NSA leaker gets massive sentence

[T. A. Gardner]

Just remember, incompetent people cannot recognize their incompetence or other's competence. It's scientific.

A growing body of psychology research shows that incompetence deprives people of the ability to recognize their own incompetence. To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it. Similarly, unfunny people don't have a good enough sense of humor to tell.

https://www.livescience.com/18678-in...-ignorant.html

It's even got a name. The Dunning-Kruger effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

They concluded that: “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.… the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.” That’s what conclusion Dunning drew in his famous study called the Dunning–Kruger effect. Which is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of those of low ability to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their ability accurately.

http://sciencevibe.com/2016/09/08/yo...kruger-effect/

I could go on, but if you haven't figured out this problem at this point I needn't...

[Cambronnne]

Bold mine

Nope!

You are not consistent with what the law says and with how professional prosecutors and the IG have interpreted the law and I explained why. If the law talks about an action that is "short of " or "almost" willful, it is obvious that the prosecutors will have to draw a red line and evaluate the action of a person. Just because an action is not willful it does NOT automatically make it an example of "gross negligence." So, you like or not, the state of mind is important and the prosecutors have to PROVE that the person was little short of being willful.-little short of crossing this red line of an intentional act! How can you prove beyond reasonable doubt such thing when a person like Clinton established a server to AVOID the exposure of her secrets as conservatives say?

Bottom line is leave the law to the experts. Last time you told me you are in the bonds business, and if I am not mistaken this business does not even require a law degree...

hahahaha.

I'm sorry, but you are confusing your delusions.
I have never said I was in the "bonds business".

The closest I might have come to such a statement was when you were trying to educate me how bail is set and I informed you that I "set" bonds.
If you had any knowledge of the field of law, you would have recognized exactly what I meant. The fact that you interpreted it as meaning I am a bail bondsmen is not only hilarious, but proves my point.

The fact that you think that the IG's report is authoritative on the issue and supports your view is not helping you.

Here is a definition of "gross negligence". Gross Negligence


An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to causeforeseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinaryNegligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degreeof inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to causeinjury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with thedefendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wantonconduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports arecovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...oss+negligence

I like this definition best because it contrast "gross" with "ordinary".

You may have noticed that even though I'm just a bail bondsman, the definition is the same thing that I have been saying.

[Massena]

Five years is a 'massive sentence'? She's lucky that's all she got.

[T. A. Gardner]

Five years is a 'massive sentence'? She's lucky that's all she got.

Compared to others sentenced for the same thing it was several times what they got. Compared to Hillary her sentence was infinitely greater.

[pamak]

hahahaha.

I'm sorry, but you are confusing your delusions.
I have never said I was in the "bonds business".

The closest I might have come to such a statement was when you were trying to educate me how bail is set and I informed you that I "set" bonds.
If you had any knowledge of the field of law, you would have recognized exactly what I meant. The fact that you interpreted it as meaning I am a bail bondsmen is not only hilarious, but proves my point.

The fact that you think that the IG's report is authoritative on the issue and supports your view is not helping you.

Here is a definition of "gross negligence". Gross Negligence


An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to causeforeseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinaryNegligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degreeof inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to causeinjury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with thedefendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wantonconduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports arecovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...oss+negligence

I like this definition best because it contrast "gross" with "ordinary".

You may have noticed that even though I'm just a bail bondsman, the definition is the same thing that I have been saying.

Ohh yes, I checked and you did say "set bonds." Of course in the same thread you were caught not being aware of the laws of YOUR state which contradicted your initial claim about the bonds that you "set." ! Somehow this damaged your credibility,

https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...78#post5043178

By the way, you disappeared after I showed you the key parts of the laws about the bonds in YOUR STATE!!




AS for this case, your definition does not resolve the issue of how to define in the context of this particular case and this particular statute if an action or omission is "gross negligence" or not . And you like it or not we have PRECEDENTS that the prosecutors used in Clinton's (and previous) cases which set the guidelines for how to make that decision in this particular statute! The IG report did not create these guidelines. It simply reported them! So, if you have an issue, it is not with the I. G. It is with all these rulings and decisions in the cited (by the IG) cases

From the IG report

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 elemental idea of negligence is failure or omission the failure or omission to do something which should have been done. Negligence that is gross involves the additional and affirmative element of intent to do or wilfulness with which is done the negligent act. The essence of gross negligence may be gathered from familiar definitions. It is defined to be `the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.' McDonald v. International Ry. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W. 774, 775; Schindler v. Milwaukee Ry. Co., 87 Mich. 400, 49 N.W. 670; `such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the presumption of wilfulness and wantoness,' 2 Thomp.Neg. 1264."

