2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Tonitrus]

Criminal negligence is when someone displays "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives of safety of others".

It simply doesn't apply in this case.

Maybe I was a little clumsy with the term I used.  I just thought negligence was enough to be in violation of the statute.

Well this is where I start to get out on thin ice.  The general common law is the same throughout the common law world, but individual statutes can vary in different countries.

But in general... any criminal offence (i.e. where you can go to jail) requires mens rea - a guilty mind.  You have to intend to commit an offence.  There are exceptions.  One of them is for regulatory-type offences.  It doesn't matter if you didn't realize how fast you were going, you can still get a speeding ticket.  But you can't go to jail for speeding.  It is not a criminal offence.

Another exception is for criminal negligence, as you mentioned.  This is a criminal offence.  But it is limited to situations where people's lives are at stake, and the degree of negligence has to be extremely high (such as the wanton or reckless disregard mentioned in Canada's statute).

While I am not taking a stand on this particular case (I haven't followed it closely enough); I would argue that, in theory, negligent handling of classified intelligence could very well put lives at stake, depending on the circumstances.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not sure who should be more insulted by the comparison, Trump or Cobra Commander? 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/the_email_affair_was_the_perfect_hillary_clinton_scandal.html

The Perfect Hillary Clinton Scandal
The ginned-up, self-inflicted email controversy had something for everyone, conspiratorial conservatives and bed-wetting liberals alike.

By Jamelle Bouie

With FBI Director James Comey's tsk-tsking statement this morning, the email saga that had dogged Hillary Clinton for well over a year was over. It ended with a whimper, with an outcome that fit the facts on the ground. Back in April, Politico's Josh Gerstein looked at dozens of federal investigations into the mishandling of classified records in an effort to glean insight into the investigation of Clinton and her use of a private email server as secretary of state. His conclusion? That we wouldn't see an indictment.

Which is precisely what happened. Clinton was scolded but not indicted. Democrats were relieved, Republicans were outraged, and holdout supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders were crushed. It's obvious now that the email controversy was the perfect Hillary Clinton scandal: an event of modest consequence that reinforces every belief about her, from burning conservative hostility to deep-seated liberal anxiety.

The FBI's judgment sounds like a victory for Secretary Clinton. It wasn't. Yes, she escaped indictment, thus crossing one unknown from the list of unknowns that could lead to a Donald Trump victory in November. But Comey's assessment was harsh. By his measure, Clinton and her team at the State Department were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and that they "should have known that an unclassified system was no place" for discussing items classified "highly sensitive" or "Top Secret." What's more, Comey said, there's a real chance Clinton's server was compromised by foreign agents, underscoring the degree to which her behavior was reckless.

If this were any other election, against any other Republican nominee for president, Comey's statement would be damaging, if not deadly. It would shine a light on Clinton's most glaring attribute: an unrelenting paranoia that leads to undue secrecy and legally permissible—if ethically dubious—decisions. In the hands of Marco Rubio or John Kasich or even Ted Cruz, it would be Exhibit A in the political case against Hillary Clinton.

But that's a different world. Here on Earth Prime, Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for president, with an omnishambles campaign that's too busy dealing with its own failures to capitalize on any of Clinton's problems. Like some real-life Cobra Commander, Trump lacks the cash, personnel, or organizational skill to take advantage of Clinton's present weakness. Instead, the story will fade from view, as she claims vindication ahead of the Democratic National Convention.

When she claims that vindication, however, Clinton will do so as a damaged candidate. There's a decent chance that without the email scandal—and in particular, without the steady drip of negative coverage around it—she would be in even stronger shape for the general election, with higher favorability numbers than she now holds. The scandal didn't tank Clinton's numbers as much as it held them down, so that the inevitable decline that comes with campaigning and fighting for political power was never tempered by positive press coverage of endorsements or proposals.

For the past year, the story of Hillary Clinton in American politics has been negative: of secrecy, of scofflaw behavior, and (thanks to the Sanders campaign) of "establishment politics" and Wall Street ties. Some of this is unfair, a product of Clinton's tense and adversarial relationship with the press and other groups in American politics. But some of it—perhaps a good deal of it—is self-inflicted.

