Ok, I just read the indictment. Here's what I learned: Trump is f.*****

NiftyNiblick said:
I wouldn't know. I've got the hawk on ignore.

This judge was already overturned once in a ruling on these matters preceding the indictment, trying to stop it..
Now they're giving her the actual case,
and nobody is even talking about it.

If she isn't forced to recuse, she'll accept a motion to dismiss right after the prosecution makes its case.
We won't even hear from the defense.
They'll be just walking out of there, laughing.

Try to have a clue about what's going on, Phan.
This is important.
Click to expand...

I hope that she gets recused. I've been fretting about this since the indictment came down.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.



18 U.S. Code § 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
Click to expand...

If even a scintilla of this was true, #TRE45ON would have made good on his promise to you to "LOCK HER UP."

The fact that he didn't tells us that this case has been dismissed.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She set it up with the intention of avoiding the federal records act and keeping her government business obscured. That should be obvious to anyone. She didn't give a shit about following rules and laws on classified information. She insisted on using an unsecure Blackberry too, even though she was repeatedly told by SoS IT security types it was and was even dangerous to do.

The Hildabeast doesn't get her own set of laws. She broke a number of them, and then skated, just like Democrats seem to do every time something like this comes up. Same with Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers scandal. She's another that should go to jail for this sort of shit.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't Trump's DOJ make good on his promise to indict, try, and jail her, hmm?

Probably because they have far more information than what your Reichwing media masters have fed you.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You two sound just like the Trump defenders here. They're both criminals and both deserve indictment. Let a jury and a judge decide on their guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that there is no evidence to convict Clinton, so they (Trump's DOJ that had four years to do it) didn't even bother. Maybe you should broaden your information horizons a bit more.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Oh, do tell! What was it, did they ever say?
Click to expand...


How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled
The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.
Click to expand...

7pe7ah.jpg


https://twitter.com/x/status/1668713665950777344
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top