Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

12 Russian Intelligence Officials Indicted On Hacking Charges

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    You don't get to impeach simply because you don't like the election results, but I suspect they will try.

    Hillary did actually commit a crime, Comey's original report called her actions "gross negligence", which is precisely the standard for the crime she was being investigated for.
    Peter Storzk got comey to change that phrase to "extremely reckless". In the legal world, "extremely reckless" means the same thing as "gross negligence".
    Comey said he couldn't recommend prosecution because he couldn't prove "intent", the only problem with that is "intent" is not an element of the crime at issue.
    "Gross negligence" does not require "intent". It merely requires "extreme recklessness".

    Now, you can argue Hillary was innocent, but it is clear that Comey gave her a pass from prosecution.
    as you know I can rattle off a fairly long list of crimes by Trump

    embezzlement
    interfering with a criminal investigation (if you leave aside the whole argument of can you actually charge him
    sexual assault or some version of that currently he in court for this one.

    that just a quick list

    Comment


    • ^ Don't forget the fraud case stemming from Trump University. Talk about a cluster*ck....
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

        Stay home yankee.
        He's just a **** shoveling Canucster

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

          Make me stay home. I will fly over any country I feel like. I will contest any land or sea boundary as I see fit.
          Me too, using Google earth

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

            Give it a whirl. Bet you we win. Time to grow up and face reality. There's no other world power. Yeah we spend too much on defense.
            That's why your country is nearly bankrupt now. Oh. I forgot you personally have a golden parachute.

            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post

            Guess where most of my stocks are? Do you want a hint on what to buy? Lockheed Martin is a solid bet...
            Sorry Dude, you stock in mutual annihilation, how (sym)pathetic is that ?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              Funny how the Russia fan boys are careful to live elsewhere so as to avoid actually having to serve Little Mother Russia in the military.
              With age 64 ?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                Serving US by drinking coffee and shooting young gangstas ?
                You forgot "the hanging out in Donut joints".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Persephone View Post
                  Should Mueller take Putin up on his offer?
                  Why not let have the voters a referendum about this issue ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by craven View Post

                    as you know I can rattle off a fairly long list of crimes by Trump

                    embezzlement
                    interfering with a criminal investigation (if you leave aside the whole argument of can you actually charge him
                    sexual assault or some version of that currently he in court for this one.

                    that just a quick list


                    You were talking about standards, and I responded in kind. Now you have moved on to allegations.
                    Allegations are not the same as evidence and, as I said, Hillary was investigated and that investigation found that she violated the law. Based on comey’s own words.

                    We do not have a similar result with Trump.
                    If you are going to claim allegations are the same thing as Comey’s investigation of Hillary, then I see further comment as pointless.

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by craven View Post

                      naw both have commited equal crimes either both go or neither go
                      What equal crimes? Hillary is guilty of securities fraud, real estate fraud, bank fraud, domestic violence, felony theft, and a whole raft of national security violations. Trump is at most a molester of women... Which Hillary is probably guilty of too...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        What equal crimes? Hillary is guilty of securities fraud, real estate fraud, bank fraud, domestic violence, felony theft, and a whole raft of national security violations. Trump is at most a molester of women... Which Hillary is probably guilty of too...
                        and trump committed those same crimes. Well except for domestic violence.

                        and dam on your last one that gonna leave a mark :-)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by craven View Post

                          and trump committed those same crimes. Well except for domestic violence.

                          and dam on your last one that gonna leave a mark :-)
                          When and where did he do securities fraud? Hillary did that one with her commodities trading. The SEC didn't prosecute her only because the amount in the account was below their threshold for prosecution (generally $1 million). She was forced to close the account out and not do any more trading.
                          Real estate fraud and bank fraud was Whitewater. Hillary and Bill were business partners with the McDougal's who owned the S&L that was doing the actual fraud. The McDougal's went to prison for their part. The Clintons slid on that as Bill was President. Bill later pardoned the McDougal's for their refusing to testify against him and Hillary.
                          I can't see Trump looting the White House. I'd say the $86,000 paid to the Park Service amounts to a felony level fine. They were also responsible for vandalism that cost tens of thousands of dollars.
                          I doubt Trump has any viable cases of national security violations. As President, he is in a position where he really can't be charged with that one. Hillary on the other hand as Secretary of State and as a Senator has committed more than one, and several that rise to felonies, like her e-mail server.

