• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal [W:234, 1861]

Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Sh is a felon. That fact that the fib and the injustice department is covering for her doesn't make her innocent.
More so when the head of the fib spells out exactly how badly she broke the law and even said if it was anyone else they would be charged.

So the fact it was Clinton was the only reason it was 100% a political move and done in the worst possible way.

Exactly what I said. She's been tried and convicted in the Trumpeteer court already. If the FBI won't go along with that conviction, then that proves a cover up.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Woe be us, we have Trump or Clinton.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

He never said she DIDN'T break the law. Never declared her innocent.

Quite irrelevant to the claim you made.
He said she was, "extremely careless". That is the definition of gross negligence. Section F, of The Espionage Act specifically stated that gross negligence is a crime, when classified material is mishandled.

See above.
So, yes, he clearly stated that she broke the law.

Newp. You can play Let's-Pretend fantasy games all day, if you'd like, but it won't change reality.
But, the law is for the little people. Right? The Liberals can no longer claim to be heroes for the unwashed masses.

No, you're the only one making that claim.

Sorry you had to change your claim to pretend you were right. Yet again.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Exactly what I said. She's been tried and convicted in the Trumpeteer court already. If the FBI won't go along with that conviction, then that proves a cover up.

If you aren't going to be honest about the discussion then why be involved.
She should have been charged and put on trial.

That is why we have a court system. There is enough evidence to suggest charges be filed.
Everyone on the intelligence committee is saying that is they would have done that then they would be kicked off and lose the security clearance.
 
Re: clinton walks

So Comey didn't indict her because he didn't want to indict Powell or Rice? and half the State Department?

You can kiss the GOP goodbye? You're predicting that they lose the majorities in the House, Senate, and Governors' mansions?

I agree with you that Trump will lose. Trump isn't the entire GOP. I think I remember 2 Democrat Presidential contenders losing in a row in the 21st century. Was that the end of the Democratic party?

Take a look at this....

If this isn't the end for the Republican Party, it'll be a shame. They dominated American political life for 50 years and were never anything but monsters. They bred in their voters the incredible attitude that Republicans were the only people within our borders who raised children, loved their country, died in battle or paid taxes. They even sullied the word "American" by insisting they were the only real ones. They preferred Lubbock to Paris, and their idea of an intellectual was Newt Gingrich. Their leaders, from Ralph Reed to Bill Frist to Tom DeLay to Rick Santorum to Romney and Ryan, were an interminable assembly line of shrieking, witch-hunting celibates, all with the same haircut – the kind of people who thought Iran-Contra was nothing, but would grind the affairs of state to a halt over a blow job or Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.

A century ago, the small-town American was Gary Cooper: tough, silent, upright and confident. The modern Republican Party changed that person into a haranguing neurotic who couldn't make it through a dinner without quizzing you about your politics. They destroyed the American character. No hell is hot enough for them. And when Trump came along, they rolled over like the weaklings they've always been, bowing more or less instantly to his parodic show of strength.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...g-the-republican-party-20160518#ixzz4DdlQaSQA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
 
Re: clinton walks

There will always be a large number of partisans who will support the Democrat no matter what. Just like the Republicans have their faithful. I'm talking about persuading independents to vote for someone other than Hillary. If the opponent was a good choice, which Trump is not, she would be finished.

Trump is not the country's answer to "righting" itself. You don't replace one dishonest incompetent with another. If I had to fire an employee for poor performance, I would not think I've solved anything if I replaced that employee with another poor performer. Trump will be equally as damaging as Clinton. The people who supported Trump made just as big a mistake as the people who continue to support Clinton.

That's an opinion. Perfectly permissible, but an opinion.

I agree that the 20% in the middle are the key to winning elections. But do you think they would have voted en mass for the likes of Rubio, Bush, or Cruz? I don't.

Trump is a businessman. Has he used the system to his advantage? Absolutely. Legally. Clinton is a politician. Has she exploited the system? You betcha. And not always legally. I'll take the competent businessman rather than the incompetent crook. Those are the two choices. There is no reason to believe the middle 20% doesn't feel the same.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

From Andrew McCarthy at National Review:

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.

...It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook | National Review

doesn't "gross negligence" require an element of intent for "gross negligence" to be found
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Quite irrelevant to the claim you made.

See above.

Newp. You can play Let's-Pretend fantasy games all day, if you'd like, but it won't change reality.

No, you're the only one making that claim.

Sorry you had to change your claim to pretend you were right. Yet again.

