What's the difference between being extremely careless and gross negligence

J

jeffblue101

New member
Today the FBI recommends no charges be brought against Hilary Clinton but the FBI seems to have made a case that charges should have been brought.
the law: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Click to expand...

THE FBI Today: "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and he goes on to list the numerous violations and the unreasonableness of her violations.

start video at 9:03

So I really Don't get what's the difference between being extremely careless and gross negligence?
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
CmnLV2CVYAAu_Uy.jpg:large
 
CabinetMaker

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
jeffblue101 said:
Today the FBI recommends no charges be brought against Hilary Clinton but the FBI seems to have made a case that charges should have been brought.
the law: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim


THE FBI Today: "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and he goes on to list the numerous violations and the unreasonableness of her violations.

So I really Don't get what's the difference between being extremely careless and gross negligence?
Click to expand...

A DA willing to press charges.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
Rudy Giuliani on fox news just said that Hillary Clinton could never pass a FBI background for security clearance for a lesser government position. He also agrees that extreme carelessness is the textbook definition of gross negligence.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The executive branch had no intention of indicting her on the crimes she committed. We knew this long ago, and was predicted. She will suggest during her campaign a post for Obama, like UN chief, Supreme Court, something juicy.
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
Hillary will need another fix before the election, State Department will now have to review Clinton's security clearance based on FBI assessment.
 
R

radind

New member
Nick M said:
The executive branch had no intention of indicting her on the crimes she committed. We knew this long ago, and was predicted. She will suggest during her campaign a post for Obama, like UN chief, Supreme Court, something juicy.
Click to expand...

Obama will be too busy counting his money from giving speeches to take a low-paying government job.
 
R

radind

New member
jeffblue101 said:
Rudy Giuliani on fox news just said that Hillary Clinton could never pass a FBI background for security clearance for a lesser government position. He also agrees that extreme carelessness is the textbook definition of gross negligence.
Click to expand...

New moral rules if your name is Clinton.
 
R

radind

New member
jeffblue101 said:
Today the FBI recommends no charges be brought against Hilary Clinton but the FBI seems to have made a case that charges should have been brought.
the law: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim


THE FBI Today: "there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and he goes on to list the numerous violations and the unreasonableness of her violations.

start video at 9:03

So I really Don't get what's the difference between being extremely careless and gross negligence?
Click to expand...

There are no facts and no truth and therefore no lies in the Secular Humanist world.
There are no facts, only interpretations. from Nietzsche’s Nachlass, A. Danto translation.
Click to expand...
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
The government is always unwilling to charge people like Hillary because if it turned out that a person was innocent, the word 'treason' will start being murmured toward everyone involved in the prosecution.

That is one factor to be aware of to understand why the demand for prosecution must be exercised both consistently and vigilantly by citizens. This is one of the reasons why anti-federalists existed in the first place.. so much for justice being blind.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
so, the next time I get pulled over for speeding all I have to do is tell the officer I was being extremely careless and he won't write me a ticket?


sweet! :thumb:
 
J

jeffblue101

New member
someone on Reddit left a pretty good analysis FBI's recommendation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4rd6ou/fbi_recommends_no_charges_against_hillary_clinton/
Is the FBI's Conclusion Accurate?

Forewarning: This is where the objectivity of this post concludes and personal opinion takes the reins.
Yes and no. The FBI is correct observing that an indictment under these circumstances would tread somewhat novel ground in that the intent element in Clinton's case is less substantial than previous prosecutions. There is no evidence that Clinton sought to harm the United States' interests, that she is in any way disloyal to her country, or that she set out with the intent to mishandle confidential information in such a precarious manner. It is also true that great deference is given to previous case law and prosecutions in determining the appropriateness of applying particular statutes to particular actions - if precedence is set following a particular pattern, that is an indication to the public as to how the law is interpreted and applied. It is arguably unjust to apply the law on a wider basis, having already established a pattern for its usage that the target of the investigation relied upon.

However, the flip side is plain to see: Going solely by the letter of the law, 18 USC §1924 was, in a strict reading of the statute and the FBI's conclusions, clearly violated. Clinton intentionally transmitted information that was known to be classified at the time of its transmission to private servers that were not authorized to traffic such information. The question of 18 USC §793 is more opaque, and would revolve around a jury's interpretation of her actions under the gross negligence standard. That said, it is not unreasonable to believe that a jury could view what the FBI termed "extreme carelessness" as a violation of that standard.

In sum - precedent would lean toward no indictment, the letter of the law and the favorability granted to the prosecution by the indictment process would speak to the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top