FBI completes Clinton email probe, recommends no criminal charges

Rana said:
Seriously, you can't make it up and good response to Comey's remarks.
Click to expand...

He had no business making those statements, it was outrageous, and now he's going to get himself investigated by Congress while being called a crook by the Republican nominee. Which while really funny, and right in keeping with the law of unintended consequences, should get him fired. He was staggeringly unprofessional. He couldn't indict her so he smeared her instead. I will laugh if he has to testify in front of those monkeys in Congress. He ain't no Hillary Clinton and I don't like his chances in a 12 hour inquisition.
 
anatta said:
Facepalm3.jpg
Click to expand...

I see you decided not to read the legal definition of gross negligence.
Idiot.
 
Rana said:
No, I think it is you that is desperate. We don't prosecute people who mishandle information, they may get fired, but she did not steal or try to sell or use the information to benefit herself, so it doesn't rise to prosecutable level as in other cases.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? She intentionally broke the law in mishandling classified and top secret information---she intentionally put our national security at risk and that's not prosecutable?
 
Yes, the Democrats want Hillary Clinton to be the extremely careless president who was allowed the corrupted perch of Obama's justice department
 
Ralph said:
What would happen to you.....if a Trooper pulled you over after clocking you doing 90 in a 65....and you said, My INTENT was not harmful regardless of the potential of killing innocent people? Your ass would be convicted ON THE SPOT, and if you chose to defend the charges.... A JUDGE would decide if you got the chance...not the Boss of the one issuing the ticket. Question for all YOU LEFTTARDS out there? Just what qualifies this individual to determine and issue an OPINION of standing law.....he is not a member in good standing of the court system as all those whose duty it is to STUDY LAW And issue an OPINION.
Click to expand...

He isn't?
You may want to research that a bit Ralph.

:rofl:

Oh by the way Ralph, if I am going 90 in a sixty zone I most certainly have intent but nice attempted strawman.
 
OMG. we have clear definable gross negligence. Comey even made the case - past the words " extreme carelessness"
This is a given. the statue's language is unambiguous, and easily met.

Then we have the mushing over the intent
( which really needed a grand jury hearing to evaluate the evidence and decide onand indictment or not)
with out looking at the EVIDENCE in CONJUNCTION with her behavior.

Comey is in effect investigator and prosecutor ( not jury) - which came about because of Lynch's impropriety.

I mean if you give a damn about a functioning DoJ - free from politics and manipulation....
Do not look towards this clusterfuck. *ugh*
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Are you serious? She intentionally broke the law in mishandling classified and top secret information---she intentionally put our national security at risk and that's not prosecutable?
Click to expand...

Um, no shitferbrains, the fact is that she had no intent to break the law.
That was the finding of the FBI.
So, you can shut the fuck up now.
 
Rune said:
Thank you retard.
Now go back, read the distinction between gross and ordinary negligence.
You will then be apprised of the fact that a finding of gross negligence requires....wait for it....wait for it....INTENT to cause grevious harm.
Fucking idiots, losers and conservatards. Does the old white racist butthurt ever end?
Click to expand...

Omg. If someone *intends* grievous harm they will use a baseball bat lol.

If someone does harm via gross negligence it was unintentional and due to....wait for it...extreme carelessness. And Comey used those very words.
 
Rune said:
Um, no shitferbrains, the fact is that she had no intent to break the law.
That was the finding of the FBI.
So, you can shut the fuck up now.
Click to expand...

Hillary the lawyer and Sec State didn't know she was breaking the law?

You must think Hillary is pretty stupid lol.
 
anatta said:
Comey is in effect investigator and prosecutor ( not jury) - which came about because of Lynch's impropriety
Click to expand...
my bad. because this is the final action since Lynch has recused/semi-recused herself - he is indeed prosecutor and jury.
what a colossal conglomeration of powers to one man. definitely not how our justice system should work.
 
Darla said:
He had no business making those statements, it was outrageous, and now he's going to get himself investigated by Congress while being called a crook by the Republican nominee. Which while really funny, and right in keeping with the law of unintended consequences, should get him fired. He was staggeringly unprofessional. He couldn't indict her so he smeared her instead. I will laugh if he has to testify in front of those monkeys in Congress. He ain't no Hillary Clinton and I don't like his chances in a 12 hour inquisition.
Click to expand...

No business? He wasn't suppose to explain to public how they reached their conclusion not to prosecute?

At the end of the day what's unprofessional was both Hillary's actions and then lying about it. There is no way she should be this close to the White House. The only reason she will be President is the Republican Party decided now would be a good time to commit suicide.
 
cawacko said:
No business? He wasn't suppose to explain to public how they reached their conclusion not to prosecute?

At the end of the day what's unprofessional was both Hillary's actions and then lying about it. There is no way she should be this close to the White House. The only reason she will be President is the Republican Party decided now would be a good time to commit suicide.
Click to expand...
He was staggeringly unprofessional. He couldn't indict her so he smeared her instead.
Click to expand...
unbelievable. explaining his actions by statement is "smearing"

according to the Clintonistas the entire decision making process should have been done by 1 man..and with no words of explanation.
awesome.
 
Rune said:
I see you decided not to read the legal definition of gross negligence.
Idiot.
Click to expand...

Does "reading" it make you an appointee of the court system? Either way its read....its a crime worth indictment and COURT investigation, not the issue of a dismissal from an in house hearing. Especially considering the facts in evidence of the defendant....seeking the office of Chief Executive.....law enforcer in this nation. Professed ignorance of ratified law should disqualify her...void of any indictment. Think about it.....WE THE PEOPLE attempted to prosecute a sitting POTUS facing potential impeachment for the act of lying.... a misdemeanor. Now no one is pretending no law was broken....she is given a pass due to her self professed IGNORANCE of standing law. The verdict from a left wing underling supervising an in house hearing? Guilty of being ignorant but a crime not worth indictment.
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
my bad. because this is the final action since Lynch has recused/semi-recused herself - he is indeed prosecutor and jury.
what a colossal conglomeration of powers to one man. definitely not how our justice system should work.
Click to expand...

Two words: Grand jury. A grand jury should have decided it.

What a colossal cluster.
 
cawacko said:
No business? He wasn't suppose to explain to public how they reached their conclusion not to prosecute?

At the end of the day what's unprofessional was both Hillary's actions and then lying about it. There is no way she should be this close to the White House. The only reason she will be President is the Republican Party decided now would be a good time to commit suicide.
Click to expand...

He shouldn't have made any judgments on her behavior other than whether they were criminal. He didn't need to smear her to "explain" why they didn't prosecute behavior that wasn't criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top