BREAKING Lorreta Lynch under investigation!

Reckless disregard doesn't require intent in fact in fact if there was intent it would no longer be reckless disregard.

So who at the DOS cyber security and office of largal counsel told her her server met all legal and security requirements?

 

What does tbat have to do with Rice. There must be a dozen threads about Truml tax returns.

 

The State Dept staff specifically informed HRC that using a private server was prohibited. She concealed that server. Debate over.

 

Just reckless disregard.

 

She intended to act with extreme carelessness when she decided to engage in her shadow server scheme.

 

Yet she testified before congress they told her it met all the rules and the law.

 

The standard is "gross negligence", and her actions didn't rise to that, either, per the FBI, which cited extensive precedent to explain that.

You have had this explained to you before. Repeatedly.

What does that have to do with anything? The question is whether she broke the law regarding the handling of classified materials. Breaking a policy is not breaking the law. Incorrectly handling classified materials is not a crime without either intent or gross negligence.

This has been explained to you before. Repeatedly.

 

I was responding to a post about Trump's returns.

 

Bluesguy's opinion /= legal reality. As the FBI took pains to point out.

 

Er, no they didn't. The gist of the issue is that she never asked anyone at State if it was allowed. They didn't know about it until it came up in news reports.

 

How about you, do you think they'll throw Huma under the bus?

 

No fact, even Comey stated doing so was extreme carelessness and we know she INTENDED for those emails to be sent to her unsecured Blackberry and private shadow server.

So at the DOS in their cyber security office and office of legal counsel told her she was in compliance with all the necessary security requirements, rules and laws in using her private shadow server for all her email communications?

 

A distinction without merit and yes he said her actions rose to that level. And as was shown back then there is precident for her to be charged and she was instructed she would be charged if she did handle such information with extreme carelessness.

It has been attempted to excuses her reckless disregard for our national security repeatedly but it certainly does not.

Much of government policy especially the handling of classified material is EMBODIED in the law, that is why it is a rule for handling such material and shall not be violated under penalty of law.

This has been explained to you before. Repeatedly.

 

I have no doubt she will do as Clinton's cohorts always do refuse to testify or plead the 5th. It is there SOP and I am sure they are all coordinating their stories.

 

That is true. In addition to this, when she took the job as a Senator and as Secretary of State, she signed a slew of forms for IT governess and the handling of classified information. When she signed those forms, it laid out specifically what she could do and the laws governing her compliance with those policies. She knew damn well what she was doing and she also knew the procedure for handling and transmitting electronic communications. She knew she was breaking the law but she didn't care because she wanted the convenience of using multiple devices and the ease of skirting official channels. Also, her own server would allow her to communicate outside government systems and it would keep her information away from the Freedom of Information Act which means none of her communications could be subject to release to the public.

That means, all of the money she is was getting through her Foundation and the business dealings could be kept secret. "Pay to play" could be kept going with no electronic trail.

Hillary Clinton broke the law. She knew she broke the law and she had an arrangement set up with the DOJ to protect her in exchange for Lynch to keep her position.

 

Not our made up minds KKK boys and girls.
Thought the FBI etc found nothing illegal

 

Don't we remember our sweaty littleTrey after 13 hrs of grilling, "we got nothing"

 

Maybe it was one of knees news "Muslims are talking over Birmingham" which even they had to retract.
And what is in the taxes? Thought Don the con would release to embarras the dreaded commies

 

amazing you know what she was thinking.
You should be a psychiatrist
Foundation is A rated ,just like dons

 

Almost completely incoherent and unreadable. So.... What are you trying to say?

What time zone are you in? I usually don't break out the Single Malt scotch until after 5PM. Makes a good before dinner drink and goes well with roasted almonds.

 

Selling our uranium to the Russians and alinski thesis next, more garbage

 

Funny how our Benghazi boys never mention ronnies 250 dead Beirut marines

 

What intrigues me is how, given what we've seen, the revelations in Hillary's emails, Podesta's, Huma's to Weiner, other of her campaign "operatives", Blumenthal, Lynch's possible collusion, pay-to-play at the Foundation, Benghazi, that uranium deal... all this rather compromising stuff, had "the Russians", Guccifer, Wikileaks or whoever not leaked anything and a cooperative media never raised the issue, wouldn't the US be in a predicament with Hillary as president and all this information in Putín's hands?

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. "Gross negligence" is a legal standard. The words "reckless disregard" do not mean the same thing, and are not relevant to determining if the "gross negligence" standard was met.

*Sigh.* No, he didn't. Which is why he didn't charge her with it.

"Extreme carelessness" is also not "gross negligence." One can use strong language to denounce behavior that nonetheless doesn't rise to the legal standard in question. The idea that because Comey said "extreme carelessness" he was admitting Clinton was "grossly negligent" is beyond stupid.

No, policies are not law. They may REFLECT law, but a policy does not carry the force of law. The penalties for violating a policy are invariably administrative. If there are legal penalties, they are based on violations of the related law, not violations of the policy.

For instance, no one can stop me from writing a policy that says "Murder will not be tolerated in the office." Violating that policy is not what constitutes law-breaking; violating the underlying laws against murder is what constitutes law-breaking.

If I kept writing and said "violators will be thrown in jail", that would be unenforceable nonsense, because a policy cannot create law. All I can do is say something like "Violators will be fired, as well as be liable for any applicable legal penalties." The last half of that sentence is not actually necessary, as people would be liable for those penalties whether or not this policy existed.

 

She would be impeached. Just like her husband was, only she would actually be removed from office.She has committed offenses that could literally land her in jail. Two ongoing investigations are still underway.