Breaking News! Trump set up by Comey!

[Silhouette]

Comey didn't even read the new emails. He already knew they wouldn't do anything to Crooked Hillary. He just set up Donald to look like a fool. )-:

True. He should be investigating Trump's emails to his accountant. Evading paying federal taxes for years is a serious crime against the government...especially as much money as Trump has made.

 

[Claudette]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

I'm petty sure the Clinton campaign didn't see it your way. I think they were all shitting their pants waiting to hear that other shoe fall. LOL

 

[Claudette]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

Regardless, Comey must hang! He put Hillary's election at risk and may have cost her the Senate.

You can't hang a man for doing his job. Hillary is ultimately responsible for what happened by having a private server and I will grant you that the timing on this was absolutely TERRIBLE but Comey couldn't hide it, either. He did his best to clear things up before election day and he did, too. If Trump wins because of it, I too will be inexpressibly depressed and desolate, but it isn't Comey's fault.

Comey did exactly what he said he would do which was to notify congress if the FBI found anything else. That's exactly what he did.

Hillary is the only one to blame for her email mess. She and no one else.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Comey didn't even read the new emails. He already knew they wouldn't do anything to Crooked Hillary. He just set up Donald to look like a fool. )-:

True. He should be investigating Trump's emails to his accountant. Evading paying federal taxes for years is a serious crime against the government...especially as much money as Trump has made.

Trumps taxes are not an issue when the clintons are worse.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

Only in your deluded fantasy. Stupid libtard.

Is this the best you've got? Come on man, you can post a stronger personal attack. I don't expect you to ever post a thoughtful or thought provoking comment, that's way beyond your ability, but at least be vulgar and show more hate in your comments. You can do that, I know you can.

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

Only in your deluded fantasy. Stupid libtard.

Is this the best you've got? Come on man, you can post a stronger personal attack. I don't expect you to ever post a thoughtful or thought provoking comment, that's way beyond your ability, but at least be vulgar and show more hate in your comments. You can do that, I know you can.

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Gross negligence here is clearly given and further defined in context from the US Code stated above, in setting the standard to which such actions are accurately defined and deemed to be used in prosecution under a military court of law. You can't simply pull out a definition from a corporate stand point and expect it to accurately be used in the same content to dictate the misuse of handling government information.

Gross Negligence as it permits [key words], meaning as it is defined or relates to handling government information ... is as follows:

... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

Surely you can come up with a better response than simply pulling out a Webster dictionary and think this could pass as some form of proper LEGAL definition as it applies in this specific case. Seriously Wry Catcher, I thought you could do a much better than this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Comey backed down under threats from Department of Corruption boss, Loretta Lynch.

 

[bodecea]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

Comey is a dirty cop. When Trump wins Comey needs to flee the country with the Clintons

"When Drumpf wins"..... See you tomorrow nite.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In an effort by the director of the FBI to keep America safe from Trump, Mr. Comey, 7 days before the election, released a letter that hundreds of thousands more e-mails were deleted by HRC and had been found and were being investigated.

Knowing that Trump would react hysterically and with malice toward Secretary Clinton, Comey set the bait and Trump took it; once again proving how unfit he would be to be commander-in-chief, by over reacting in dozens of speeches under the heading "Worse than Watergate!" without knowing any facts as to the content of such e-mails.

And of course his supporters cheered, and as mobs do chanted "lock her up" and even attacked a man carrying a sign Republicans against Trump with the energy of jackals.

Then, two days before the election, Comey set the hook. "Hey guys, there's nothing there, the e-mails are benign".

Only in your deluded fantasy. Stupid libtard.

Is this the best you've got? Come on man, you can post a stronger personal attack. I don't expect you to ever post a thoughtful or thought provoking comment, that's way beyond your ability, but at least be vulgar and show more hate in your comments. You can do that, I know you can.

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Gross negligence here is clearly given and further defined in context from the US Code stated above, in setting the standard to which such actions are accurately defined and deemed to be used in prosecution under a military court of law. You can't simply pull out a definition from a corporate stand point and expect it to accurately be used in the same content to dictate the misuse of handling government information.

Gross Negligence as it permits [key words], meaning as it is defined or relates to handling government information ... is as follows:

... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

Surely you can come up with a better response than simply pulling out a Webster dictionary and think this could pass as some form of proper LEGAL definition as it applies in this specific case. Seriously Wry Catcher, I thought you could do a much better than this.

It came from Black's Legal Dictionary, not Webster. Defining terms is always important, and spinning a legal definition isn't helpful or honest. The Court would instruct a jury on legal definitions and the rules of the court, and the jury will become the trier of fact.

