Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "FBI Director Fails To Explain Why Hillary Got Special Treatment" video.

Actually ... I had hoped Hillary would be indicted, but it's my impression that James Comey is a man of very high integrity and really have done a professional job unbiased job here. He's most likely right... No reasonable prosecutor would pursue criminal charges. However... - as he also have hinted - nobody would be able to do as Hillary did without disciplinary consequences. Only problem... she cannot be fired from her job. She cannot be degraded.... all people could have done is not vote for her, since she obviously has a judgment problem. But this information came out too late for the primaries and she's lucky enough that her opponent in the general is Armageddon waiting to happen.
5
Phillip Griffin Because case law (which is pretty important under common law) has 90 years with only one case being tried on intent. When you say that have prosecuted other for "less", you must have something specific in mind and a non-subjective? criteria for judging what is "less"?
1
Phillip Griffin Well... I don't know the specifics of the case. You should really ask Comey... and he has spoken about it: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/07/five-times-comey-corrected-right-wing-media-misinformation-during-his-congressional-testimony/211422#4 PS: Let me add - for clarity - that I do think such behavior should be punishable. As an IT-professional working with security issues daily and knowing than in any other similar situation there would have been serious disciplinary consequences for not using the classified system on purpose out of "convenience". It's beyond me why there's no legal framework for making that criminal. I can understand why she wanted to keep her personal emails out of FOIA, but then she should have used 2 systems. But still ... given the case law as Comey reports it, I can understand why he feel that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case under the current law. ... And I sometimes wonder whether "common law" is a wise approach.
1
Phillip Griffin Sorry ... I updated my post while you answered. No, I weren't trying to quote Comey about gross negligence. I linked to a transcript where he specifically addressed your question. And no .... I don't think Comey is the only one knowing. There's been plenty of legal scholars agreeing with this.
1
Phillip Griffin I guess this articles discussion is relevant: http://www.inquisitr.com/3277036/dont-blame-comey-blame-mens-rea-the-real-reason-hillary-clinton-wont-be-charged-in-email-probe-but-likely-should/ ... and - as you -say, apart from Comeys objections which I linked to above, the cases seem similar. Another thing though... One has to be careful in using the word "intent". There's a lot of things which can be done "intentionally" here. Clearly she "intented" to set up the server and use it for all communications. (which should in it self be criminal in her position), but that's not the same as she intended to commit a crime.
1
Phillip Griffin "but he doesn't think he can prove she knew at the time she was breaking the law." Yes... There's a lack of mens rea. And he sais that other cases of gross negligence where different in some way. Well... to me what she did was gross negligence... but common law says otherwise. ... as I said. I doubt whether common law is wise.
1
Phillip Griffin Clarify for me ... didn't Comey say that even the mails marked as classified at the time was very poorly marked?
1
Phillip Griffin No it wasn't ... I think he was talking about the other statue only.
1
Phillip Griffin I think Comey also addressed this in the hearing. Actually ... I haven't seen all of the hearing, but I was surprised that unlike other of the GOP witch-hunt hearings this one actually had a lot of good questions from both sides to make people understand how this stuff work.
1
Phillip Griffin That was what I meant. At some point during the hearing someone asked him about negligence in such cases.
1