Your usage of legal terminology and concepts is obscuring — naturally — your argument.
Sean Neville
11

Your usage of legal terminology and concepts is obscuring — naturally — your argument.

To who? You may be arguing with me, but I’m not arguing with you.

I am making the unrefutable statement that to many voters, the email server issue was disqualifying.

How many? Not sure. However, I will tell you that anyone who works for a medium to large corporation (and many smaller ones) what Mrs. Clinton did would have gotten her fired without a second thought. No second chances. So, I would suspect that many-if-not-most people who work for such organizations saw the situation as I did; that being a “what the fuck was she thinking” sort of reaction, followed by “if she’s that fucking stupid to do THAT, keep her away from the presidency.”

It would be interesting to see a poll question that said “Was the email issue a major issue for you” broken down by party and PROFESSION. I would bet some serious money that for both GOP and Democrat, if you’re in business and realize how common (and strict!) these governance regulations are, the email matter was more important to you, whether or not you ended up voting for Clinton or not.

In such a case, one has to consider intent.

Please don’t go into law enforcement. Ever. You started out arguing that because nothing bad happened, breaking the regulation was no big deal. Now you’ve moved the goalposts to INTENT. Intent issues make the difference between murder and manslaughter; they don’t make the difference between being charged and getting off scot free.

So, no, I DON’T have to consider “intent”. See above. Most people who get themselves fired by working around their corporate systems do so for a harmless reason. They are not TRYING to put corporate information at risk; they probably just wanted to forward all their mail to their private email address for simplicity’s sake. Same thing for people who want to put company documents on their Google Drive. They’re doing it for there own convenience, but at the end of the day, they’re moving sensitive information outside the corporation’s firewall, and that’s a no-no. Big time.

Your opinion (and there are others that hold it of course) and Comey’s are not sufficient grounds to intervene in the election process.

My point here is that Comey made a decision to write a letter. The simplest explanation for that action is that the promised Mr. Gowdy he would do so. You can speculate, if you wish, that he had other motivations, such as election interference.

But that’s speculation.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Kady M.’s story.