Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (945597)	7/7/2016 5:58:22 PM
From: POKERSAM	1 Recommendation Recommended By Bonefish Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574978

He said recommending no prosecution was a judgement call. Whose judgement? Why, his of course. So how can you say, "Because his opinions are not really relevant." It would seem his opinions are relevant. She broke the letter of the law against gross negligence (extreme carelessness) in handling secret information. It was his opinion that she should not be prosecuted because he did not feel she met the criteria of intent. That is his opinion. It is most certainly NOT the opinion of the masses. This you will learn at the election. LOL

To: combjelly who wrote (945597)	7/7/2016 6:00:51 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574978

CJ, He took great pains to point out that she did nothing criminal. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, but it isn't a duck because he "took great pains" to say so. Tenchusatsu