This is half of it, he's reporting on some parts.
https://twitter.com/daveweigel
https://twitter.com/maryaliceparks
They're at recess but it can be watched on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUZMuPo2UBg
Either that, or she's one hell of a speed reader to get through 20,000 emails already? There is one other potential answer, which I lean toward in this instance - blind partisanship.
Thanks for links. It's fun watching it before its news.
It doesn't look like the Bernie crowd is getting much traction for changing the rules on super delegates. I don't know why they think can change the rules in mid stream.
Follow
RevoltPolitic
@RevoltPolitic
HAPPENING NOW: Sanders supporters, including delegates, are locked out of the DNC rules committee AND have been kicked out of the building.
Not sure of the truthiness of this.
Holy crap on a cracker - if this true, and given the WikiLeaks documents, this could get very ugly, very quickly.
Holy crap on a cracker - if this true, and given the WikiLeaks documents, this could get very ugly, very quickly.
Did you prefer the chants of 'shoot her' or 'throw her in jail' at the convention? I'm guessing you're in the 'shoot her' crowd. And yeah, we've already seen the soft spot Trumpies have for the Heil salute. Nuremberg is a great analogy. Just submit 'Jews' for 'Clinton' and it would be hard to tell them apart.
Then what purpose does lying serve? Usually it serves to cover up something that someone knows they did wrong. I'm also fairly certain that dismantling your server, destroying evidence, and the fact that she waited a full two years before destroying said evidence(During an investigation), and use of multiple servers and devices shows pretty clear intent.
Not only that but they can also show that the actions were a result of gross negligence, and Comey clearly stated that Clinton was extremely careless. Both words happen to be synonyms of gross negligence, showing up as references when searching for the definitions of either word. Given that she clearly broke all of those laws I showed, and the evidence I just provided, all things she was stated to have done by the FBI, she either grossly negligent or doing said things intentionally. Either one can be proven from a reasonable perspective. It's entirely possible a prosecutor wouldn't take up the case, but what's clearly evident from what we can clearly observe is that she's guilty. Lack of indictment does not mean lack of guilt. We can all clearly see what her intentions were. She was hiding her communications because she didn't want them archived, turned over what she was okay with being seen, then tried to hide what she didn't want seen, and dismantled her server.
If you disagree, then please explain to me what her intentions were when keeping her emails from being archived, deleting the work-related emails she didn't turn over, lying about her actions, and using multiple devices while claiming she used one.
"Some animals are more equal than others."
"Some animals are more equal than others."
I've seen two twitter reports of that and one facebook post but that's not enough quite yet.
I'm looking around, but haven't seen anything yet. Doesn't mean it isn't out there.
ChuckTodd is getting a ton **** though.
Probably one of the most hated people in America right now. :lol:
Poor 'ol Chuckie.
Either that, or she's one hell of a speed reader to get through 20,000 emails already? There is one other potential answer, which I lean toward in this instance - blind partisanship.
First, I explained why it's obvious she intended to commit those crimes. Second, are you arguing that she's just extremely incompetent, and tried to cover up the crimes she committed due to said incompetence?You're drawing too many false conclusions based on something you seem to know little about...the law.
It is required by statutory law that "proof of intent" is necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial....
Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. Moreover, it is the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in criminal trial. In doing so, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind. Justice Holmes famously illustrated the concept of intent when he said “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.”..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
The FBI could not prove Hillary had intent to commit a crime.
ChuckTodd is getting a ton **** though.
Probably one of the most hated people in America right now. :lol:
What's the deal with Chuckie?
Assange has hinted his focus is the Clinton Foundation. We shall see.
What's the deal with Chuckie?
First, I explained why it's obvious she intended to commit those crimes. Second, are you arguing that she's just extremely incompetent, and tried to cover up the crimes she committed due to said incompetence?
You're drawing too many false conclusions based on something you seem to know little about...the law.
It is required by statutory law that "proof of intent" is necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial....
The FBI could not prove Hillary had intent to commit a crime.
But I guess it seems to work well for you.
You seemed to know what Assange was releasing, so it seemed logical to conclude you must be in a position to know = working with him.
If you aren't, it becomes pretty difficult not to wave the BS flag at your claim.
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?