So is it fair to say that if both are subjective, it is more appropriate for the judiciary to make that determination?Both are subjective, but my understanding is that gross negligence is when you know something bad is likely to happen as a result of your actions and still don't care. For example, voting for Trump in November.
So is it fair to say that if both are subjective, it is more appropriate for the judiciary to make that determination?
No, but what I do expect is that if a prosecutor chooses not to bring charges, but then uses language that arguably demonstrated the minimum criteria to bring charges, then perhaps the judiciary needs to weigh in.So you want prosecutors to charge people and damage/ruin their lives and/or careers even when they themselves don't believe a crime has been committed, and let the judiciary sort it out? Maybe think some more?
In my opinion it would be better for Major Brezler to be pardoned than to win his case. Allowing a major to make the decision when to divulge classified documents sets the bar awfully low. On the other hand, pardoning an officer for breaking the law for a noble cause seems a pretty good use of the right of pardon.
No, but what I do expect is that if a prosecutor chooses not to bring charges, but then uses language that arguably demonstrated the minimum criteria to bring charges, then perhaps the judiciary needs to weigh in.
Comey should have either recommended charged or vindicated Clinton with no conditional reprimands.
The suspect didn't shoplift, but don't ever let me catch you suspiciously procuring again!!!
Of course you can. There's functionally no such thing as clearance for the president. They have access to everything as they are the source of all clearances.
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey – taken last night - finds that 37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.
Pretty big tilt against Hillary.
37% agree with the FBI
54% disagree with the FBI
Election polls next week should be interesting.
Director of the FBI, who happens to be a Republican, looked at the evidence, and decided no crime has been committed. But you want him to bring charges anyways? So you want a case where even the prosecution doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, but they charged someone just to double check? Is this the type of country you want to live in?
You may want to move to Russia, they like charging political opponents and letting judiciary "sort it out."
No, but what I do expect is that if a prosecutor chooses not to bring charges, but then uses language that arguably demonstrated the minimum criteria to bring charges, then perhaps the judiciary needs to weigh in.
Comey should have either recommended charges or vindicated Clinton with no conditional reprimands.
The suspect didn't shoplift, but don't ever let me catch you suspiciously procuring again!!!
Some interesting analysis of the email gaps.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ment-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016
Hang on - there's no email gap, it's just that the volume of Rosatom traffic is very low (i.e., it's a topic that's less frequently mentioned than the others). Even in the peak month, there are only 21 cables.
When there were a comparable 19 Zelaya cables (in May '09), there are 0 emails (Zelaya's peak is 136 cables in a month).
When there were a comparable 20 Copenhagen emails (Feb '10), there is 1 email (Copenhagen's peak is 72 cables in a month).
When there were a comparable 20 Lisbon cables (Sep '09), there are 0 emails.
This is incredibly lazy data journalism, unless I'm missing something.
Political affiliation is irrelevant.
Listen to what I am saying instead of reacting to it. Why raise the spectre of doubt with admonishment if your intent is to vindicate the suspect?
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Some interesting analysis of the email gaps.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ment-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016
Matthew Edwards · Attorney at Law at Owens Davies
There is clear evidence that Clinton deleted work related e-mails.
There is a principle in the law related to spoliation of evidence. When a person destroys evidence they are under a duty to preserve, the law allows you to infer that the content of the evidence was adverse to the interest of the person who destroyed it.
Here, application of that principle leads to the conclusion that Clinton destroyed evidence establishing that she used her position as Secretary of State to solicit contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.[1]
...
The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]
What part of this escapes you?
Reasonable prosecutors don't do witch hunts, which is what Repubs have been doing al along with this.
It's still what you want, obviously.
Political affiliation is irrelevant.
Listen to what I am saying instead of reacting to it. Why raise the spectre of doubt with admonishment if your intent is to vindicate the suspect?
Push poll. Look at the wording.
Jesus Christ is that wording bad. That is basically the dictionary definition of a push poll.
That isn't what he said. There was evidence of possible violations of statutes is what he said.Director of the FBI, who happens to be a Republican, looked at the evidence, and decided no crime has been committed.
It's Rasmussen, favorite polling company of President Romney.
The problem is all of Comey's words around that. The director the FBI has never held a press conference to announce they weren't pursuing charges against somebody, let alone going on for 15 minutes over all the things they did wrong that they won't be charged for. Comey played politics with this, his intent was to raise doubt and admonish, and here we are. Witch hunts, paranoia, accusations of corruption.
If this had been done to someone other than a Clinton... no, it simply would just never have been done to someone other than a Clinton.
That isn't what he said. There was evidence of possible violations of statutes is what he said.
Tell senseamp to quit lying about what he said.More importantly, he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.