You have made a posting career out of being wrong.
I've made a posting career out of exposing con lies and explaining where you all went wrong.
You have made a posting career out of being wrong.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secr...al-private-email-state-dept/story?id=37404084
Other Secretaries Handled Classified Material on Private Email, State Dept. Concludes
By JUSTIN FISHEL
Mar 4, 2016, 3:09 PM ET
why are they not being smeared by trumpy and you
can't wait till we lock that bitch up forever
Neither you & Trump understand the law, then. It centers around intent, and there wasn't compelling evidence for intent. As much as you want there to be.
What nonsense....Intent ?.....
Thats the first thing the cop asked the driver..."Did you intend to speed?".....No? ok, you're free to go....
Did you intend to hit and kill that kid with your car?....No? ok, on your way then.....
Did you intend to steal that merchandise you put in your pocket before you left the store ?...No....ok, have a nice day....
Did you intend to hurt that man when you hit him with that bat ?....No....ok, sorry to question your motives....
I can't believe you're such a fuckin' idiot.....
Yeah, well - the Federal Bureau of Investigation differs.
Sorry 'bout that.
Comey differs, not the FBI.....the plain fact is 'intent' has nothing to do with a persons guilt or innocence when they break a law....
Thats real life....hundreds, if not thousands of people are doing right now regardless of their intent when they broke the law.....
and as I proved in #48, even Hillary Clinton agrees with my conclusion.....
You're such a toady you'll grasp at any straw to protect a Democrat....you're a partisan that ignores facts....
It's naïve and uninformed to try to compare laws regarding assault and speeding w/ the Espionage Act. It wasn't just Comey - there was plenty of precedent for the consideration of intent.
You simply don't understand the law. And really - the "toady" stuff...coming from YOU?
Let me refresh your memory, dudette.
"During Donald Trump's successful White House campaign, his massive crowds thundered: "Lock her up. Lock her up."
What he didn't say was that, as president, he would not have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton, much less jail her, as Trump threatened during a debate. That's the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice Department, which is supposed to work outside the influence of politics.
Now that he's won the election, the president-elect is sending a signal both to Congress and, perhaps even his incoming attorney general, that it's no longer politically beneficial to try to prosecute the former Democratic presidential nominee.
In a Tuesday meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Times, Trump said he doesn’t “want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news.../11/22/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/94266466/
It's naïve and uninformed to try to compare laws regarding assault and speeding w/ the Espionage Act. It wasn't just Comey - there was plenty of precedent for the consideration of intent.
You simply don't understand the law. And really - the "toady" stuff...coming from YOU?
Dude Trump is right on track to do what he said.............Step one is FIRE COMEY, step 2 is on the way
These idiots really don't understand how the law works.
Comey and the FBI used case history and legal precedent to determine the need for proof of intent. They reviewed every previous case in the twentieth century, going back to WWII I think, and at no time has there ever been anyone prosecuted under the espionage act, for unintentionally mishandling classified information, and without a demonstrable intent to break the law and harm national security.
And as far as all this BS about prosecuting Comey, I'm sure he didn't make the decision on his own. I'm sure there were a fairly large number of high level FBI personnel who arrived at the decision not to recommend charging Clinton with him.
Wing nuts are just rabid goofballs.
Is intent in the statute?
Not in the statute, but you need to look at SCOTUS rulings on cases relating to the Espionage Act for established precedent when it comes to invoking intent.
But NOVA would probably call SCOTUS a "bunch of idiots."
Step 2 is for him to stand in front of you on your knees and unzip his pants....
Then it's on to step 3.
These idiots really don't understand how the law works.
Comey and the FBI used case history and legal precedent to determine the need for proof of intent. They reviewed every previous case in the twentieth century, going back to WWII I think, and at no time has there ever been anyone prosecuted under the espionage act, for unintentionally mishandling classified information, and without a demonstrable intent to break the law and harm national security.
And as far as all this BS about prosecuting Comey, I'm sure he didn't make the decision on his own. I'm sure there were a fairly large number of high level FBI personnel who arrived at the decision not to recommend charging Clinton with him.
Wing nuts are just rabid goofballs.