Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hilliary cleared.
Comments
-
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence. -
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence. -
Gross negligence isn't intent of harm. In layman's terms it essentially means somebody knew what they were doing was careless and irresponsible but didn't give a shit and did it anyways, in which leads to likely harm. Where ordinary negligence is the act of just being a moron.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
Clinton knew she was against policy. Any computer specialist worth a crap would have warned her of the pitfalls of a private server, which I'm sure her IT guy explained to her, and she went along with it anyways. The only thing that prevented her from gross negligence is the hard evidence that somebody was harmed from her knowing act of negligence. That's why if evidence comes out of hacking, then she's screwed. The FBI just painted themselves in a corner with the press conference. If something comes out proving a hacking, the FBI will have no choice but to charge her. If it comes out after she wins the presidency, then all hell is going to break loose. -
Gross negligence still requires intent. The other cases mentioned all had intent.greenblood said:
Gross negligence isn't intent of harm. In layman's terms it essentially means somebody knew what they were doing was careless and irresponsible but didn't give a shit and did it anyways, in which leads to likely harm. Where ordinary negligence is the act of just being a moron.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
Clinton knew she was against policy. Any computer specialist worth a crap would have warned her of the pitfalls of a private server, which I'm sure her IT guy explained to her, and she went along with it anyways. The only thing that prevented her from gross negligence is the hard evidence that somebody was harmed from her knowing act of negligence. That's why if evidence comes out of hacking, then she's screwed. The FBI just painted themselves in a corner with the press conference. If something comes out proving a hacking, the FBI will have no choice but to charge her. If it comes out after she wins the presidency, then all hell is going to break loose.
I find it funny that sledawg's news source based a whole article on Hillary should be in jail because of gross negligence. And even discussed gross negligence. And didn't even bother to look up the basic definition of gross negligence. -
Ballghazi!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!1!!!greenblood said:
Gross negligence isn't intent of harm. In layman's terms it essentially means somebody knew what they were doing was careless and irresponsible but didn't give a shit and did it anyways, in which leads to likely harm. Where ordinary negligence is the act of just being a moron.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
Clinton knew she was against policy. Any computer specialist worth a crap would have warned her of the pitfalls of a private server, which I'm sure her IT guy explained to her, and she went along with it anyways. The only thing that prevented her from gross negligence is the hard evidence that somebody was harmed from her knowing act of negligence. That's why if evidence comes out of hacking, then she's screwed. The FBI just painted themselves in a corner with the press conference. If something comes out proving a hacking, the FBI will have no choice but to charge her. If it comes out after she wins the presidency, then all hell is going to break loose.
-
Intent is not required. it's secret stuff one is supposed to keep secret. There's very stringent laws and rules it's not like food stamps.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence. -
The law you cited required gross negligence. Is the dementia kicking in?Sledog said:
Intent is not required. it's secret stuff one is supposed to keep secret. There's very stringent laws and rules it's not like food stamps.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence. -
http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails/greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
Some folks are slow on the news coming out. Putin claims toi have about 30,000 chinese are also reported to have hacked her server.
Of course her lying a 1,000 times saying she never had secret info on her server doesrn';t matter the maroons still supporting this crooked criminal bitch. -
Actually she said she never sent an email that was marked classified at the time. She is a liar, but that's a clear distinction your peanut of a brain isn't able to comprehend.Sledog said:
http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails/greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
Some folks are slow on the news coming out. Putin claims toi have about 30,000 chinese are also reported to have hacked her server.
Of course her lying a 1,000 times saying she never had secret info on her server doesrn';t matter the maroons still supporting this crooked criminal bitch.
And use some fucking punctuation. Buy a comma or some shit. -
No, it doesn't. But it is amusing when really dumb people attempt to think they are intelligent by quoting wikis.2001400ex said:
Right or wrong. His news source isn't even aware that gross negligence requires intent.greenblood said:
If her private server was hacked, then that could be considered gross negligence. The only thing that saved Hillary was the fact that there wasn't any evidence of her system being hacked. Could have been hacked is different than proof of actual hacking. Now if email leaks come out, showing it was hacked by an outside entity, then yes she's toast, and charges would soon follow.2001400ex said:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligenceSledog said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook2001400ex said:
Right. Maybe you shouldn't get your news from memes.Sledog said:
All of them! Taken from secure government servers and put on the toilet server. See they are only allowed to be kept in certain places that way they can be kept secret.........2001400ex said:
Of the 113 classified emails they found. How many were stolen?Sledog said:
She was not authorized. Classified information is transmitted through secure channels not a server in a restroom. Some of Hillarys stuff was highly classified. I'm thinking crayons may be a bit advanced. Tomorrow you can eat the chewy pieces in the sand box.2001400ex said:
I thought it was a felony? Not to mention he did something that was not authorized. Hillary was authorized through the state department to have her own server.Sledog said:
Maybe this will help spell it out for you. Tomorrow we'll play with crayons!2001400ex said:
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trustSledog said:
Yeah that's why Wikileaks just released a large number. FBI so far has 110 classified documents have you checked into anything other than Hufpo?2001400ex said:Sledawg:
Did you even read the law you posted? Or is it your clear lack of knowledge of the fact the that no one hacked confidential information. That was steamy dialog about her political positions tho.
Show me where that happened with information related to national defense.
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/
Have another tootsie roll, don't mind the sand.
It's clear your news source isn't aware of the basic definition of gross negligence.
