In the court filing, first obtained by Deadline, Carlson alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment during her seven-and-a-half years as a co-anchor of FNC’s Fox And Friends morning show. Carlson says her former co-host Steve Doocy continually harassed her by mocking her during commercial breaks, giving her the cold shoulder on air, and “refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful female journalist rather than a blond female prop.”

When Carlson brought her concerns to Ailes, she says he responded in the most Spanky-like manner imaginable. “After learning of Carlson’s complaints, Ailes responded by calling Carlson a ‘man-hater’ and ‘killer’ and telling her that she needed to learn how to ‘get along with the boys.’” Ailes allegedly retaliated against Carlson for refusing to drop the matter, which she says led to her dismissal from Fox And Friends and subsequent reassignment to a lower-profile afternoon slot.

In September 2015, Carlson says she convened a meeting with Ailes to try to put a stop to the harassment, only to be harassed further. “Ailes stated to Carlson: ‘I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better,’” reads the complaint. Carlson suspects the meeting, and her continued refusal to acquiesce to his sexual demands, led Ailes not to renew her contract when it expired late last month.

Woody wrote:"I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago" was my go-to line in crunch time

Woody wrote:Smooth you seem to have an unfavorable opinion of the millions of people supporting Donald Trump

mozartpc27 wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

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

will it be weirder if Lynch disregards that "blank spot", too? If I follow you, seems like it would be .... weird ... if she did

there are three potential positions here:

1. Gross negligence is not an applicable standard (apparently it's never been used in cases like this before)
2. It is an applicable standard, but it doesn't seem likely to get a conviction.
3. It is an applicable standard and she was grossly negligent.

I assume that lynch will take one of those 3 positions, probably the first or second.

How about, "She was negligent, but not grossly so?"

jerseyhoya wrote:This is a cry for help. He wants it taken from him. Utterly insane rambling.

pacino wrote:arguing gross negligence would be impossible to prove. what's the standard? critics have found a reserve Naval officer previously charged. AG/DAs 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.

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:arguing gross negligence would be impossible to prove. what's the standard? critics have found a reserve Naval officer previously charged. AG/DAs 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.

I'm not going through this entire thread. I'm guessing most people here have not held a TS/SSBi clearance, or anything close. I know Luzinkskis Gut has one and I have had one. Not sure if hes commentes. Hillary has gone through the same training the rest of us have. It's required. If he or I did what she did, we'd be in jail. People with clearaneces who've fucked up by accident have gone through much worse. Bit hey, it's OK. You haven't had to deal with it so that'she cool I guess.

smitty wrote:And we're getting a lot of different stories. Were these emails marked? Were they classified at the time she received and sent them out? I'm reading conflicting stuff about this. And these issues are critical to know in order to draw conclusions.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Gimpy wrote:She's either a potential criminal or an incompetent person who's easily confused about security matters and then lied about what she did. Either way, she's profoundly unqualified to hold public office. And the other person running is somehow even worse. Hard to blame the FBI director for not recommending indictment though; I wouldn't want to mysteriously end up dead in a freak accident either.

Gimpy wrote:she's profoundly unqualified to hold public office.

drsmooth wrote:

Gimpy wrote:she's profoundly unqualified to hold public office.

we'll assume the last bit was just a lame joke, but what you meant to assert here is Clinton's DISqualified by her actions from holding office. That's your opinion; but if she is UNqualified, no political actor has EVER been qualified. That's fact.