                          Comment


                          • Hello counselor. This grand jury stuff intrigues me.

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            The court appoints a "foreperson" and that person presides over future meetings of the grand jury.
                            I'm assuming that this foreperson is himself a member of the panel. Does the foreman in anyway direct the grand jury's proceedings? Can he submit subjects for investigation?

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            The court doesn't run the jury, but can instruct it to investigate certain matters.
                            The court, or the prosecutor?

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            Usually the State's attorney will present evidence to try and get and indictment.
                            By presenting evidence, does the prosecutor introduce the evidence himself, or does he do it through a sworn witness? I'm only asking 'cause I know that in a criminal trial the prosecutor can't himself testify, so his evidence must be presented through the sworn testimony of witnesses.

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            Since there is only one side presenting evidence, odds are always good there will be an indictment.
                            Then how can a defendant counter the prosecutor's presentation to the grand jury?

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            The required standard is as follows:
                            When the witnesses have finished their testimony, it is then your duty to weigh the evidence which has been presented and to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to require the person or persons named to stand trial and answer the charge. The grand jury is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the evidence required to indict.
                            I'm guessing that first the grand jury must determine if a crime has taken place, then they must determine if the evidence presented by the prosecution warrants a criminal trial of the accused, Does that sound right?

                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                            You will note it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt"
                            Yeah, I wouldn't think so, otherwise there'd be no need for a criminal trial.

                            Since criminal charges can be filed without a bill of indictment, what purpose does a grand jury proceeding serve -- or is it really just political theater for the benefit of the prosecutors?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              When and where did he do securities fraud? Hillary did that one with her commodities trading. The SEC didn't prosecute her only because the amount in the account was below their threshold for prosecution (generally $1 million). She was forced to close the account out and not do any more trading.
                              Real estate fraud and bank fraud was Whitewater. Hillary and Bill were business partners with the McDougal's who owned the S&L that was doing the actual fraud. The McDougal's went to prison for their part. The Clintons slid on that as Bill was President. Bill later pardoned the McDougal's for their refusing to testify against him and Hillary.
                              I can't see Trump looting the White House. I'd say the $86,000 paid to the Park Service amounts to a felony level fine. They were also responsible for vandalism that cost tens of thousands of dollars.
                              I doubt Trump has any viable cases of national security violations. As President, he is in a position where he really can't be charged with that one. Hillary on the other hand as Secretary of State and as a Senator has committed more than one, and several that rise to felonies, like her e-mail server.
                              Trump during the 80s ripped off his investors consistently.

                              A pretty good article was posted on this during the campaign. Although you have to understand how he set up things and what technically legal and not ethical.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                                You don't get to impeach simply because you don't like the election results, but I suspect they will try.

                                Hillary did actually commit a crime, Comey's original report called her actions "gross negligence", which is precisely the standard for the crime she was being investigated for.
                                Peter Storzk got comey to change that phrase to "extremely reckless". In the legal world, "extremely reckless" means the same thing as "gross negligence".
                                Comey said he couldn't recommend prosecution because he couldn't prove "intent", the only problem with that is "intent" is not an element of the crime at issue.
                                "Gross negligence" does not require "intent". It merely requires "extreme recklessness".

                                Now, you can argue Hillary was innocent, but it is clear that Comey gave her a pass from prosecution.
                                Bold mine.


                                It is clear that you do not understand the complexities of the law:



                                Based on what statute there is no need to show intent to criminally prosecute somebody for gross negligence ?


                                https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi...61&context=dlj

                                All quotes below are in red...

                                ..In brief, reckless conduct is com-pounded of the elements of the actor's having (1) actual knowledge that a course of conduct he is about to embark upon involves a high degree of risk of causing death orsubstantial harm to another, and (2) a conscious decision to risk occurrence of the harm. Where these strict require-ments are met, the reckless conduct is properly the subject of criminal punishment. While the actor cannot be said tohave intended the harm (indeed, he does not wish the harm to occur; he is only indifferent or reckless as to whether itoccurs), he has intended at least to risk occurrence of the harm.







                                Here is what the IG report said..

                                https://www.scribd.com/document/3818...8-0#from_embed

                                Page 5


                                Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case based on the facts developed in the Midyear investigation. Over the course of the next 2 months, Comey’s draft statement underwent various language changes, including the following:


                                The description of Clinton’s handling of classified information was changed from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless


                                By the way, one can see that even the initial draft of gross negligence did not recommend prosecution.

