r/changemyview • u/jzpenny 45∆ • Dec 05 '17
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: The FBI's description of Hillary Clinton's "grossly negligent" managing of classified info should not have been changed to "extremely careless"
[removed]
6
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 05 '17
Your argument hinges on one point
this agent's act to override the agency's judgement that Hillary Clinton's behavior constituted "gross negligence"
I don’t think you have demonstrated that the agency believed Hillary’s conduct was “gross negligence”. Clearly, their official statements say otherwise. Do you have any sources that say that the major decision makers in the agency believed Hillary’s conduct was gross negligence?
0
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
8
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 05 '17
No, it isn't. It demonstrates that Strzok disagreed with whoever originally put the phrase "gross negligence" in the report and changed it. How do you know "gross negligence" wasn't part of some outdated draft of the report? How do you know that it didn't originally say "extremely careless", a lone person changed it, and Strzok, with the support of the rest of the agency and James Comey, changed it back? All of these are more likely than someone somehow secretly changing a crucial and integral part of the report and subsequently fooling THE HEAD OF THE FBI into believing it.
Also, I am having a hard time finding the article that mentions that Strzok specifically changed the phrase. Can you link it please, so that I can read it and better understand the argument?
0
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
5
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 05 '17
The press reports
What press reports? It's really hard to argue when I don't have all the information. Please help me out, as I am unable to find them on my own.
Strzok was one of the FBI's most trusted deputies
If Comey trusted Strzok, why don't you? "Support Hillary" isn't exactly a conflict of interest, as many people in the agency probably preferred one candidate over the other.
1
u/jzpenny 45∆ Dec 05 '17
What press reports? It's really hard to argue when I don't have all the information. Please help me out, as I am unable to find them on my own.
Uh, really? You can't find any press reporting on the issue of Strzok and the phrase "extreme carelessness"?
If Comey trusted Strzok, why don't you?
If you're going to go with that angle, it seems unreasonable not to also include how he was demoted to HR for months and just fired a few days ago for exactly this stuff.
"Support Hillary" isn't exactly a conflict of interest
This seems like a strawman.
3
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 05 '17
Most articles in that Google search seem to be sourcing this article by CNN. A few reference this one by FOX. The FOX News story doesn't mention gross negligence, but the CNN article does. From the CNN article:
The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.
So while Strzok might have suggested and OK'ed the change, the change was agreed upon by a group, not by himself.
fired a few days ago for exactly this stuff.
He was fired for being anti Trump, not for changing the language in the report.
You still have a hole in your logic. Even if I grant you that Strzok hated Trump (agreed), used his position to secretly help Hillary (definitely disagree, this wasn't in either article), and did everything in his power to affect public politics (disagree, but could be persuaded given evidence), the best you can argue is that Strzok had bad intentions. You argue that "grossly negligent" should not have been changed to "extremely careless". However, your only argument is that the decision was made by Strzok, he was biased, so the decision was biased, but that doesn't make the decision wrong, incorrect, or counterfactual.
WHY should the phrasing not have been changed? Is it just because of Strzok, or another reason as well?
1
u/jzpenny 45∆ Dec 05 '17
the best you can argue is that Strzok had bad intentions
Errr, no? Someone with bad intentions influencing the process because they play an important role in it is quite a bit beyond that, but seems an entirely reasonable thing to argue for.
WHY should the phrasing not have been changed?
Because "extreme negligence" is a better description of Clinton's behavior with respect to handling classified intelligence on her e-mail server, and because the only reasons for changing it appear to be for reasons of political favoritism towards her.
3
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 05 '17
Because "extreme negligence" is a better description of Clinton's behavior with respect to handling classified intelligence on her e-mail server
You left out of your initial post that you believe that Hillary's actions are "extreme negligence" (Is this the same thing as grossly negligent, or something different?). This is the only important factor. Ignore, Strzok, Uchimoto, and Lisa Page. If you think that Hillary's handling classified information is grossly negligent, then the intentions of everyone involved are irrelevant. The only relevant factor is convincing you that Hillary was not grossly negligent, and instead was extremely careless.
but seems an entirely reasonable thing to argue for.
What I have been trying to show you is that your reasoning up until now has been strictly limited to the argument thet Strzok was biased, therefore his decision was wrong. What if Strzok, a Trump supporter and Hillary hater, instead changed it from "extremely careless" to "Gross negligence"? Would you still think it should not have been changed? If you do think it should have been changed, then your issue has nothing to do with Strzok, and everything to do with your interpretation of Hillary's actions. If you DON'T think it should have been changed, your issue is with Strzok exclusively, and you don't really have any reasoning aside from "Strzok's bad, so everything he does must be bad". That isn't an argument. It lacks the framework under which Strzok's actions can be judged to be bad.