Read the law...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Coney absolutely said she broke the law. Live with it.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

doesn't "gross negligence" require an element of intent for "gross negligence" to be found

No. Think about it.
 
Re: clinton walks

If there is evidence of a potential murder, should the investigation end there?

do investigations of all "potential" murders then result in actual murders having been committed in all instances?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

doesn't "gross negligence" require an element of intent for "gross negligence" to be found

Did Clinton intentionally set up her multiple private servers?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Thanks for eating your own words and admitting that he never said what you claimed.

You didn't read the law, did you?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

If you aren't going to be honest about the discussion then why be involved.
She should have been charged and put on trial.

That is why we have a court system. There is enough evidence to suggest charges be filed.
Everyone on the intelligence committee is saying that is they would have done that then they would be kicked off and lose the security clearance.

Who gets to decide whether she should have been charged and tried?

Since she has already been tried and convicted in the minds of her political opponents, she is clearly guilty. Therefore, the FBI is simply covering up her crimes.

Therefore, we must elect the fraud and conman to the office of president. What a sorry situation.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:


For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).


Wanna try again?

did those seven email chains bear a stamp upon them documenting the classified information to be found therein?
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

Thank you.

‘‘Republican after Republican praised Director Comey’s impeccable record of independence — right up until the moment he issued his conclusion."

Heh.

That is because they thought he was being independent but the level if evidence that he spent 10-15 minutes going over
In how she violated the law and broke it and all the other things that happened and then goes.

Yea she broke the law but didn't do it on purpose or mean to so she gets off.
What is even worse for him is when he said if it was anyone else they would have been charged.
That says that the law does not apply to Clinton simply because she is Clinton.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

No he didn't. Live with it.

Yes he did since if it was anyone else they would have faced charges.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

No he didn't. Live with it.

Why is the left digging their heels in so hard to lie for Clinton? Are they that dann brainwashed? This rates up there with Holocaust denial.
 
Re: clinton walks

Well, from a theological perspective, there is not one person on the face of the earth that is innocent (even small children and babies)....

Nobody is talking about a theological perspective.

From an American legal perspective, we are all entitled to the presumption of innocence. Hillary Clinton was investigated and there was not sufficient evidence presented from that investigation to warrant a charge. Even if charged, she was entitled to the presumption of innocence.... even more so without evidence to bring a charge.

The FBI can only recommend, and we heard what Comey's recommendation was yesterday and the opinion that prosecutors will choose not to indict.

Now, perhaps you do not believe in the American legal system and prefer to be sole judge, jury and executioner? Many of us, however, believe in the institution that is America. Many of us can respect America's laws and its legal protections that include a due process that protects us from being unfairly charged, convicted and jailed (or labeled a criminal) for crimes we did not commit.

Sorry, but you don't get to say that in America (of course you can say it, but saying it is unAmerican). She is innocent, by America's definition.

First, I do get to say any damned thing I please. Second, your "perhaps you do not believe in the American legal system and prefer to be sole judge, jury and executioner" is contemptible. Cheap, low, and colossally stupid. Third, Hillary Clinton is not "innocent," just "lucky."
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

did those seven email chains bear a stamp upon them documenting the classified information to be found therein?

Ignoring the fib and what they said doesn't change facts.
 
Re: clinton walks

The was no"fix" or was it needed. There was never any doubt that Hillary would not be indicted. Just like there is no doubt the Trump will lose and lose badly. The FBI investigation worked out just like most impartial lawyers said it would. Indicting Hillary would have required doing the same to Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and half of the State Dept. along with her. You have been duped again by the GOP establishment and now with Trump as your nominee you have guaranteed that Hillary will win. You really can kiss the GOP good-bye too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/

Opinions presented as fact. A Clinton again escaping unscathed is no surprise. That's why Trump is popular. We'll see in November.

Even then, there is no guarantee the election will not be rigged. Virginia's governor thanks to the idiot establishment local politicians, has just created 200,000 + new Democrat voters, in a swing state. Obama is allowing the use of the presidential jet and presidential podium for Hillary's political purposes. With 5 months to go, manipulation is not only possible, but likely.
 
Re: F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email[W:

That is because they thought he was being independent but the level if evidence that he spent 10-15 minutes going over
In how she violated the law and broke it and all the other things that happened and then goes.

Yea she broke the law but didn't do it on purpose or mean to so she gets off.
What is even worse for him is when he said if it was anyone else they would have been charged.
That says that the law does not apply to Clinton simply because she is Clinton.

Lie.
..
 
Back
Top Bottom