All the above come from real legal cases (citation is CLEAR) and not from the legal dictionary.com! So, in this statute, in order to have "a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both," the legislative history and previous court cases have decided that the action must show a state of mind that almost suggests deliberate intention to leak classified information which prosecutors cannot prove when Clinton set a server to supposedly hide information! If prosecutors could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hillary was aware that 1 she transmitted classified information in her server and 2 was aware that the classified information in her server would almost certainly leak, THEN and only THEN they could prove "gross negligence" in protecting classified information. It was a toll order which is the reason why they did not prosecute her just as they did not prosecute in the past the republican AG Gonzalez who took (and lost) an envelope with top secret material!

[T. A. Gardner]

I wonder... Did Hillary pay off the IG, or make credible threats because that's a huge pile of steaming



If someone can be convicted for taking six (6) photographs inside an SSBN's engine room that show nothing in particular, but because the entire space is considered classified, with no intent to do anything other than have a few memories of their service, or someone can be convicted for taking classified materials home to study and show them to no one, then Hillary is guilty as Hell.

Not only did she knowing and willfully set up that e-mail server. We know it was hacked by a number of individuals as well as the Chinese and Russians. Since she is unqualified to technically operate the server as a system administrator, and her system administrator wasn't cleared for classified information nor had a security clearance, and she knowingly hired him, there was tons of willful intent.

It was both willful and wanton. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion.

In fact, in the case of the SSBN photos, the defendant's lawyers argued for "The Hillary defense." The judge rejected that and in doing so pretty much indicated that Hillary was guilty but not charged.

[pamak]

I wonder... Did Hillary pay off the IG, or make credible threats because that's a huge pile of steaming



If someone can be convicted for taking six (6) photographs inside an SSBN's engine room that show nothing in particular, but because the entire space is considered classified, with no intent to do anything other than have a few memories of their service, or someone can be convicted for taking classified materials home to study and show them to no one, then Hillary is guilty as Hell.

Not only did she knowing and willfully set up that e-mail server. We know it was hacked by a number of individuals as well as the Chinese and Russians. Since she is unqualified to technically operate the server as a system administrator, and her system administrator wasn't cleared for classified information nor had a security clearance, and she knowingly hired him, there was tons of willful intent.

It was both willful and wanton. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion.

In fact, in the case of the SSBN photos, the defendant's lawyers argued for "The Hillary defense." The judge rejected that and in doing so pretty much indicated that Hillary was guilty but not charged.

Perhaps she payed them not to prosecute AG Gonzalez too in 2008 (with Bush president)?

From the IG report regarding Gonzalez

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.


Again, setting a private server by itself is not the issue. The issue is the state of mind when someone is handling classified information.





And no, there is ZERO evidence that her e-mail server was hacked by Chinese. You are AGAIN spreading fake news!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...-email-n904811

FBI rebuts Trump tweet about China hacking Hillary Clinton's email

"The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised," an FBI official told NBC News.

[Cambronnne]

Ohh yes, I checked and you did say "set bonds." Of course in the same thread you were caught not being aware of the laws of YOUR state which contradicted your initial claim about the bonds that you "set." ! Somehow this damaged your credibility,

https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...78#post5043178

By the way, you disappeared after I showed you the key parts of the laws about the bonds in YOUR STATE!!




AS for this case, your definition does not resolve the issue of how to define in the context of this particular case and this particular statute if an action or omission is "gross negligence" or not . And you like it or not we have PRECEDENTS that the prosecutors used in Clinton's (and previous) cases which set the guidelines for how to make that decision in this particular statute! The IG report did not create these guidelines. It simply reported them! So, if you have an issue, it is not with the I. G. It is with all these rulings and decisions in the cited (by the IG) cases

From the IG report

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 elemental idea of negligence is failure or omission the failure or omission to do something which should have been done. Negligence that is gross involves the additional and affirmative element of intent to do or wilfulness with which is done the negligent act. The essence of gross negligence may be gathered from familiar definitions. It is defined to be `the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.' McDonald v. International Ry. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 21 S.W. 774, 775; Schindler v. Milwaukee Ry. Co., 87 Mich. 400, 49 N.W. 670; `such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the presumption of wilfulness and wantoness,' 2 Thomp.Neg. 1264."