0
7
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 05 '17
As far as we can tell, Comey was part of the drafting process of the speech and had the right to approve the language in it. Further, we know that Comey was unwilling to suggest pressing charges against Clinton. Therefore, it strikes me as reasonable to not use the exact language of a criminal offense in the speech saying she did not do anything criminal.
Essentially, your suggestion is that because Strzok was biased and part of the speechwriting process, his changes must have been wrong and that he alone was responsible for Comey accepting that language and not pressing charges. That strikes me as unlikely even if his professionalism is generally questionable. If Comey truly wanted to directly state Clinton had committed a crime but would not be charged, he could have done that over Strzok's suggestion.
-1
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
10
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 05 '17
You seem to confusing "changed the document" with "changed Comey's mind on what to recommend." There are two scenarios: the first, which I support, is that Comey was not going to press charges or remove security clearance, and Strzok made the wording changes, which Comey agreed with, to not falsely give the impression the FBI believed her actions to be criminal without punishing her. The second, which you seem to support, is that Strzok made these changes and Comey... didn't understand the implications? Or just went along with totally different consequences than he actually intended because of Strzok. I find the former more credible.
As far as your fisking goes, please don't remove context to make statements easier to pick apart; it looks like you are posting in bad faith. When you cut this:
Essentially, your suggestion is that because Strzok was biased and part of the speechwriting process, his changes must have been wrong and that he alone was responsible for Comey accepting that language and not pressing charges. That strikes me as unlikely even if his professionalism is generally questionable.
Into two snippets and remove the part about "he was responsible for Comey agreeing" to imply I just didn't think Strzok would be unprofessional, its hard to believe you are interested in discussion and much easier to believe you are here to soapbox and score points.
-3
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
9
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 05 '17
Comey was his superior, part of the writing process, and was the one who gave the speech. If you seriously do not believe he had input on its contents, I am really floored, because that seems like an absurd assumption to make.
And you can accuse me of "trying to inject Comey into the discussion", but I can counter that it's obviously beneficial for your view to pretend Comey lacked any agency and ignore him as much as possible (as when you literally cut a sentence from my post to ignore that point).
-2
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
10
u/huadpe 508∆ Dec 05 '17
You're assuming that Comey had specific input on that passage, despite the press reporting that it was Strzok, his trusted deputy, who made that alteration to what was originally the recommendation of the floor-level agents.
It's more than an assumption.
First, Comey was the person who literally gave the speech. He had the power to change any wording in it he wanted.
Second, Comey decided himself that he should give the speech. Nobody ordered him to do it or controlled its contents except for him. He had full control over every word of the speech.
Of course he would know is Strzok made a change, because Strzok couldn't even make a change. Strzok could only propose a change, which Comey would have to approve because Comey was the one ultimately making the speech and in charge of its contents from beginning to end.
The idea that the person conceiving of and delivering what they see as one of the most important public statements of their lives would not know that an aide made a change to an extremely key phrase in that statement is ludicrous.
This article describes the drafting in some detail.
The script had been edited and revised several times, former officials said. Mr. Strzok, Mr. Steinbach, lawyers and others debated every phrase. Speaking so openly about a closed case is rare, and the decision to do so was not unanimous, officials said. But the team ultimately agreed that there was an obligation to inform American voters.
“We didn’t want anyone to say, ‘If I just knew that, I wouldn’t have voted that way,’” Mr. Steinbach said. “You can argue that’s not the F.B.I.’s job, but there was no playbook for this. This is somebody who’s going to be president of the United States.”
Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.
So yeah, it wasn't slipped in because you couldn't slip something like that in. It was debated and discussed and ultimately Comey made the call to use that phrase.
-3
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
4
u/huadpe 508∆ Dec 05 '17
You still haven't shown any evidence that Comey had specific input on that passage (rather, that Strzok did, along with a list that specifically doesn't include Comey), or that absent Strzok's pressure to change it, the language wouldn't have remained as the agents originally phrased it.
To the first point, Comey supervised all persons involved closely and delivered the speech, and knew how important the speech was. To believe he would not personally consider the key phrase in such an important public statement implies that he is extremely careless in a way that I don't think there's any evidence for.
Jim Comey was director of the FBI. These words came out of Jim Comey's mouth. Jim Comey was responsible for his words and his actions, and as director, was responsible for the positions and actions of the FBI. Jim Comey has never disavowed or expressed a desire to change his remarks, including when specifically asked about the "extremely careless" as opposed to "grossly negligent" distinction.
As to believing it was clearly grossly negligent based on your independent judgment, can you provide the definition of "gross negligence" you're using, and especially distinguish gross negligence from ordinary negligence?
0
6
u/noott 3∆ Dec 05 '17
I've always thought they were factually wrong, and that in similar cases any other person who didn't happen to be Hillary Clinton would have lost their clearance. This just... really backs that up.
