Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

There a number of fine examples right here on this thread.

 

You sound pretty open-minded yourself.

 

Not new.

Different statutes, different standards.

 

Speeding offenses can be proven quite easily. Is the speed limit 65? Yes. Did the driver go 66 or above? Yes. There's the guilt.

"Gross negligence" isn't as easily proven, unless there is a definition of it in the law. One person's gross negligence is another person's non-gross negligence. For Hillary, is there anything in the law that specifically outlaws a private server when it comes to gross negligence? Not something that can or may be interpreted to include a private server. The actual words "private server" in the gross negligence law. Without it, it's not easy for a prosecutor to prove criminal intent.

 

Would you explain? Because the gross negligence part (Baron's moronic meanderings notwithstanding) seems pretty damning, to me.

 

She was given a pass because of supposed "no intent" to cause harm. Otherwise, as the article points out, she checked every single box.

Try to keep up.

 

When one of your students challenges something in your class, do you call them a moron, or do you either support or refute what they say using the alleged wealth of knowledge you've accumulated in your lifetime?

 

You aren't his student.

 

There needs to be intent. As Dick pointed out from one of his examples, the mere act of doing something (in his example, his kid hitting someone) is not necessarily criminal. His kid's intent in committing the act would be investigated to find out if it falls under the definition of a criminal act.

 

It read to me like Dick was commenting on O_T's apples to oranges comparison of speeding and the classified information statute.

Speeding is a strict liability offense. Were you speeding? Yes? Guilty. Whether or not you intended to speed is irrelevant.

This statute uses a gross negligence standard. Basically you have to prove that the person was acting with such carelessness that even a careless person would not have done what they did. Any criminal law using gross negligence as a substitute for the mens rea is a huge pain in the ass. Comey's right to be criticized for reading an intent standard into the law - negligence is meant to bypass intent - but I'm not sure he's wrong that her actions don't warrant prosecution.

 

Not when the charge is gross negligence.

 

No shit, Sherlock. Frankly, if he acted towards his students how he acts here, he'd be lucky to be allowed on campus to watch the intramural gymnastics team.