Trump should say "if elected, i PROMISE to prosecute hillary for email crimes."

Trump should say "if elected, i PROMISE to prosecute hillary for email crimes."

Funny the liberals all glomming on the "intent" line.

They are all conceding she violated the law, she just didn't mean to.
 
Fool, the first sentence of that particular law deals with the intent issue.

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

There is absolutely no evidence HRC had intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States.

Next!

It's too funny isn't it?
anatta has spent tw in another thread telling ne her intent didn't matter.
He actually thinks I made up the concept.
 
Funny the liberals all glomming on the "intent" line.

They are all conceding she violated the law, she just didn't mean to.

200.gif
 
The DOJ is an executive agency so the president can certainly do that. By no means is the witch off the hook just because fellow democrat obozo told the FBI/DOJ to let hillary skate

Let's cut right to the chase and ask the honest question:

Why would you ever, even on a good day, on a great day, the best day of all, why would you ever trust anything Donald J. Trump says.

Donald J. Trump is a serial liar whose position on anything changes more often than the direction a hummingbird moves when it's darting all over the place.

Let me say that again: Donald J. Trump is a serial liar.

Do you know why I say that so freely? Because I have absolutely no fear of a lawsuit from Donald J. Trump (the serial liar) because the statement is demonstrably true.

So why, even if he promised to prosecute Hillary Clinton for anything at all, would you believe Donald J. Trump the serial liar?

--Sent from my mobile device at 87mph
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely no evidence HRC had intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States.

Next!

HAHAHAHA. Of course she did. And the chinese paid her millions for putting this vital info on a server they could easily hack into. THINK
 
Damn. That is going to leave a mark.
The village idiot thinks you are stupid anatta.
:rofl:
Oh god dude..you area migraine headache to deal with.. TDK is saying there is no separation between POTUS and DoJ
IOW...DoJ is nothng but a political extension of POTUS...
Which is not (supposed to be) how it works..

TDK gets this - you don't. did you bring your dunce cap?
 
Oh god dude..you area migraine headache to deal with.. TDK is saying there is no separation between POTUS and DoJ
IOW...DoJ is nothng but a political extension of POTUS...
Which is not (supposed to be) how it works..

TDK gets this - you don't. did you bring your dunce cap?

I get that a worm thinks an ant resides lower than he does.
 
I don't think, Hillary has a thing to worry about, Trump will not be elected the next president of the United States!
And even by an act of Satan if Trump was elected, there are far more important issues that need to be address?!!
anti_trump_bumper_sticker_dump_2016-r592a19cf1b32499fb342998e57aa0135_v9wht_8byvr_512.jpg
 
Oh god dude..you area migraine headache to deal with.. TDK is saying there is no separation between POTUS and DoJ
IOW...DoJ is nothng but a political extension of POTUS...
Which is not (supposed to be) how it works..

TDK gets this - you don't. did you bring your dunce cap?

Does Lynch really get to work independently of Obama?
 
Fool, the first sentence of that particular law deals with the intent issue.

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

There is absolutely no evidence HRC had intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States.

Next!

18 USC 793(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Think General Petraus, counselor. I'll think about him, and a Navy Lieutenant Commander I know who lost his commission and his security clearance, and was fined because a SUBORDINATE left a safeguarded drawer containing CONFIDENTIAL(not even SECRET, or TOP SECRET and above)material open overnight. The subordinate lost his security clearence, which under certain circumstances is a career ender. But ask either of these three if they were treated unjustly and they would say no. I know this for a FACT, because I understand that they violated a law, and for some people, violating a law has consequences. I also know that none of these men had any INTENTION to do harm to the U.S. Now, if this is your idea of the best person for the job of POTUS, someone who is UNQUALIFIED to hold even the lowest security clearance, you go ahead and vote for her lying ass, because stupidity isn't a crime, but there are consequences for it. And take your "intent" and shove it.
 
Trump should say "if elected, i PROMISE to prosecute hillary for email crimes."

Fool, the first sentence of that particular law deals with the intent issue.

Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States

There is absolutely no evidence HRC had intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to injure the United States.

Next!

LOL

you are a silly fool
 
Back
Top