Hillary Clinton has been the target of unfair investigations and wasteful witch hunts. Far from instilling caution, however, that scrutiny has inspired a cavalier attitude toward rules and norms and general propriety. It's why Clinton didn't think to follow the letter and spirit of the rules with regard to email. It's why, after leaving the State Department, she didn't think to avoid investment banks when she went on the circuit to speak. This just creates more trouble, which reinforces that cavalier attitude, as Clinton's political enemies inevitably overreach.

In watching this dynamic unfold, observers bring their baggage and their prejudices. Conservatives can't help but think this proves their beliefs about Clinton and "the Clintons," about their inherent corruption and their disdain for rules. And despite their deep misgivings, liberals can't help but come to their defense against those conservatives, hoping that it won't happen again, resigning themselves to the fact that it will.

The email scandal has had something for everyone. And now it's over. Will it be the end of the Clinton dynamic for 2016? Looking at the material that still hasn't had a hearing in this election. Probably not.

[11B4V]

She's shady. However, it's like a ping pong ball glancing off a tiger tank.

Ill take her shady over Trump any day of the week.

[Legbiter]

But Comey's assessment was harsh. By his measure, Clinton and her team at the State Department were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and that they "should have known that an unclassified system was no place" for discussing items classified "highly sensitive" or "Top Secret." What's more, Comey said, there's a real chance Clinton's server was compromised by foreign agents, underscoring the degree to which her behavior was reckless

 

Gotta respect her hustle.

[garbon]

But Comey's assessment was harsh. By his measure, Clinton and her team at the State Department were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and that they "should have known that an unclassified system was no place" for discussing items classified "highly sensitive" or "Top Secret." What's more, Comey said, there's a real chance Clinton's server was compromised by foreign agents, underscoring the degree to which her behavior was reckless

 

Gotta respect her hustle.

It is a bit snarky. We found no evidence that it was compromised but there's a chance!

[derspiess]

How much space is there between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"?

[Valmy]

Funny, people are saying the same about Trump

If I thought he would allow himself to be take care of by handlers and staff I would feel much better about him

[Valmy]

How much space is there between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"?

Enough space to be elected President I hope.

[derspiess]

How much space is there between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"?

Enough space to be elected President I hope.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Legbiter]

How much space is there between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"?

   

[derspiess]

Isn't there a legal term for that? 

[Razgovory]

It is a bit snarky. We found no evidence that it was compromised but there's a chance!

The funny thing is the Emails were probably safer on a private server than on the government server.

[Malthus]

Isn't there a legal term for that? 

Spoliation. Though color me unimpressed with the allegation in this case, as it seems completely evidence-free.

[Valmy]

How much space is there between "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence"?

Enough space to be elected President I hope.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I...um...er...

Ok what the fuck are you talking about?

[The Minsky Moment]

But Comey's assessment was harsh. By his measure, Clinton and her team at the State Department were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" and that they "should have known that an unclassified system was no place" for discussing items classified "highly sensitive" or "Top Secret." What's more, Comey said, there's a real chance Clinton's server was compromised by foreign agents, underscoring the degree to which her behavior was reckless

 

Gotta respect her hustle.

It is a bit snarky. We found no evidence that it was compromised but there's a chance!

It's inaccurate.  Comey didn't say "real chance" - he said "possible"  Of course it is always possible that servers could be hacked.  It's a meaningless statement.

For all the RW outrage, the reality is that if anyone has cause to complain about Comey's statement it is Clinton.  Typically, when a recommendation is made not to charge there is no public statement.  At most, there is a statement that there was insufficient basis to bring a charge.  It is unusual and arguably inappropriate to give a public statement recommending a non-charge but accompanied by highly critical but unverified allegations.  Even more so when certain core allegations are oddly vague:

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received

Note that Comey does not say that HC sent or received any classified email.  He says with respect to certain "chains" that they "conern matters' that were so classified.  Of course, a communication can relate to or "concern matters" that are classified without containing any classified information itself.