No announcement yet.

Hillary's legal future

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
    Thanks for the examples. Prosecuting Hillary Clinton for these alleged crimes would I think make the OJ Simpson case look like a 'piece of cake', given the likely lawyers involved, the wording of the statute and the evolving nature of technology.

    It'd be long, bitter and ultimately I believe a futile endeavor and a waste of taxpayer resources (though of course it might bankrupt her- again, maybe the reason to try). I guess we'll see.
    Hillary was not prosecuted only because of her political connections. We have a sailor doing time for taking pictures of his submarine's interior and a Four Star General prosecuted for giving his girlfriend access to his computer. Everyone had access to Hillary's, including her Latino maid.
    Flag: USA / Location: West Coast




    • #77
      I would say no prosecution... if she and the Foundation would go away.


      • #78
        Originally posted by General Staff View Post
        1) I think you forget the audience here- non-lawyers. Most folks here wouldn't have a dixie what a 'term of art' is. It doesn't help if you get nouns and adjectives mixed up either, whether in a court of law or in English usage. It can be confusing.
        2&3) If they are 'the same thing' then why use the phrase 'carelessly and negligently', unless they're slightly different? If not just use one or the other. Again, confusing.
        4) Any person competent in English also understands this. And that careless(ly) and negligent(ly) are not the same word, and though their meanings are similar, they are not identical. In a court room the difference in meanings between the two could also mean the difference in a verdict or sentence.
        5) Any lawyer in this case- for or against- could drive any number of trucks through this, once the (sometime separate) worlds of English, the Law and technology collide here. I'd bet this was written before the widespread use of email.
        6) See 5. I doubt it, any of what you mention- piece of cake, routine, uncomplicated? Try explaining email protocols, server setup/security etc.. to a jury of normal folks, At best you'd end up with a whole lot of reasonable doubt in any jury of peers.
        7) As I said, she can produce any defense- whether it works or not is another question. I doubt she'd need to press the ignorance button, just explain why the existing one wasn't good enough as you suggest she might, maybe then see what the State Department's response to that was.
        8) See 7. Even if it came to an 'ignorance defense', I doubt it'd be presented in a way anyone would enjoy.

        I'm sorry. Like all professions, lawyers tend to believe that phrases that are common for them are common for everyone.
        I had assumed that "term of art" had a more common usage, but you are probably right that it does not.

        The 2 words are both used to describe "negligence". A complaint that alleges a person was "careless and negligent" is attempting to allege a person was negligent. Lawyers are repetitious. If you ever read a contract, you will note it will describe the same thing several different ways.
        Since Comey (the FBI director) was speaking about the law, he knew full well what he was saying and its implications. Lay people might not recognize a difference, but lawyers understood the error of his statement.

        Whether a lawyer could drive a truck through the language of the statute is questionable as the DOJ has convicted several people under that statute, at least as I understand it.

        Hillary could certainly claim that the existing email system wasn't good enough, but at no time did she have authority to ignore it.
        Every email she typed as a government employee, belonged to the government, not her. She doesn't get to decide how official communications are stored or transmitted, because at no time do they belong to her.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.


        • #79
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post

          Gov Christie is the head of the Presidential Transition team.

          That was politics we're moving on to governing the country.....
          Not anymore......




          • #80
            Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
            Not anymore......
            Yes now the 12 year Congress critter and former GOP governor that is the GOP Elected is in charge. Another outsider.
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll


            Latest Topics