The case of Hillary Clinton v. The Vast Right Wing Conspirators has yet to be adjudicated under the laws of American jurisprudence, so one man's or one woman's opinion is simply that, an opinion.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Only in your deluded fantasy. Stupid libtard.

Is this the best you've got? Come on man, you can post a stronger personal attack. I don't expect you to ever post a thoughtful or thought provoking comment, that's way beyond your ability, but at least be vulgar and show more hate in your comments. You can do that, I know you can.

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Gross negligence here is clearly given and further defined in context from the US Code stated above, in setting the standard to which such actions are accurately defined and deemed to be used in prosecution under a military court of law. You can't simply pull out a definition from a corporate stand point and expect it to accurately be used in the same content to dictate the misuse of handling government information.

Gross Negligence as it permits [key words], meaning as it is defined or relates to handling government information ... is as follows:

... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

Surely you can come up with a better response than simply pulling out a Webster dictionary and think this could pass as some form of proper LEGAL definition as it applies in this specific case. Seriously Wry Catcher, I thought you could do a much better than this.

It came from Black's Legal Dictionary, not Webster. Defining terms is always important, and spinning a legal definition isn't helpful or honest. The Court would instruct a jury on legal definitions and the rules of the court, and the jury will become the trier of fact.

The case of Hillary Clinton v. The Vast Right Wing Conspirators has yet to be adjudicated under the laws of American jurisprudence, so one man's or one woman's opinion is simply that, an opinion.

The US Code gives specific details of behavior that is as a result of gross negligence or willful PERMITS [key word] the following: not limited but including having such documents destroyed.

I have this feeling only one of has the personal military experience to know the existence of such a specific code as it relates to HANDLING and SECURING government emails. So why don't you respond by building YOUR case and telling me, through all the Wikileaks of exposed emails and bleaching her personal server, SPECIFICALLY where Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to properly handle and secure those emails, to where that code does not apply in this case?

Let's just see which of us is more knowledgeable on the subject of sensitive government information as it pertains to those actions of Hillary Clinton, shall we?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is this the best you've got? Come on man, you can post a stronger personal attack. I don't expect you to ever post a thoughtful or thought provoking comment, that's way beyond your ability, but at least be vulgar and show more hate in your comments. You can do that, I know you can.

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it,

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Gross negligence here is clearly given and further defined in context from the US Code stated above, in setting the standard to which such actions are accurately defined and deemed to be used in prosecution under a military court of law. You can't simply pull out a definition from a corporate stand point and expect it to accurately be used in the same content to dictate the misuse of handling government information.

Gross Negligence as it permits [key words], meaning as it is defined or relates to handling government information ... is as follows:

... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

Surely you can come up with a better response than simply pulling out a Webster dictionary and think this could pass as some form of proper LEGAL definition as it applies in this specific case. Seriously Wry Catcher, I thought you could do a much better than this.

It came from Black's Legal Dictionary, not Webster. Defining terms is always important, and spinning a legal definition isn't helpful or honest. The Court would instruct a jury on legal definitions and the rules of the court, and the jury will become the trier of fact.

The case of Hillary Clinton v. The Vast Right Wing Conspirators has yet to be adjudicated under the laws of American jurisprudence, so one man's or one woman's opinion is simply that, an opinion.

The US Code gives specific details of behavior that is as a result of gross negligence or willful PERMITS [key word] the following: not limited but including having such documents destroyed.

I have this feeling only one of has the personal military experience to know the existence of such a specific code as it relates to HANDLING and SECURING government emails. So why don't you respond by telling me, through all the Wikileaks of exposed emails and bleaching her personal server, SPECIFICALLY where Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to properly handle and secure those emails, to where that code does not apply in this case?

Let's just see which of us is more knowledgeable on the subject of sensitive government information as it pertains to those actions of Hillary Clinton, shall we?

I was in the Navy and worked in the ships office. I had zero security clearance, but as low man on the ladder was given updated material on weapons with schematics and such which I filed in the binders. As a LE officer and officer of the court I was well trained on CORI (confidential record information), FBI & CII arrest records, DMV data on individuals and other sensitive information not for distribution to the public or press.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I've got one better.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with ANY document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation





(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Source: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Gross Negligent or incompetent, which do you think best describes your democrat candidate running for the office? Now her efforts to pursue "bleaching" information on her private server, only adds to the deception to the clear description of "gross negligence" under the article above. Either way, through her actions, she will never be respected for the office of Commander-in-Chief. Oh, but do feel free to provide a linked document "fact check" to this US Code above, I'm curious to see if you have anything of a "thoughtful or thought provoking post" to provide in your response.

"willfully communicates" and "Gross Negligence" are operative words.

