The law and judicial precedent says it is.
The articles about the emails are showing some pretty mundane stuff and then attaching a lot of spin and meaning that isn't there. So far I haven't seen anything that will bring down the house.
Did you read this sentence in the OP?
"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton".
When I read a sentence that claims "his NEXT will", I take that to mean the "NEXT" being referred to hasn't happened yet.
You seem to know what is in these "NEXT" emails, even though they haven't been released. How do you know that?
http://silenceisconsent.net/breakin...illary-clinton/#sthash.y2hjscEV.XlUBeoXU.dpbs
Not much detail and leaving aside the Comey and Lynch speed bumps, this does sound interesting on its' face given the hacked DNC emails already released.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton.
In a recent interview with ITV, Assange said the whistleblowing website will soon be leaking documents that will provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Many have said, if she is going to get indicted, it won't be over emails or benghazi. It will be something Clinton Foundation related. It feels like those times you imagine winning the lottery and what you would do with the money, but I can't help but play the "What if?" game. What if....something came out that made her sure to lose the general election?
Well, after having digested the previous email dump and stewed on the apparent fact that the DNC machine, contrary to it's own rules, was pulling for Shillary from the very beginning and running on all 8 cylinders while doing it. A lot of people are considering that maybe he would have won a fair contest. Now we get another dump friday, with more showing how they came up with attack strategies, at a time they were publicly demanding he back of his attacks and keep it civil in the party. Practically directing the media. If she is indicted or excluded in the next week, the DNC will have no choice but Bernie. Being so last minute, and with all that we've seen these last few weeks suggesting he either should have either lost a nail biter or won, the DNC won't have a chance to play Biden, or Bloomberg. Anyone the DNC reaches for who isn't Bernie will be seen as a puppet for a corrupt establishment, and Bernie would be perfectly justified in running 3rd party and have very good odds on election day. The timing can't be coincidental, and if I held the cards Assange claims he has next to the ones he's played already, I'd play them out the same way if I didn't want her as POTUS.
Here's for hoping!
Well, I am not a Hillary supporter and I think that had she been anyone else she would have been indicted on the evidence already made public.
Having said that, I prefer to wait and see what Mr. Assange's evidence actually is. To be honest, whatever it is I doubt any action will be taken against her at this point in the campaign.
Considering that it was Russian hackers that hacked the DNC, I think Putin is trying to make trump the winner.
To be timed with the Sunday morning talk shows, perhaps?
Hello, Governess, it's nice to meet you~
First, Comey was right, she did not break the law by using a private server, that much is accurate. Where she broke the law was how she used it, and what she did with it after.
http://image.prntscr.com/image/26ec36fb4e1a4982a59ea2f2a8871f9a.png
When you're using a private server, though, you're required to forward your emails for record keeping. She didn't do this, instead, she kept them private until specifically asked. Even then, she sent only some of the emails, and deleted the rest.
http://image.prntscr.com/image/56dc24275b37495a805097e82c32f657.png
Federal Records Act of 1950 - The IT Law Wiki - Wikia
They are legally defined as Federal Records.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
When you are considering destroying a Federal Record, you have to notify the archivist first, who initiates the action through the Attorney General.
She chose not to notify the Archivist or the Attorney General. She just deleted the emails, some of which were work related, and thereby Federal Records.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
She did so while under investigation, and even if she didn't, it's still against the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
If it was by accident, it's still against the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
She also shared Classified information, also against the law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
She also claimed that she had not shared classified information.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
She also dismantled and tried to hide her server.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/152
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
And this stuff is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more laws she broke.
Unlike you right wing types, who are so tolerant and understanding of opposing ideas.:lamo
We saw that at the recently concluded convention, which reminded anybody with a sense of history of the Nuremburg rallies of the 1930's. Same fanaticism, same cult like devotion to their God.
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.
You think perhaps that Putin sees Trump as someone that won't continue to set the Middle East on fire with bad decisions?
Perhaps someone he can make a decent deal (compromise) with?
Or perhaps someone that he thinks Trump is someone that he can as easily out maneuver as Obama?
Looks like a Godwin violation to me. On his worst day Trump is Huey Long, not Adolph Hitler.
Huey Pierce Long Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, was an American politician who served as the 40th Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932 and as a member of the United States Senate from 1932 until his assassination in 1935. A Democrat, he was an outspoken populist who denounced the rich and the banks, and called for "Share our Wealth." As the political boss of the state he commanded wide networks of supporters and was willing to take forceful action. He established the political prominence of the Long family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
In the event that they run out of things to talk about at the DEM Convention in Philadelphia next week, this could serve as a conversation starter, I guess... :mrgreen:
Putin sees Trump as someone who might abandon his NATO obligations.
Not sure I see the Huey Long comparison. Can you please elaborate on that? What are your thoughts on this?
You think perhaps that Putin sees Trump as someone that won't continue to set the Middle East on fire with bad decisions?
Perhaps someone he can make a decent deal (compromise) with?
Or perhaps someone that he thinks Trump is someone that he can as easily out maneuver as Obama?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clientsFor almost four decades, Donald Trump’s newly installed senior campaign adviser, Paul Manafort, has managed to juggle two different worlds: well known during US election season as a shrewd and tough political operative, he also boasts a hefty résumé as a consultant to or lobbyist for controversial foreign leaders and oligarchs with unsavory reputations.
The controversial clients Manafort has represented have paid him and his firms millions of dollars and form a who’s who of authoritarian leaders and scandal-plagued businessmen in Ukraine, Russia, the Philippines and more. On some occasions, Manafort has become involved in business deals that have sparked litigation and allegations of impropriety.
I think Putin would be making a big mistake if that is the case.
I think Putin would be making a big mistake if that is the case.
Considering that it was Russian hackers that hacked the DNC, I think Putin is trying to make trump the winner.
I think Putin would be making a big mistake if that is the case.
Precedent? Yes. Law? Not necessarily. "Gross negligence" would seem to be intent-free.
Putin sees Trump as someone who might abandon his NATO obligations.
Herr Trumph has always dreamed of putting a Trumph Tower in Moscow and his comments about NATO just might get it done. He doesn't need any maneuvering, he is firmly in Putin's pocket. They are like 2 peas in a pod. Keep you populace scared to death so you can pick their pockets. His campaign manager has already worked with Pro-Putin elements in the Ukraine.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients
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?