FBI interviews Abedin as part of email probe....abedin is reported to have said

"The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say. "
 
Jarod said:
"The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say. "
Click to expand...

Clinton willfully and knowingly hired someone to set up this server.

Everything after that was a willful crime. CNN is mocking itself with this willful krapola
 
TheDonald said:
Clinton willfully and knowingly hired someone to set up this server.

Everything after that was a willful crime. CNN is mocking itself with this willful krapola
Click to expand...

You sure seem to have a firm grasp on criminal law.
 
Jarod said:
"The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say. "
Click to expand...

ignorance of the law is no excuse. willful or not. isn't that the standard that us serfs are held to?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ignorance of the law is no excuse. willful or not. isn't that the standard that us serfs are held to?
Click to expand...

If you break the law, yes. However, you must have intent to do the thing that is against the law and their are prohibitions against imposing laws ex post facto (the thing you did must have been against the law at the time you did it, not later because of a status change). You can look it up and see how it applies here but for those two reasons, anyone, not just Clinton would be found to not have broken the law here as I understand the facts.
 
Look it up? Why, the Constitution is the law, and SmarterthanFew knows it by heart, as I'm certain he'll tell you.
 
Jarod said:
If you break the law, yes. However, you must have intent to do the thing that is against the law and their are prohibitions against imposing laws ex post facto (the thing you did must have been against the law at the time you did it, not later because of a status change). You can look it up and see how it applies here but for those two reasons, anyone, not just Clinton would be found to not have broken the law here as I understand the facts.
Click to expand...

and do you believe that if I were to be put on trial for violating a law that I didn't know existed and there isn't valid proof of intent to violate such law, that my case would be dismissed with prejudice? or does that only work for high profile elitists that are running for president?
 
Jarod said:
If you break the law, yes. However, you must have intent to do the thing that is against the law and their are prohibitions against imposing laws ex post facto (the thing you did must have been against the law at the time you did it, not later because of a status change). You can look it up and see how it applies here but for those two reasons, anyone, not just Clinton would be found to not have broken the law here as I understand the facts.
Click to expand...
it's not just ex post facto ( latter classification) -She signed agreements to treat certain types of info as "born(inherently) classified
and she clearly blew past those limits.

However the intent standard is high, and I doubt it can be shown.. She was beyond reckless -but is that criminal?

It's more typical Clintonian arrogance of power coupled with her crappy judgment -not indictable but that's the best I can say.
++
Huma Abedin questioned by FBI in email server investigation & Mahogany Row Blackberry use
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...estioned-by-FBI-in-email-server-investigation
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and do you believe that if I were to be put on trial for violating a law that I didn't know existed and there isn't valid proof of intent to violate such law, that my case would be dismissed with prejudice? or does that only work for high profile elitists that are running for president?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a law that didn't exist v. a law that existed but you didn't know it did.
 
SmarterthanFew said:
and do you believe that if I were to be put on trial for violating a law that I didn't know existed and there isn't valid proof of intent to violate such law, that my case would be dismissed with prejudice? or does that only work for high profile elitists that are running for president?
Click to expand...

I'm sensing a lot of envy and bitterness in your life. Do you need to talk with someone?

Maybe you should run for president.
 
this is nothing

just like whitewater, Benghazi and all the other lies your corporate media liars help you proffer
 
BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top