Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Chas Krauthammer, Comey:  A Theory

[Madiel]

Chas Krauthammer, Comey:  A Theory

As soon as he declares that gross negligence is proved I'm unimpressed. Legally, gross negligence consists of falling well below the expected standard of care. Clinton's defence to a claim of gross negligence is obvious: that she was doing very similar things to her predecessors. How exactly do you prove someone is well below the expected standard if they're doing the same thing as other people?

[Brian]

As soon as he declares that gross negligence is proved I'm unimpressed. Legally, gross negligence consists of falling well below the expected standard of care. Clinton's defence to a claim of gross negligence is obvious: that she was doing very similar things to her predecessors. How exactly do you prove someone is well below the expected standard if they're doing the same thing as other people?

Black's Law Dictionary on gross negligence:

[Todd]

Black's Law Dictionary on gross negligence:

Willful misconduct it is.

[Todd]

Of course, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[Madiel]

Willful misconduct it is.

Except I think that to the extent the dictionary suggests that is a synonym, the dictionary is talking a load of tosh. Equating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions. Nor does the part using the term "reckless" make the slightest sense to me, because in this country at least "negligence" and "recklessness" have been explicitly defined to be different standards.

It is of course entirely possible that American lawyers have managed to define these things in ways utterly known to their counterparts in the rest of the English-speaking world (it would not be the only occasion). But right now I'm not exactly convinced that the parts of that dictionary that throw around "see also" terms are accurate.

[Brian]

Except I think that to the extent the dictionary suggests that is a synonym, the dictionary is talking a load of tosh. Equating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions. Nor does the part using the term "reckless" make the slightest sense to me, because in this country at least "negligence" and "recklessness" have been explicitly defined to be different standards.

I'm not sure how Todd arrived at the conclusion that it's not one term, but rather a synonym with nearly identical meaning?

[Madiel]

I'm not sure how Todd arrived at the conclusion that it's not one term, but rather a synonym with nearly identical meaning?

I'm not sure about the distinction you're making. I think Todd is perfectly justified in reading "also termed wilful and wanton misconduct" as equating gross neglience with wilful and wanton misconduct, and I doubt whether you use "wilful" or "wanton" or both makes much difference (other things in the lists suggest it doesn't make much difference).

It's not Todd I have a problem with, it's the dictionary. The actual definition part talks in terms of lack of care which is a thoroughly orthodox conception of neglience. But then it goes down other tracks that I don't agree with. I don't think "misconduct" equates with that at all well, and the second citation that they give explicitly warns against trying to equate negligence with recklessness but they do it anyway.

[Brian]

I'm not sure about the distinction you're making. I think Todd is perfectly justified in reading "also termed wilful and wanton misconduct" as equating gross neglience with wilful and wanton misconduct, and I doubt whether you use "wilful" or "wanton" or both makes much difference (other things in the lists suggest it doesn't make much difference).

It's not Todd I have a problem with, it's the dictionary. The actual definition part talks in terms of lack of care which is a thoroughly orthodox conception of neglience. But then it goes down other tracks that I don't agree with. I don't think "misconduct" equates with that at all well, and the second citation that they give explicitly warns against trying to equate negligence with recklessness but they do it anyway.

So you object specifically to definition #2.

[Todd]

Equating negligence with wilfulness makes no sense at all because negligence is not about intentions.

I was simply referring to what is in the printed page with respect to what "several courts" have done.  People can squabble all day about whether what she did was gross negligence.  I don't really care. 

People cannot, however, argue that the future President's actions did not constitute willful misconduct.  She was advised to not do what she did.  She did it anyway.  She engaged in willful misconduct.  She will not be indicted for any criminal activity, though.  It's all good.

Hillary will pay a moderate political price through the summer for it.  Maybe a few percentage points in polls.

[Madiel]

She was advised to not do what she did.

Was she? Can you point me to this, because I've missed it in my (non-thorough) readings. What I've seen is that she asked for something else and was not given the thing she asked for. I haven't seen a statement that she asked for advice on her proposed alternative approach.

EDIT: I guess I'm proving you wrong about whether people can argue about wilful misconduct.

[Todd]

Was she? Can you point me to this, because I've missed it in my (non-thorough) readings. What I've seen is that she asked for something else and was not given the thing she asked for. I haven't seen a statement that she asked for advice on her proposed alternative approach.

EDIT: I guess I'm proving you wrong about whether people can argue about wilful misconduct.

My bad, you are correct, she was simply denied the specific items she requested, so she set up her own after that.  I suppose one can argue that does not constitute willful misconduct.  One can also argue it does, that it was reckless, and so forth.  Hence, no indictment.  And only a few points shaved off her polling numbers.

[Madiel]

Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is a perception that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a charge.

Which is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles. But the more neutral part of the public is turned off when something starts looking like a witch hunt rather than a genuine attempt at the truth.

[Todd]

Which is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles.

If Congress is holding hearings, there are political motives and angles.

[Todd]

Trump discovers missing articles to Constitution!  (A whole bunch of them, apparently.) 

Note the left wing rag that saw fit to publish this partisan filth.

[Brian]

Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is Trump

fixed that for you

[Gurn Blanston]

Trump discovers missing articles to Constitution!  (A whole bunch of them, apparently.) 

Note the left wing rag that saw fit to publish this partisan filth.

  That's funny, I don't care who you are! Not so much what The Donald said, but some of the senators' reactions, like the one who said "he doesn't speak from a teleprompter, he speaks from the heart". OK, I guess I'll buy it...

[kishnevi]

Frankly, I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is a perception that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a charge.

Which is no different to any number of other investigations where there are political motives and angles. But the more neutral part of the public is turned off when something starts looking like a witch hunt rather than a genuine attempt at the truth.

Brian's revision is noted, but this is another accurate revision.

I suspect the biggest thing that will save her polling numbers is the fact that Republicans don't care whether or not there's objectively sufficient evidence for a charge

It's rather like the boy who cried wolf:  having constantly charged her with corruption, abuse of power, lust for power, general disregard for the law, and alleged crimes for which there is little to no factual basis,  claims of corruption and disregard for the law made against her sound merely monotonous.

And be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.

[Todd]

And be it noted, I actually think that she was negligent with security to a degree that ought to disqualify her from office, even if no crime was committed.

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton.

[Karl Henning]

The unwarranted hyperbole reflects but poorly, it cannot be denied.