I will need a board liberal to explain this to me

C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
Because this is all so very confusing.

So during Comey's testimony, he claims that the only reason he didn't bring charges against Hillary even though she committed illegal acts is that he couldn't prove she intended to break the law. He claims she didn't know she was violating the law.

Now put aside for the moment that ever since we were little kids we have been told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". For example if you are doing 50 mph in a 35 mph zone, you won't get away with saying "I didn't know the speed limit".

But, let's put aside that basic fact of life for just one second

We have here for your reading pleasure a signed Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) by Hillary Rodham Clinton herself on January 22, 2009 indicating that she was trained on the handling of classified information


http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

The NDA states very clearly


I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence,


I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code.

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by foreign nationals.

Now if this weren't enough, we supposed to believe that the smartest, most qualified person ever to run for President; one who has been in public life for 40 years, served as a First Lady, Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee and a lawyer to boot had no idea how to handle classified information?

That is what you want us to believe? She is just too stupid to know how to handle classified information?


So help me out here board lefties. Please square these contradictions and try to do so without just saying "Comey said no charges".
 
Legal intent is a component of many crimes.

For some crime, you must knowingly do the thing accused of having done.

I have a case right now, for example, where my client is charged with uttering a forgery. HE is alleged to have submitted forged paperwork. The document he turned into the building department had a forged signature on it, but he was submitting it for his boss, my client had no idea it contained a forged signature. So, he did submit a forgery, but the law requires that it be done knowingly.

They could not prove HRC knowingly mishandled classified information, because it was not marked classified.
 
Jarod said:
Legal intent is a component of many crimes.

For some crime, you must knowingly do the thing accused of having done.

I have a case right now, for example, where my client is charged with uttering a forgery. HE is alleged to have submitted forged paperwork. The document he turned into the building department had a forged signature on it, but he was submitting it for his boss, my client had no idea it contained a forged signature. So, he did submit a forgery, but the law requires that it be done knowingly.

They could not prove HRC knowingly mishandled classified information, because it was not marked classified.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that the smartest woman in the world; the woman who was more qualified than anyone in the history of the United States; a woman who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committed could only tell if something was classified if it had a big ole C on it?

You realize that that is not the standard right? You really don't think that is a lame assed excuse?

I realize that it is difficult for you to defend the indefensible, but come on counselor you have to do better
 
Jarod said:
Legal intent is a component of many crimes.

For some crime, you must knowingly do the thing accused of having done.

I have a case right now, for example, where my client is charged with uttering a forgery. HE is alleged to have submitted forged paperwork. The document he turned into the building department had a forged signature on it, but he was submitting it for his boss, my client had no idea it contained a forged signature. So, he did submit a forgery, but the law requires that it be done knowingly.

They could not prove HRC knowingly mishandled classified information, because it was not marked classified.
Click to expand...

First of all you're not a lawyer and we all know it.

Second, Hillary couldn't not know that she was breaking the law.
 
I Love America said:
So you are saying that the smartest woman in the world; the woman who was more qualified than anyone in the history of the United States; a woman who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committed could only tell if something was classified if it had a big ole C on it?

You realize that that is not the standard right? You really don't think that is a lame assed excuse?

I realize that it is difficult for you to defend the indefensible, but come on counselor you have to do better
Click to expand...

Bottom line: Hillary was too dumb to be president or too crooked lol.

But there's something really fishy about the whole business. One is the sheer number of emails---in the tens of thousands in some instances. Nobody writes that many emails. This is more like data sharing where emails are passed along in batches.

And Wednesday Comey said Huma wouldn't be charged [well, lookee there, another open and shut investigation by Comey] even though she passed emails along to Anthony Weiner as a “matter of convenience” so he could print them out because her boss preferred reading information on paper.

Huh?

Huma can't afford her own printer? Huma doesn't have her own aid with a printer, even? I'm calling bullshit on that.

I think Comey is a weasel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top