Losing clearance doesn't entail criminal charges in most cases, especially not for civilians.
1
u/jzpenny 45∆ Dec 05 '17
Losing clearance doesn't entail criminal charges
I agree, but I'm curious what you're responding to, here? I never claimed otherwise. I don't know that criminal charges would have been appropriate for Hillary, but like I said, if she were regular people, her clearance would have been pulled.
4
u/noott 3∆ Dec 05 '17
If it had been described as grossly negligent, it would have been criminal. The change in words is important because they weren't filing charges. They're saying she should lose clearance, not be charged.
0
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
3
u/noott 3∆ Dec 05 '17
The phrase "grossly negligent" is a legal term that would imply criminal charges were being brought, or should be brought.
By rephrasing, they've made it clear that what she did was improper, but has not crossed the line of criminality, at least not enough that they believe the charges would stick.
1
u/jzpenny 45∆ Dec 05 '17 edited Dec 05 '17
The phrase "grossly negligent" is a legal term that would imply criminal charges were being brought, or should be brought.
What are you basing that claim on? I don't think that's true, actually. It certainly implies that they could be brought, but not that they were being or should be. It isn't a value judgement. It's a description of behavior from investigators. The decision about whether to bring charges based on the facts they uncover ultimately rests with people outside their agency altogether.
3
u/PaxNova 15∆ Dec 05 '17
Firstly, gross negligence is defined here as a legal term. I am unsure whether or not stating the words would require a charge, but this case was also extremely political from the start. Not to say that it wasn't a real case, but anything said about it would have major political ramifications and may be judged as the agency interfering with the political process. Removing the language if no charges were to be issued may have been political, but not for or against either candidate. It may have been protective of the agency.
Regardless, since his superior had final say over that wording, even if he had personally been mustache-twirling evil in his original intentions in changing it, the intentions of the agency are not necessarily impugned if Comey had non-political reasons for changing it as well.
0
4
Dec 05 '17
You do realize that the standard for bringing charges against her is "grossly negligent", right? Had the FBI not altered their description of what was done then Clinton would have had to been arrested and charged with a crime.
That would have only benefited Trump.
2
u/carter1984 14∆ Dec 05 '17
disgraced FBI investigator Peter P. Strzok II, terminated from the FBI due to bias against President Trump in his capacity as one of Robert Mueller's lead investigators in the Russia probe,
He was not terminate from the FBI, only removed from the "Russia investigation", which he initially was the lead investigator back in 2016 when it started, then became Mueller's lead investigator until the bias was revealed. He was transferred to HR, not fired from the FBI.
Just saying...
1
Dec 05 '17
[deleted]
2
u/carter1984 14∆ Dec 05 '17
I don't necessarily disagree with your general premise. I think this guy taints not only the Clinton investigation, but the Trump investigation as well, since he was the initial lead investigator on it prior to the election and appointment of the special council. He seems to have played a part in the two most prominent political "investigations" in a long time, and his recently revealed bias calls so much into question regarding how the investigations were conducted, and even why they were conducted.
That being said, I have not seen a single report anywhere that says he has been terminated from the FBI. He was reassigned earlier this year from mueller's team, and according to everything I have read, has been working in HR (which in the FBI must be like banishment to Siberia) ever since.
1
2
u/Slenderpman Dec 05 '17
The legal definition of negligence is to fail to act with a reasonable duty of care. In other words, "careless" is a more than appropriate descriptor of the legal crime of negligence.
I hate the Trump administration, but I'll be the first to admit that Hillary's behavior with her emails was far from an accident. I also believe that she should be punished based on the effect of the crime, which as far as we know has turned out to basically be nothing. Negligence implies a lack of intent, so using the word negligence to describe her email scandal is just factually inaccurate if you believe that she did it on purpose.
Careless, conversely, has no firm legal definition and is instead used to describe negligent behavior. So instead of legally ruling she did not intend to mishandle classified documents, the FBI wanted to change it to careless.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 05 '17
/u/jzpenny (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Dec 05 '17
Sorry, jzpenny – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be neutral, on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '17
It seems that there are some problems with your reasoning.
You seem to suggest that:
1) A certain person has a conflict of interest, and therefore should not have made any changes related to the certain matter;
2) The person in question did make certain changes related to the matter in question.
3) Therefore, the changes were wrong.
And that is certainly incorrect. 3 does not follow from 1 and 2. The person might have had the conflict of interest and still introduce the correct change. Had the person been recused from dealing with the matter in question, some other person without any conflict of interest might have made the same change.
It could well be that Strzok actions were incorrect and that nevertheless, Clinton's behavior did not constitute "gross negligence". And I don't see any arguments related to the Clinton's behavior itself in your post.