What is WILLFUL?
Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; intending the result which actually conies to pass ; designed; intentional; malicious.A willful differs essentially from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Intention is always separated from negligence by a precise line of demarcation. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. ins. Co., 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 317. In common parlance, “willful” is used in the sense of “intentional,” as distinguished from “accidental” or “involuntary.” But language of a statute affixing a punishment to acts done willfully may be restricted to such acts done with an unlawful intent. U.S. v. Boyd (C. C.) 45 Fed. 855; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 90.

Law Dictionary: What is WILLFUL? definition of WILLFUL (Black's Law Dictionary)


gross negligence

n. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property. If gross negligence is found by the trier of fact (judge or jury), it can result in the award of punitive damages on top of general and special damages.

Gross negligence here is clearly given and further defined in context from the US Code stated above, in setting the standard to which such actions are accurately defined and deemed to be used in prosecution under a military court of law. You can't simply pull out a definition from a corporate stand point and expect it to accurately be used in the same content to dictate the misuse of handling government information.

Gross Negligence as it permits [key words], meaning as it is defined or relates to handling government information ... is as follows:

... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, OR (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

Surely you can come up with a better response than simply pulling out a Webster dictionary and think this could pass as some form of proper LEGAL definition as it applies in this specific case. Seriously Wry Catcher, I thought you could do a much better than this.

It came from Black's Legal Dictionary, not Webster. Defining terms is always important, and spinning a legal definition isn't helpful or honest. The Court would instruct a jury on legal definitions and the rules of the court, and the jury will become the trier of fact.

The case of Hillary Clinton v. The Vast Right Wing Conspirators has yet to be adjudicated under the laws of American jurisprudence, so one man's or one woman's opinion is simply that, an opinion.

The US Code gives specific details of behavior that is as a result of gross negligence or willful PERMITS [key word] the following: not limited but including having such documents destroyed.

I have this feeling only one of has the personal military experience to know the existence of such a specific code as it relates to HANDLING and SECURING government emails. So why don't you respond by telling me, through all the Wikileaks of exposed emails and bleaching her personal server, SPECIFICALLY where Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to properly handle and secure those emails, to where that code does not apply in this case?

Let's just see which of us is more knowledgeable on the subject of sensitive government information as it pertains to those actions of Hillary Clinton, shall we?

I was in the Navy and worked in the ships office. I had zero security clearance, but as low man on the ladder was given updated material on weapons with schematics and such which I filed in the binders. As a LE officer and officer of the court I was well trained on CORI (confidential record information), FBI & CII arrest records, DMV data on individuals and other sensitive information not for distribution to the public or press.

Then I'm sure you have no excuses to build YOUR case where through Hillary Clinton's actions she did not permit through her behavior what's stated in 18 U.S. Code § 793. So why don't you man up and respond by telling me, through all the Wikileaks of exposed emails and bleaching her personal server, SPECIFICALLY where Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to properly handle and secure those emails, to where that specific code does not apply in this case?


Here is my argument.
Breaking it down for those unfamiliar, the code opens to those responsible (lawfully having possession of, access to), and more importantly control over, or being entrusted with ANY document. Without question, there is no greater importance for the need to secure government information than a Secretary of State that travels to foreign governments representing the interests of the United States, especially through negotiations with particular "less friendly" nations where a need to secure government information is of national interest. Which compliments what the code states -
"which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation"

Then there is the behavior where such actions that result in "PERMITS" [meaning to allow for]

willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to ANY person NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT,

or

through GROSS NEGLIGENCE permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.

or

having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

So Mrs. Clinton would have to be found to not have allowed, "permitted" [there is that usage of that word again that's worded in the code], communicated, or had knowledge of as it pertains to each of those conditions pertaining to her emails, and the use of a program to BLEACH her server.

Wikileaks and Anthony Weiner also does not constitute an individual having been entrusted with receiving Hillary Clinton's emails.

Now comes down to the code where it utilizes the terms (1) Willfully or (2) through gross negligence. To which if neither one applies, would constitute following the authority of an individual having knowledge of, or allowed such action to take place. You and I both know there still exists AUTHORITY through the chain of command, and if Hillary did not utilize WILLLFUL KNOWLEDGE or GROSS NEGLIGENCE then someone of authority had knowledge of such actions who had oversight, and allowed it. Unless you can provide evidence or a case the constitutes otherwise, only THREE cases exists: through actions or knowledge (1) willfully allowed (2) through gross negligence of such information entrusted to her allowed or had knowledge of, or (3) submitted under the authority of an individual over her who had knowledge of or willfully allowed such actions to take place ... there isn't a fourth option here.


IN THE END
What it all comes down to, and what the code specifically states: There still exists that "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document". Obviously when it all comes down to responsibility and facing consequences over being entrusted with government information and having such information delivered to ANYONE in violation of his/her trust, the buck does not stop with Hillary Rodham Clinton.