"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
As early as fall 2015, the FBI supposedly detected successful efforts by "Russian hackers" to breach DEMOCRAT National Committee (DNC) computers.
For reasons unknown, the DNC systems reportedly remained vulnerable to further "Russian" attacks.
By 2016, the DNC and FBI both had supposedly concluded "Russians" were responsible for additional hacks.
Yet the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine its servers, and — for reasons unexplained — the FBI failed to confiscate them. Obviously, when national security is at stake, the FBI does not need permission to examine evidence.
A senior law enforcement official told CNN the DNC’s withholding of crucial evidence “caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.” https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/polit...ike/index.html
Why didn't the FBI (then led by James Comey) act quickly and definitively to examine the evidence?
Can any JPP DEMOCRAT explain?
https://tinyurl.com/Answer-DEMOCRATS
OIC.
The FBI requested, but did not receive, physical access to the DNC servers. The FBI did obtain copies of the servers and all the information on them, as well as access to forensics from CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity company that reviewed the DNC servers. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said that access through Crowdstrike was an "appropriate substitute" and termed the firm a "highly respected private company."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
It seems you didn't read the Act..
") Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system. "
So, it clearly wasn't a violation of the act by Clinton. It is the responsibility of the Agency to ensure preservation.
And you failed to show how e and f apply.There was classified information on that server and had been transmitted. 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
e requires that you show Clinton knew information was classified and transferred it to a person not authorized to receive it. There is no evidence to support either of those requirements of the law.
f requires that you show that Clinton had lawful possession and the information be lost, stolen or destroyed or removed from it's proper place of custody or delivered to someone unauthorized to receive it.
The problem is you can't argue that the server was unauthorized and then argue that the information on it was lawfully possessed.
OMG.. that is funny. You might want to read the law you referenced.
She destroyed evidence during an investigation. 44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records.
Yes, that word does describe you quite well.MORON.
The law will always require evidence to prosecute. There is more evidence Trump obstructed justice than Clinton violated any of the laws you cited.You've got it ass backwards shit-for-brains; YOUR notion of the law is laughably stupid and incredibly weak.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Unlike Mueller and Comey, "Bill Barr and Robert Mueller have been close friends for 30 years, from the Justice Department to family weddings and the Bible study attended by both of their wives."
So why doesn't that fact have RWNJs showing Mueller a little more respect? You guys claimed that the so-called Mueller-Comey friendship would cause the investigation to be biased.
“What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
― Charles Dickens
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Truth Detector (04-24-2019)
Bookmarks