talking head disagrees with your attempts at analysis Gothmog May 2016 #97

Hillary not guilty does not compute when result is Bernie loss realmirage May 2016 #95

It's not a crime to be stupid. rickford66 May 2016 #102

This sounds like someone who knows she's housing classified materials.... Bob41213 May 2016 #105

I am not a lawyer but what you say seems false on its face considering there are many examples... Bread and Circus May 2016 #107

Correct, which is why the foundation problems are very serious crimes larkrake May 2016 #108

True... that's a fairly weak claim for the nomination though Recursion May 2016 #111