| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| The Beautiful Destruction of the Annoying Orange Investigation (AKA conflicts of interest) |
| << < (5/13) > >> |
| Gytyyhgfffff:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 08:15:59 PM ---yes, they specifically said that she mishandled classified information they didn't charge her with anything though, because of the change in language in the memo --- End quote --- you would think that if they actually were going to charge her with something they wouldn't just simply announce it in a memo they would announce it publicly and go through the process of charging her whatever that is |
| Tactical Nuke:
The wording of the memo is very important. Under the Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): --- Quote from: Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (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. --- End quote --- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 If the original wording had remained "grossly negligent", this would have opened Clinton up to be prosecuted under federal law. But this guy changed it, so all of this is now irrelevant. |
| Fire Vine:
--- Quote from: Verification on December 05, 2017, 08:31:18 PM ---i will destroy Political Threads Which Could Easily Go In The Politics Megathread !!! --- End quote --- |
| SeventhSandwich:
On first inspection, it sounds to me like this agent, who was hired to help in an impartial investigation of Annoying Orange, was fired for having a documented anti-Annoying Orange bias. Is this the correction interpretation or am I reading this wrong? Genuinely asking, since I'm seeing like fifteen different threads in this story. |
| PhantOS:
--- Quote from: Tactical Nuke on December 05, 2017, 08:44:25 PM ---The wording of the memo is very important. Under the Federal Statute for Prosecution, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 If the original wording had remained "grossly negligent", this would have opened Clinton up to be prosecuted under federal law. But this guy changed it, so all of this is now irrelevant. --- End quote --- ok if we were to assume that the fbi memo is a legally binding document (it most likely isn't), grossly negligent and gross negligence are separate things. It's like writing 'slanderous' and assuming that that word alone carries the charge of slander, which it doesn't I can see where you're coming from but it's more than likely that the description of grossly negligent had zero weight beyond a description inside the memo. I'm no law major but if I was i'd probably say the same thing. After all, the law is serious, and the way charges are written and carried out isn't just determined by a memo in the fbi's office Regardless, this whole email scenario is pretty much gross negligence. The only decisive factor is whether or not the charges exist in her state. in mike pence's state, email misuse isn't legally gross negligence so there were no charges. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |