(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.

MoBettle wrote:
So you're saying there isn't statute that calls for a standard of gross negligence?

pacino wrote:arguing gross negligence would be impossible to prove. what's the standard? critics have found a reserve Naval officer previously charged. AGs bring cases forth they can win, no? this is why many (myself included) have been annoyed with the power of AGs to decline to indict in much less high profile matters involving police conduct. in this case it'd be very hard to prove gross negligence.

pacino wrote:arguing gross negligence would be impossible to prove. what's the standard? critics have found a reserve Naval officer previously charged. AGs bring cases forth they can win, no? this is why many (myself included) have been annoyed with the power of AGs to decline to indict in much less high profile matters involving police conduct. in this case it'd be very hard to prove gross negligence.

JFLNYC wrote:

pacino wrote:arguing gross negligence would be impossible to prove. what's the standard? critics have found a reserve Naval officer previously charged. AGs bring cases forth they can win, no? this is why many (myself included) have been annoyed with the power of AGs to decline to indict in much less high profile matters involving police conduct. in this case it'd be very hard to prove gross negligence.

That's true, but Mo's point is still a good one. If the statute has a gross negligence standard and the FBI says HRC was grossly negligent then -- politics aside for a moment -- he probably should have made it clearer why he was not recommending charges be brought. In essence he's saying (as are you) it's a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but he's not the prosecutor.

MoBettle wrote:Ok this seems to be the statute:

(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.

drsmooth wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Ok this seems to be the statute:

(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.

Now you have to closely parse the portion that follows what you bolded: stuff like "removed", "proper place of custody", delivered "in violation of his trust", "fails to make prompt report of such..."

North Carolina lawmakers took steps Thursday to set aside a half-million dollars for the legal defense of a law limiting protections for LGBT people as a judge sought to streamline a cluster of lawsuits it has inspired.
Republican lawmakers were gathering in private to map out the end of the session, including possible changes to portions of the law known as House Bill 2, which has attracted high-profile critics including the NBA.
But there was no appetite to change the provision requiring transgender people to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in schools, universities and many other public buildings. The law also excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from statewide anti-discrimination protections

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved giving Gov. Pat McCrory's office $500,000 to defend the law in court by transferring the money from a disaster relief fund. The measure still must pass the full Senate and House.

MoBettle wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Now you have to closely parse the portion that follows what you bolded: stuff like "removed", "proper place of custody", delivered "in violation of his trust", "fails to make prompt report of such..."

if only we had a branch of govt that interpreted laws.

pacino wrote:good clarification. i was wrong there.

so you're saying there's a chance they still indict? the career prosecutors could look at mobettle's posts, agree, and recommend indictment.

pacino wrote:NC budget fix includes 500k to defend HB2:

North Carolina lawmakers took steps Thursday to set aside a half-million dollars for the legal defense of a law limiting protections for LGBT people as a judge sought to streamline a cluster of lawsuits it has inspired.
Republican lawmakers were gathering in private to map out the end of the session, including possible changes to portions of the law known as House Bill 2, which has attracted high-profile critics including the NBA.
But there was no appetite to change the provision requiring transgender people to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in schools, universities and many other public buildings. The law also excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from statewide anti-discrimination protections

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved giving Gov. Pat McCrory's office $500,000 to defend the law in court by transferring the money from a disaster relief fund. The measure still must pass the full Senate and House.

it was passed and the legislature is now done for the year.

When's hurricane season, again?

MoBettle wrote:
My point is that it's just weird of him to bring up two standards and then only discuss one.

Donald Trump wrote:Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists! He did that so good.

pacino wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists! He did that so good.

the best words

George Washington wrote:Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim "a self evident lie."

John F. Kennedy wrote:We cannot expect that all nations will adopt like systems--for conformity is the jailer of freedom, and the enemy of growth. Nor can we expect to reach our goal by contrivance, by fiat or even by the wishes of all. But however close we sometimes seem to that dark and final abyss, let no man of peace and freedom despair. For he does not stand alone. If we all can persevere, if we can in every land and office look beyond our own shores and ambitions, then surely the age will dawn in which the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

Barack Obama wrote:Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine.