Reply With Quote
& the F.B.I. has been at it for a year.
He mopped the in' floor with her in' ass.
& they can't get over it. Tougheth lucketh.
“The main problem is that after months and months of multiple investigations, no one has found any evidence of collusion,” a congressional source told Fox News. “So the Democrats are trying to shift the focus from collusion to obstruction, and since it doesn’t look like that will pan out for them either, they surely have some new accusation ready to put out there. It’s in their political interest to drag out these investigations as long as possible.”
& the F.B.I. has been at it for a year.
He mopped the in' floor with her in' ass.
& they can't get over it. Tougheth lucketh.
You have to love it when the "congressional source" gives such quotes anonymously.
Nice Fox News article. Fair and balanced! amirite?
Independent Counsel investigate Clinton for seven years. Can dish out. Can't take.
8 different Repug committees, $10M wasted
Benghazi!
Hillary personally shot those 4 US people in Benghazi!
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-29-2017 at 02:37 PM.
democrats will top that
Clinton was guilty even the former fbi said basically
is that before or after he said that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges?
Mueller not Democrat.
Take it. No y y.
did you really buy that ?
Crazy to think that this all might be retaliation for Flynn's lawsuit. Six ways to Sunday right Chucky Schumer?
They're gonna get him and he knows it.
sure. to my knowledge, she wasn't being charged with a strict liability crime. so intent will come into play.
You've been shown the SCOTUS rulings that govern how these cases are to be tried. You've been shown several times by several people.
So are you too stupid to understand, is your memory that ty, are you so arrogant you think you know better than the high court, or you just being willfully idiotic?
ROFL, your siggy, holy , that's funny.
100% of 23,000,000 is 23,000,000...
"more than 100%" of 23,000,000 would mean that somehow a negative number of people are covered under Ocare.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wh...rticle/2627135
So when Trump prosecute Hillary?
You and others didn't even have the correct statute.
I've already shown what statute she violated hundreds of times and intent is no where to be found.
I don't claim to know more than the high courts, but Comey's statement was bull as there were plenty of Federal prosecutors who would have tried her and won their case.
“As a former federal prosecutor with more than 350 criminal cases under my belt, I take serious issue with Director Comey’s conclusions,” said Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor in Texas and Virginia. “The applicable statute does not require specific intent to violate the law. Indeed, the only real issue is whether Secretary Clinton allowed classified information to be transmitted to her personal e-mail account. That alone is a felony count for each e-mail so transmitted — whether marked classified or not.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...uld-charge-her
that statute also requires the do ents to be of "national defense" not merely classified, and courts construe "national defense" very narrowly in this context. not to mention, in comey's statement back in july, he even specifically said they DID look at the statute that only requires gross negligence and didnt recommend charges for that either
Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
all his lawyers he hired are
No.
No y y. You take it.
And again you have been shown the SCOTUS decision that weighs the various statutes and case law telling how these cases are to be tried and judged.
You are on repeat and apparently too stupid to understand the difference between individual legislation and the role of the SCOTUS and their rulings.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/19/case.html
Apparently you are so pigheaded you think you can interpret law better than SCOTUS.
She had 7 email chains containing Top Secret/SAP level classifications.
And after your edit I see you did indeed buy the bull . Comey went through an entire list of Clinton's gross negligence, even you could have won that case against her.
even if you disagree with SCOTUS, or are absolutely certain that SCOTUS got it wrong that's irrelevant. the SCOTUS opinion is the governing law, and that's what prosecutors are bound to abide by... even if they know that scotus got it wrong
comey referenced the statute you keep bringing up, that does not include specific intent, but only gross negligence. and he said there isn't a good case even by that standard.
he went through mistakes she made and careless decisions. that's not the same as gross negligence, which is a legal standard, not a just two words that you interpret through a dictionary or thesaurus
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
