DOJ reopened Hillary's email case and considering plea deal?

[exGOPer]

First, there are multiple examples of federal government employees being fired and prosecuted for mis-handling confidential data to private email accounts. The cases most well publicized involve IRS employees and contractors (usually tax info on celebrities).

Secondly let me state that the rules regarding not using private emails for government communications have been in effect for federal employees since Bill Clinton took office. The Federal Records Act has nothing to do with this prohibition which more than one high-level government official has evaded over time. All these high-level employees should have been prosecuted (Rice, Powell, Clinton, etc.) for their use of private emails accounts - it was not very common prior 2012 (despite your assertion).

Great, show me some of these examples of federal employees being prosecuted, enough of talk, let's see some facts.

Second, you are wrong

There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

http://link.nationallawjournal.com/54b6ae9e92721943738b547c2d1ph.byg/VP0oosPoT2Gu8FvZAd768

Third, if indeed there was a law, can you provide the statute so we can prove the National Law Journal wrong. What do they know, maybe they are not peer reviewed either (they are)

 

[jem]

correction.. it only ended on the oily tarmac temporarily. (we hope.)

Comey was the chief investigator, he had to make the recommendation to the DOJ and he recommended there should not be any prosecution, that's where it ends after Lynch said they will go with whatever Comey said.

There were only two statutes, one required intent, other required gross negligence. Nobody has been prosecuted for gross negligence under the Espionage act in 100 years but Hillary should have been because they found classified info that wasn't even marked as such??? Really?

 

[gwb-trading]

Great, show me some of these examples of federal employees being prosecuted, enough of talk, let's see some facts.

Second, you are wrong

There's not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business," said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

http://link.nationallawjournal.com/54b6ae9e92721943738b547c2d1ph.byg/VP0oosPoT2Gu8FvZAd768

Third, if indeed there was a law, can you provide the statute so we can prove the National Law Journal wrong. What do they know, maybe they are not peer reviewed either (they are)

Go over and sign up to work at any Federal Agency -- read all the forms you signed. They are the same today as in 1999 in regards to using personal email for government business.

 

[jem]

So you know you were misrepresenting (lying) your ass off a few hours ago...

when your wrote this...

"You do know at max it's a misdemeanor charge yes?

Comey was the chief investigator, he had to make the recommendation to the DOJ and he recommended there should not be any prosecution, that's where it ends after Lynch said they will go with whatever Comey said.

There were only two statutes, one required intent, other required gross negligence. Nobody has been prosecuted for gross negligence under the Espionage act in 100 years but Hillary should have been because they found classified info that wasn't even marked as such??? Really?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If intent doesn't matter then why is KNOWINGLY written into that statute?

Whoa, that question does not even meet the minimum threshold of intelligence to warrant a response. Yowzer. As Bette Midler said: "I have standards, they are very, very low but I do have them."

 

[exGOPer]

correction.. it only ended on the oily tarmac temporarily. (we hope.)

Exactly, if they wanted to conspire on the issue, they would have met openly where they could be photographed and the SS would keep records. Makes so much sense.

 

[exGOPer]

Go over and sign up to work at any Federal Agency -- read all the forms you signed. They are the same today as in 1999 in regards to using personal email for government business.

I asked you for names, I asked you for statutes but your response is 'go work for them'. Comey, a lawyer, prosecutor and head of FBI director says the opposite but I have to take your word for things when you can't name a single person?

 

[exGOPer]

Whoa, that question does not even meet the minimum threshold of intelligence to warrant a response. Yowzer. As Bette Midler said: "I have standards, they are very, very low but I do have them."

Blah blah blah, every time you guys get caught making up stuff, response is more personal attacks

> United States criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. Sections 641, 793, 794, 952 and 1924, and 50 U.S.C. Section 783(b). Most of these criminal statutes require a knowing or intentional disclosure for mishandling of classified information.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/i...t-Likely-Not-Criminal?slreturn=20160022033833

Do explain how the NLJ doesn't know about law.

 

[exGOPer]

So you know you were misrepresenting (lying) your ass off a few hours ago...

when your wrote this...

"You do know at max it's a misdemeanor charge yes?

What was the lie? What are you even talking about. IF they could prove that she intentionally mishandled then it would be a misdemeanor and since she didn't do it intentionally, how is your quoted reply relevant?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

If intent doesn't matter then why is KNOWINGLY written into that statute?

Second, gross negligence was explained very well by Comey during his testimony

"I know from 30 years there's no way anybody at the Department of Justice is bringing a case against John Doe or Hillary Clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts," Comey added.

The FBI director also appeared to take a shot at former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and other ex-prosecutors who have been saying they would've charged Clinton with gross negligence.

"I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did," Comey said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

Nice try Cowboy. NOT. The dnc script is not serving you well here today. I know it's a bitch when you have to think.

The statute refers to "gross negligence." Comey explained away Clinton by saying that Hillary showed "excessive carelessness." Which soon became the standing joke in the legal community because the very definition of gross negligence IS EXCESSIVE CARELESSNESS.
Can you spell TARMAC boys and girls?

This is all in addition the fact that Comey had absolutely no authority under his position to make a prosecutorial decision. He is an investigator - not a prosecutor. If Loretta was too corrupted to make the decision then it would fall to the Deputy Attorney General- not the FBI Director. On the local level, if the DA is too conflicted to handle a decision it goes to the next in command in the DA's office. IT DOES NOT GO TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN TOWN. Work with that a little.