Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hilliary cleared.
Comments
-
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/06/rush_interviews_former_federal_prosecutor_andy_mccarthy_on_the_fbi_investigation_into_mrs_clinton_s_email_scandal
I trust and believe Andy McCarthy on this matter more than I do a CAIR operative claiming to be a part owner in a make believe burger stand in Eastern Montana. Do yourselves a favor, hit the link and read it. -
You clearly know nothing about the law. It's not a wiki thing, it's a law thing. Dumbfuck.HoustonHusky said:
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. -
Saying they did and showing the world are two very different distinctions. I think she's crooked as hell and would vote for PL_SS as a write in before selecting the box behind Hillary. But the distinction is all I'm clarifying.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. -
You guys are a bunch of chauvinists, sexists, & misogynists. Leave Hillary alone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26-VzfBZg1w -
-
2001400ex said:
You clearly know nothing about the law. It's not a wiki thing, it's a law thing. Dumbfuck.HoustonHusky said:
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.
No, it is a 'you are an effin moron' thing.2001400ex said:
You clearly know nothing about the law. It's not a wiki thing, it's a law thing. Dumbfuck.HoustonHusky said:
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.
First, I am anything but a lawyer and don't claim to be one, but I also have seen enough contracts to know you are a moron.
Second, as much as you would like to simplify it by misusing wiki links, it's easy to find numerous references that say "Gross Negligence" is anything but fixed, and ranges from one extreme to the other. As an example, Pennsylvania does not even recognize degrees of negligence, and claim any form of "negligence, whatever epithet is given to characterize it, is the failure to exercise the care and skill which the situation demands, and that it is more accurate to call it simply ‘negligence’ than to attempt expressions of degrees of negligence."
Another example and overview of this that summarizes it across the states (and suggests intent is anything but required...):
An Overview of the Grossly Inconsistent Definitions of “Gross Negligence” in American Jurisprudence, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (2015)
http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=lawreview
So in short, you are utterly wrong and a complete moron, and no matter how much you replied back in this thread or re-linked some dumb wiki site it did not change these two facts or change the legal definition (or lack thereof) of Gross Negligence. Its not surprising she skated...there are a different set of rules for some people than there are others. Shouldn't be that way but it is, and probably only get worse.
If I was you at this point I'd take your speed limit IQ and run along to another thread...but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen. Thank God I'm not you, and thank God we have you to laugh at and to make an even bigger fool of yourself...hence the term we love of HondoFS.
-
Wtf does Pennsylvania code and lack of degrees of negligence have to do with federal law and a code that specifies gross negligence.HoustonHusky said:2001400ex said:
You clearly know nothing about the law. It's not a wiki thing, it's a law thing. Dumbfuck.HoustonHusky said:
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.
No, it is a 'you are an effin moron' thing.2001400ex said:
You clearly know nothing about the law. It's not a wiki thing, it's a law thing. Dumbfuck.HoustonHusky said:
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.
First, I am anything but a lawyer and don't claim to be one, but I also have seen enough contracts to know you are a moron.
Second, as much as you would like to simplify it by misusing wiki links, it's easy to find numerous references that say "Gross Negligence" is anything but fixed, and ranges from one extreme to the other. As an example, Pennsylvania does not even recognize degrees of negligence, and claim any form of "negligence, whatever epithet is given to characterize it, is the failure to exercise the care and skill which the situation demands, and that it is more accurate to call it simply ‘negligence’ than to attempt expressions of degrees of negligence."
Another example and overview of this that summarizes it across the states (and suggests intent is anything but required...):
An Overview of the Grossly Inconsistent Definitions of “Gross Negligence” in American Jurisprudence, 48 J. Marshall L. Rev. 471 (2015)
http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=lawreview
So in short, you are utterly wrong and a complete moron, and no matter how much you replied back in this thread or re-linked some dumb wiki site it did not change these two facts or change the legal definition (or lack thereof) of Gross Negligence. Its not surprising she skated...there are a different set of rules for some people than there are others. Shouldn't be that way but it is, and probably only get worse.
If I was you at this point I'd take your speed limit IQ and run along to another thread...but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen. Thank God I'm not you, and thank God we have you to laugh at and to make an even bigger fool of yourself...hence the term we love of HondoFS.
Nice rant tho. I'll spare you the wiki link cause you won't believe it anyway. You prefer sites that have zero knowledge of federal case law. -
From the link:
Some federal and state courts define it as (1) very great negligence, whereas others equate it to (2) recklessness.
...
As such, the federal district court equated gross negligence to “recklessness,”49
(references are in the paper, if you even know what an actual reference is...)
Here is your wiki link:
HondoFS... -
First, show me where I linked to Wikipedia this thread. For fucks sakes.HoustonHusky said:From the link:
Some federal and state courts define it as (1) very great negligence, whereas others equate it to (2) recklessness.
...
As such, the federal district court equated gross negligence to “recklessness,”49
(references are in the paper, if you even know what an actual reference is...)
Here is your wiki link:
HondoFS...
Second. Go have a surgery where the idiot doctor lacerates your kidney or something stupid and try to sue them. Talk to an attorney about gross negligence and how far you get.
It's still clear you don't get what gross negligence is. -
Hilliary is a kidney surgeon now?
