Well, I guess we can agree that the cost of the investigation is not a big deal, anyway.

It appears that the FBI decision, and the presidency, rests on the distinction between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent". Do I have that right? Is that a distinction that lawyers can see, but lay people cannot?

Well, the issue is the intent of the Espionage Act, how it has been interpreted by courts, and the cases that have been filed under it. There is no real difference linguistically between extremely careless and grossly negligent. But cases filed under the Act, according to the FBI director, have involved either intentional mishandling, levels of disclosure justifying an inference of intent, bad faith towards the US government or some combination of intent and bad faith. No one has been prosecuted for "extremely careless" handling of classified material. In effect, some level of intent has been read into the statute. That has nothing to do with Hillary.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ted/211352

freeman3 wrote:Well, the issue is the intent of the Espionage Act, how it has been interpreted by courts, and the cases that have been filed under it. There is no real difference linguistically between extremely careless and grossly negligent. But cases filed under the Act, according to the FBI director, have involved either intentional mishandling, levels of disclosure justifying an inference of intent, bad faith towards the US government or some combination of intent and bad faith. No one has been prosecuted for "extremely careless" handling of classified material. In effect, some level of intent has been read into the statute. That has nothing to do with Hillary.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ted/211352

So, let's all agree: sure, she's "extremely careless" with national security information, so why not put her in charge of all of it?

I'm sure Donald Trump will be the very soul of discretion...

What actions of Mr. Trump's regarding his handling of classified material are you basing that opinion on?

Call it a hunch Brad.

bbauska wrote:What actions of Mr. Trump's regarding his handling of classified material are you basing that opinion on?

Beyond that, I really am sick of the binary approach to this. Just because Trump is an idiot doesn't mean Hillary is a genius.

no fan of Trump!
But, as far as security, he has shown no reason to not trust him on THAT.
In fact, he runs a business that is just full of secrets that he of course keeps. Not that we can trust him on anything, but he has shown no reason to expect him to be careless regarding state secrets.

I just read Trump has pulled ahead of Clinton in two key swing states (Florida and Pennsylvania ...tied in Ohio). Clinton is taking a big hit from her FBI investigation calling her careless with State Secrets.

Someone here just LOVES to point to these polls (this one was trusted Quinnipiac) when it suits his position so I thought it would be fun to show this other side. That said, I am not a big fan of these seemingly daily polls and know they can and do change often, what is polling in July means little for November!
I am also not sure if I even like this new info, I can't stand either candidate but I AM leaning towards enjoying this news hoping at least things are going to be entertaining to follow.

I almost laughed out loud when I read this...

Hillary is "hurt" and "Saddened" by the way she is being treated by the Republicans.

Clinton was asked what she calls Trump, in response to his moniker for her: "Crooked Hillary."
"I don't call him anything. And I'm not going to engage in that kind of insult fest that he seems to thrive on," Clinton said.

so she will not / has not insulted him and or called him names?
That's easy to check:

He's written a lot of books about business -- they all seem to end at Chapter 11

I like that one!

"The 'King of Debt' has no real plan for making college debt free or addressing the student debt crisis."

“Donkey of the Decade”

I'm sure I could go on.
I don't blame her mind you but why say you have not done something you clearly did say, It's just another lie, and a stupid one at that!

I wonder how badly she feels about having cheated her way into the nomination?

It is not Hillary's fault about the DNC putting it's thumb on the election scale. It is Wasserman-Shultz's.

However, it is Mrs. Clinton's fault that she hired DWS directly after being found corrupt via the Wikileaks dump. What do our resident "lefties" have to say about that? (Pardon the term
lefties", I don't have a good collective term)

bbauska wrote:It is not Hillary's fault about the DNC putting it's thumb on the election scale. It is Wasserman-Shultz's.

However, it is Mrs. Clinton's fault that she hired DWS directly after being found corrupt via the Wikileaks dump. What do our resident "lefties" have to say about that? (Pardon the term
lefties", I don't have a good collective term)

Seems like more bad judgement to me. But in reality, it probably doesn't matter. Hillary has the DNC support, as we've seen, Bernie is getting on board, etc.

Though I guess there is some possibility that for some of the more disillusioned Bernie supporters, this will be the proverbial last straw, and they will either a) not vote b) vote for Johnson

theshrizzz wrote:Though I guess there is some possibility that for some of the more disillusioned Bernie supporters, this will be the proverbial last straw, and they will either a) not vote b) vote for Johnson

Oh, I think Jill Stein will get a lot more Bernie supporters than Johnson.