All the above come from real legal cases (citation is CLEAR) and not from the legal dictionary.com! So, in this statute, in order to have "a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both," the legislative history and previous court cases have decided that the action must show a state of mind that almost suggests deliberate intention to leak classified information which prosecutors cannot prove when Clinton set a server to supposedly hide information! If prosecutors could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hillary was aware that 1 she transmitted classified information in her server and 2 was aware that the classified information in her server would almost certainly leak, THEN and only THEN they could prove "gross negligence" in protecting classified information. It was a toll order which is the reason why they did not prosecute her just as they did not prosecute in the past the republican AG Gonzalez who took (and lost) an envelope with top secret material!

I'm sorry, but you couldn't have told me how bail works here, because you had no clue what you were talking about.
You are unaware of your misunderstandings and refuse to consider that anyone else might grasp the concepts better.

Regardless, your own quote disproved your point and I note you seem to be trying to ignore that bit if unpleasantness. You can't claim your quoted language is accurate and then say "intent" is still an element of the charge. But you keep being you.

I will go back to getting carts from the lot.

[101combatvet]

Compared to others sentenced for the same thing it was several times what they got. Compared to Hillary her sentence was infinitely greater.

On that scale, Hillary should have gotten thirty years to life.

[pamak]

I'm sorry, but you couldn't have told me how bail works here, because you had no clue what you were talking about.
You are unaware of your misunderstandings and refuse to consider that anyone else might grasp the concepts better.

Regardless, your own quote disproved your point and I note you seem to be trying to ignore that bit if unpleasantness. You can't claim your quoted language is accurate and then say "intent" is still an element of the charge. But you keep being you.

I will go back to getting carts from the lot.

My quotes come from real cases cited by the IG in relation to precedents related to the statute we discuss. I saw nothing from you to counter what I brought. Broad definitions you find in internet dictionaries do not solve the issue of how to interpreter the legal terms in the context of THIS STATUTE in federal courts!

And I actually did not tell you how the bail works! I searched, found and SHOWED YOU THE LAW IN YOUR STATE REGARDING HOW THE BAIL WORKS WHICH CONTRADICTED YOUR INITIAL CLAIMS! In the end, the only defense you usually bring is that you are an expert, while your posts show that you are not! You try to pull off the same thing in this thread when you try to convince us that your "expertise" gives you credibility when you question people we KNOW they have law degrees , such as the different prosecutors and employees in the FBI and the DOJ, including the NSD (Department of Justice National Security Division) which was mentioned in my previous post which describes their input in the case of Gonzalez who also was not prosecuted!

[ljadw]

Perhaps she payed them not to prosecute AG Gonzalez too in 2008 (with Bush president)?

From the IG report regarding Gonzalez

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.


Again, setting a private server by itself is not the issue. The issue is the state of mind when someone is handling classified information.





And no, there is ZERO evidence that her e-mail server was hacked by Chinese. You are AGAIN spreading fake news

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...-email-n904811

FBI rebuts Trump tweet about China hacking Hillary Clinton's email

"The FBI has not found any evidence the (Clinton) servers were compromised," an FBI official told NBC News.

The FBI has not found any evidence the Clinton servers were compromised,an FBI official LIED to NBC.

[Bwaha]

God would you just stop feeding the troll? Seriously. If you just stopped replying he'd wander off. Let's make this a better forum by not enabling trolls. You too 101. You fall subject to the trolls. Just stop replying to them. Your part of the problem because you have zero self-control.

[pamak]

The FBI has not found any evidence the Clinton servers were compromised,an FBI official LIED to NBC.

IF people make the claim that the Chinese hacked Hillary, then they can make that claim only after they provide evidence coming from the top investigative agencies of this country. Until then, they just spread fake news.

[Hida Akechi]

God would you just stop feeding the troll? Seriously. If you just stopped replying he'd wander off. Let's make this a better forum by not enabling trolls. You too 101. You fall subject to the trolls. Just stop replying to them. Your part of the problem because you have zero self-control.

Hey! My ignore function is working 100% now!