FBI: Hillary Clinton Broke the Law, We Just Don’t Really Care

christiefan915 said:
Comey's a Republican. I'm sure if there was really anything to indict prosecute over he would have been on it like a duck on a June bug.

Pitbull Starr couldn't get her 20 years ago and now Comey can't either. I suppose none of you understand it's because no laws were broken.
Click to expand...

please. Comey laid out an indictment, and then refused to indict. Why not refer to a grand jury at least?
The "gross negligence" points he laid them out as "extreme carelessness"

here is the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(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..Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
++ read about her tranversing MARKED classified, etc..

Comey somehow dismisses it as not meting a "vast quantity" standard. Nothing in the statute says anything about it.
 
Like this tweet from Ron Fournier:


FBI exposes Democratic nominee's systematic lies.

How does GOP nominee respond? Praises a dead dictator/terrorist

Long live the duopoly
 
anatta said:
please. Comey laid out an indictment, and then refused to indict. Why not refer to a grand jury at least?
The "gross negligence" points he laid them out as "extreme carelessness"

here is the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(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..Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
++ read about her tranversing MARKED classified, etc..

Comey somehow dismisses it as not meting a "vast quantity" standard. Nothing in the statute says anything about it.
Click to expand...

Good point on the grand jury bit. It was almost like Comer was playing the role of prosecutor. Given the political component there should have been a grand jury convened.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Good point on the grand jury bit. It was almost like Comer was playing the role of prosecutor. Given the political component there should have been a grand jury convened.
Click to expand...
it's unbelievable. Comey lays it all out - then disjointedly throw in "intent" ( or precedence ..not sur yet,) when all he had to do was recommend a grand jury.

I mean read the statement -it tears her apart -and then he punts on his own finding because there isn't a precedent?
 
anatta said:
please. Comey laid out an indictment, and then refused to indict. Why not refer to a grand jury at least?
The "gross negligence" points he laid them out as "extreme carelessness"

here is the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(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..Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
++ read about her tranversing MARKED classified, etc..

Comey somehow dismisses it as not meting a "vast quantity" standard. Nothing in the statute says anything about it.
Click to expand...

Again nice edit job little child.
Why not quote the entire law, in which case it is obvious why she can't be prosecuted.
 
Rune said:
Again nice edit job little child.
Why not quote the entire law, in which case it is obvious why she can't be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 793 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

specific reference to: 18 U.S.C § 793(f)(1) is what I posted, in full..
 
anatta said:
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 793 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

specific reference to: 18 U.S.C § 793(f)(1) is what I posted, in full..
Click to expand...

Again for apparently brain dead anatta;
The full text of the law starts with the letter a. It is right at your link, IT IS ALL ABOUT INTENT AND NOW FOR THE VERY LAST TIME EXTREME CARELESSNESS DOES NOT RISE TO GROSS NEGILGENCE
 
Rune said:
Again for apparently brain dead anatta;
The full text of the law starts with the letter a. It is right at your link, IT IS ALL ABOUT INTENT AND NOW FOR THE VERY LAST TIME EXTREME CARELESSNESS DOES NOT RISE TO GROSS NEGILGENCE
Click to expand...
......Rune's brain is now officially flatlined......no signs of intelligent life.......
++
Carelessness=Negligence / extreme=gross.. <----- it can't be more clear
++
The entire § 793 ( chapter 793) is not required to be met!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is: (i.e.)

any section OR subsection is a violation of law = (f)(1) = the relevant section/subsection. :palm:
 
anatta said:
......Rune's brain is now officially flatlined......no signs of intelligent life.......
++
Carelessness=Negligence / extreme=gross.. <----- it can't be more clear
++
The entire § 793 ( chapter 793) is not required to be met!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is: (i.e.)

any section OR subsection is a violation of law = (f)(1) = the relevant section/subsection. :palm:
Click to expand...

Yes meat popcicle EXCEPT gross negligence.requires INTENT to harm.

That is the diiference between gross and ordinary negligence: intent.

Since no ill intent by Hillary can be proven....connect the dots.
 
Rune said:
I mean really, what a fucking idiot anatta is.
Click to expand...

It's red-hot rage.

As someone screamed out at Trump's rally today:

HANG THE BITCH

It's not really coherent, and it's never-ending.

I can assure you it has nothing to do with her being a woman though, in case that's what you were thinking.
 
Rune said:
Yes meat popcicle EXCEPT gross negligence.requires INTENT to harm.

That is the diiference between gross and ordinary negligence: intent.

Since no ill intent by Hillary can be proven....connect the dots.
Click to expand...

OMG. Rune you are beyond help -seek a rock to slide under it's all you have going for you -
you seriously cannot function in daylight..

ONCE AGAIN: READ --> § 793 (f)(1)

WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY REFERENCE TO INTENT??
 
Darla said:
It's red-hot rage.

As someone screamed out at Trump's rally today:

HANG THE BITCH

It's not really coherent, and it's never-ending.

I can assure you it has nothing to do with her being a woman though, in case that's what you were thinking.
Click to expand...
dear idiot wind.
you can cast aspersions without references along with Rune towards no good end, but if you can't follow the Queens English towards logical constructs...

......t's not my fault - is it?
 
RsC8P.jpg
 
She didn't really mean to, (no intent) therefore its perfectly okay. What bullshit. Did they forget about criminal negligence?

Unbelievable. Looks like Bill's meeting with lynch meant something. She put Comey back in his place.
 
anatta said:
OMG. Rune you are beyond help -seek a rock to slide under it's all you have going for you -
you seriously cannot function in daylight..

ONCE AGAIN: READ --> § 793 (f)(1)

WHERE DO YOU SEE ANY REFERENCE TO INTENT??
Click to expand...
That would be in the legal definition of gross negligence.
You can't truly be this fucking stupid.
Section f does not apply because it doesn't rise to gross negligence (intent to harm.)
Ok little fawn?
Do you get it yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top