                                Also, the IG found that the FBI used the same standards he used in previous cases when people also were not prosecuted for mishandling classified information



                                Page 59

                                Interpretation of the
                                “Gross Negligence” Provision in Section 793(f)(1)

                                Section 793(f)(1) does not define what constitutes “gross negligence,” nor
                                have any federal court decisions interpreted this specific provision of the statute. However, the prosecutors analyzed the legislative history of Section 793(f)(1) and identified statements made during the 1917 congressional debate indicating that
                                the state of mind required for a violation of Section 793(f)(1) is “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or “something that falls just a little short of being willful.”
                                The prosecutors cited a statement by Congressman Andrew Volstead during the 1917 debate about the predecessor to Section 793(f)(1)

                                ...
                                Page 60

                                Given the absence of a definition of “gross negligence” in Section 793(f), t
                                he prosecutors researched state manslaughter statutes in effect at the time of the 1917 congressional debate, and determined that gross negligence was interpreted in that context to require wantonness or recklessness that was equivalent to criminal intent. However, the prosecutors also identified contemporaneous state
                                court decisions interpreting other criminal statutes using “gross negligence” to
                                require proof that ranged from something more than civil negligence to willful, intentional conduct.

                                ...

                                In addition, the Midyear prosecutors reviewed previous prosecutions under Section 793(f)(1) in federal or military courts and concluded that these cases involved either a defendant who knowingly removed classified information from a secure facility, or inadvertently removed classified information from a secure facility
                                and, upon learning of its removal, failed to report its “loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction.”
                                36
                                The prosecutors concluded that based on case law and the
                                Department’s prior interpretation of
                                the statute, charging a violation of Section 793(f) likely required evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing
                                classified information “knowingly” included the classified information or tr
                                ansferred classified information onto unclassified systems (Section 793(f)(1)), or learned that classified information had been transferred to unclassified systems and failed to report it (Section 793(f)(2)). Thus, the Midyear prosecutors interpreted the
                                “gross negligence” provision of Section 793(f)(1) to require proof that
                                an individual acted with knowledge that the information in question was classified.

                                Page 61

                                The Midyear prosecutors also reviewed at least two previous investigations where prosecution was declined under the gross negligence provision in Section 793(f)(1). The Midyear prosecutors told us that these declinations informed their understanding of the Department

                                s historical approach to Section 793(f)(1). We discuss these previous declinations below.
                                Gonzales Declination Decision
                                One of these previous cases involved an OIG investigation into the mishandling of documents containing highly classified, compartmented information about a National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program by former White House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In 2004, while Gonzales...

                                Page 62
                                ...

                                was the White House Counsel, he took handwritten notes memorializing a meeting about the legality of the NSA program. The notes included operational details about the program, including its compartmented codeword. Although Gonzales did not mark the notes as classified, he said that he used two envelopes to double-wrap the notes and may have written an abbreviation for the codeword on the inner envelope. On the outer envelope, Gonzales said that he wrote “AG –EYES ONLY –TOP SECRET.” He stored these notes in a safe in the West Wing of the White House
                                and said that he took them with him when he became the Attorney General in February 2005. Gonzales said that he did not recall where he stored the notes after removing them from the White House, but that he may have taken them home. Gonzales also stored the notes and several other documents containing TS//SCI classification markings in a safe in the Attorney General

                                s office that was not approved to hold such materials. The OIG referred investigative findings to NSD for a prosecutive decision. According to information reviewed by the OIG, on August 19, 2008, NSD analyzed Gonzales

                                handling of the notes under the gross negligence provision in section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that prosecutors likely could show that the documents were removed from their proper place of custody, but that the question was
                                whether that removal constituted “gross negligence.” After discussing the
                                legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), NSD stated that the government likely would have to prove that Gonzales
                                conduct was “criminally reckless” to establish that he acted with gross negligence under Section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that Gonzales
                                ’inability to recall precisely where he stored the notes detracted from prosecutors ability to “show a state of mind approaching ‘
                                deliberate intention to remove classified documents from a secure location.


                                Now, you may say that you do not like the law or its interpretation, but it is CLEAR that there was not any invented new interpretation to give Hillary a pass! The IG also came to the same conclusion.
                                Last edited by pamak; 19 Jul 18, 15:16.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X