You may be right. Myself, I'll await the results of the election and the investigations.
I'm jumping the gun? With all the things coming out now I fail to understand someone as partisan, and vitriolic as you with your name calling, and dripping condescension can even type these things with a straight face....Of course Hillary deserves due process, but I have no power to either jail her myself, or adjudicate her for any of her obvious crimes. The fact that the system is broken, and someone as deplorable as Hillary Clinton can do what she has done, and get away with it exposing the demo party as nothing but corrupt liars is testament to the ability of progressives being a cancer to society....
Now, if you have something intelligent to say then I suggest you say it, otherwise quit wasting our time.
You can believe what you want, but politics played 100% in this, and that's a fact. She destroyed thousands of emails, THAT'S INTENT RIGHT THERE, like it or not. Comey fell on his sword and is regretting every minute since. His name and reputation are ruined. Clearly you either don't understand the mechanics of security and the associated policies, or you are purposely denying everything for partisan reasons (if you do know). There isn't a single person that I know that handles classified data that isn't absolutely certain that she violated the laws and governing regulations, and should have been indicted. And frankly I think even the dumbest people aware of this at least know that something is wrong with how she handled the emails. Those emails don't even have to have classified data in them for her to have violated the Record Act alone, did you know that? The existence of classified data just makes the violations worse then they already are (i.e., Espionage Act). I'm sick of leftwingers running around here saying she did nothing wrong, because Comey didn't recommend indictment. Using political excuses to justify wrongdoing at a Top Secret/SCI level is some lame ****! Our country's secrets were involved, and anyone who claims to love this country should be demanding appropriate justice for this.
Did you taking an oath to protect this country or not? Yes or no.
Sub sailor's photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails - POLITICO
I think the results are in. Much ado about nothing.
I think you're making excuses. You were once again wrong, as Hillary won't be charged, and instead of accepting reality, you need to rationalize your error. Sadly that's all too common today. And if you look at the sailor, you'll find differences that matter. If you need me to point them out, i will. But try it for yourself first. :coffeepap
Except for the prospect of a POTUS who was "extremely careless" with classified information and has been shown to be a relentless liar.
He isn't wrong. Clinton is lucky she has a corrupt DOJ on her side.
Except for the prospect of a POTUS who was "extremely careless" with classified information and has been shown to be a relentless liar.
He is wrong and excuses do not a case make. So buck up and accept this was all much ado about nothing.
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. Get Free Exclusive NR Content In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook | National Review
He is wrong and excuses do not a case make. So buck up and accept this was all much ado about nothing.
Better than bat**** crazy and spreading hate filled inaccuracies such as Trump has. And as Trump was named King of the Whoppers, lying at a rate of twice that of Hillary, no logical person can call him a better alternative.
Nonsense. Just making excuses.DoJ has been corrupt since the beginning. Every since that weasel Holder was in there, nothing ever happens out of that dept. They didn't review 650,000 emails in a week. NO ****ING WAY!
FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook | National Review
The whole thing is a political stunt by the Obama administration.
Luck is not a strategy.
In my view they are equally abhorrent. Thus my decision to vote for neither.
No one said it was.
Well, we got the worst of the bunch, sadly.
Clinton got lucky. That was her strategy to stay out of prison.
Depends on the question. Had she not pandered on trade she would have had my vote.
In think the pandering was done on Trump's part. He really can't do much of what he laid out, and if he does, well, that would be worse for us.
On the contrary, he's set up for a series of easy, quick wins.
On trade, she turned against the trade deal she had negotiated. Perhaps the most unprincipled act of the campaign.
I don't see any quick wins really and few have ever been more unprincipled than Trump.
The fact that he is unprincipled in no way suggests that she is not unprincipled also.
5 Potential Quick Victories for President Donald Trump
Ian Bremmer, Time
Agreed, but no one who voted for Trump can claim they care about principle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?