(02-06-2018 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 02:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - again, intent IS the main element in this legal matter. From Comey himself:

Quote:"I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent -- that I could establish," Comey told the House Oversight and Government Reform panel. "What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

i suggest you actually read the relevant statute lad.

again when you read the statute and then read comey's 'splanation, and further understand that comey changed the wording so as not to track the statute language you will understand the issue and the problem

in short your quote is a red herring. in this case do what 99 per cent of people dont do and rtfs. when you do you will understand the artful deceits embedded in your quote.

As was expressed earlier, doesn't the charge of "gross negligence" require intent?

So inherently, requiring gross negligence equates to requiring intent. My quote is not a red herring at all - it is suggesting that without intent, Comey did not believe "gross negligence" could be proven. As someone on this board has already posted, their field requires intent for "gross negligence" to apply.

And since I'm not in the legal field, my quick googling supports the line of thinking that a charge of "gross negligence" requires intent. Everything I read says that the difference between negligence and gross negligence comes down to basically how much intention/attention is paid to the actions.

edit: to summarize, in my mind we are arguing about the definition of gross negligence here, which I'm surprised you missed by suggesting I read the statute.