What law do you think HIllary Clinton broke?

[SheWolf]

I had this ah-ha moment while posting on another thread. I wonder what law people thought HC had broken for which she could be prosecuted. Surely no one thinks she was guilty of treason. Is it actually against the law to use a private server? Would it have ever come up before? SHOULD there be an actual law in place NOW?

I agree with your post. I am deeply confused about the scandal. I also know somebody who works in local and state politics, and she said it's well know in their group that almost everybody uses private email and private servers from time to time. She thinks the entire things is about politics and nothing more. She also can't stand Hillary, so I trust her as a legitimate source on the issue. If thousands of people constantly do what Hillary did, then Hillary's treatment seems a little exreme.

 

[ludin]

I love how internet posters think they know more than him.

It isn't that we know more than him it is that he contradicted himself.
He basically started out laying out a case of all the violations that she incurred
and what she did and the fact that she lied to investigators which is a felony in and of itself.

he then spent 5 minutes with the most dumbest defense of those action possible.
I fact previous prosecutors said there was enough evidence to put charges on her.

the DOJ and the administration colluded with the FBI to let her off all of them should be
brought up on ethic and corruption charges.

the whole lot of them should be thrown in jail.

 

[sangha]

That isn't the argument, and you're more than smart enough o know that. The argument is regarding intent, which you and others say did not exist, yet if she also did as you say and take steps to protect the information then she was aware of her duty to act to protect the data yet exposed the data to harm regardless of that knowledge, which shows intent.

The argument is specifically about "intent to expose classified data" and it is nonsense to argue that trying to protect data proves an intent to expose data.

It could be argued that it is incompetence, but that is not a crime.

 

[Slyfox696]

No.

If there is evidence that she tried to protect information because it was classified

Securing an e-mail server does not show/prove intent to protect classified data. I manage an e-mail server and I'm constantly updating it and making sure it is safeguarded for attack...and I work at a K-12 public school in a town of less than 5,000 people, where no classified data will ever exist.

This is not a good attack line for you. The better attack line would be, as Comey said, a reasonable person in Clinton's position should assume she will encounter classified e-mail/documents because of her job description. Claiming that an e-mail server, first set up by a former President, tried to protect the data within and that shows intent to hide classified data is a non-starter.

Anyone that has worked with classified material knows what she did would cost you your clearance and your job. We have all seen it first hand. She is clearly above the law and someone is clearly pulling strings. The corruption and special treatment is not only obvious but in your face obvious.

Losing your clearance/job and being charged with a crime are two different things. Comey clearly stated it would not be a shock for someone to lose their job/clearance for what Hillary did, but that he did not think, given the same circumstances, ANYONE would be charged with a crime.

It isn't that we know more than him it is that he contradicted himself.
He basically started out laying out a case of all the violations that she incurred
and what she did and the fact that she lied to investigators which is a felony in and of itself.

Uhh, this is unequivocally false. He VERY clearly stated that Hillary Clinton never lied to the FBI and he made no statement regarding what Clinton said to Congress. Please do not peddle lies in a grown-up conversation.

he then spent 5 minutes with the most dumbest defense of those action possible.

It wasn't dumb at all. Sorry if it didn't align with what you wanted.

the DOJ and the administration colluded with the FBI to let her off

This was directly refuted by James Comey under oath. Do you have prove or are you just making stuff up?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Again, it is nonsense to argue that actions to protect data demonstrate an intent to not protect data or is evidence of gross negligence




"May have" is a dodge indicating that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you. In spite of a thorough investigation by the FBI finding no criminal activity, you're making an argument that is much like the child who asks "Why?" after every answer you give him.

You "may have" committed espionage. I "may have" helped Al Queda blow up the WTC. There's no end to "may have"




I am not going to defend Moot's post.


No, the only way to determine the # of emails with classified info she received on her server(s) is to examine the emails. The FBI has done this and they have determined the facts, as best as possible. What you're doing is something less than that. You're engaging in speculation

Fine. I spent my life dealing with and protecting classified information, and based on your opinions you have put forward you obviously believe that you know more than I do about classified information and the law surrounding it.

The law is the law. The facts are the facts. Your opinion is inconsistent with both. I'm not going to continue to argue with you in this "yes it is" / "no it isn't" back and forth. That isn't debate, but rather a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible for obviously ideological reasons rather than accepting the facts and the law.

You were not being disrespectful or baiting, flaming, or trolling. That is not what I'm saying. You were respectful, just wrong, and I feel we have started going around in circles by repeating ourselves, so I'm pulling the ring and getting off the merry-go-round.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Securing an e-mail server does not show/prove intent to protect classified data. I manage an e-mail server and I'm constantly updating it and making sure it is safeguarded for attack...and I work at a K-12 public school in a town of less than 5,000 people, where no classified data will ever exist.

This is not a good attack line for you. The better attack line would be, as Comey said, a reasonable person in Clinton's position should assume she will encounter classified e-mail/documents because of her job description. Claiming that an e-mail server, first set up by a former President, tried to protect the data within and that shows intent to hide classified data is a non-starter.
...

That is a misinterpretation of what I said, and what I meant.

 

[Slyfox696]

That is a misinterpretation of what I said, and what I meant.

Perhaps, and I'll believe you, but it is an accurate response to the particular thread of conversation.

Sangha mentioned Clinton may have done things to safeguard her server. Cpwill said that providing protection to the server would be worse, since protection would indicate knowledge which proves intent. Sangha mentioned that protecting data is not the same as exposing data. You replied with saying that if she tried to protect data (because it was classified) that would indicate intent. However, that is not what was being discussed. An e-mail server should be protected because it has data, regardless of the type of data.

So I'm just pointing out that trying to attack the fact she tried to protect her server is not a good argument. I'm thinking you were saying if she did upgrade specifically to protect classified data, but that's not an argument that's ever going to have wings, because it then becomes a circular argument.

That's what I was saying.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Losing your clearance/job and being charged with a crime are two different things. Comey clearly stated it would not be a shock for someone to lose their job/clearance for what Hillary did, but that he did not think, given the same circumstances,

I am not saying she should be charged. However, how do you explain to the thousands of people who have lost or been denied a clearance for much less. The job (POTUS) requires have the highest clearance in the country. If she has not had her clearance stripped or is given back a clearance this is clearly special treatment. Nobody gets a clearance after an FBI investigation determines you were negligent and careless in the handling of classified material. I guess if you are a Clinton and the puppet of the powers that be you do.

 

[sangha]

Fine. I spent my life dealing with and protecting classified information, and based on your opinions you have put forward you obviously believe that you know more than I do about classified information and the law surrounding it.

1) You are making an "argument by authority" and there's no evidence you're an authority. There's evidence of the opposite

2) Regardless of any expertise, it boggles the mind that anyone would argue that actions that show an intent to protect data are proof of intent to not protect data

3) Someone who actually is an expert on both classified data and the law just finished an investigation and he says there's nothing to prosecute

So who should I believe? The guy who is an expert or the guy on the internet who claims to be an expert?

The law is the law. The facts are the facts. Your opinion is inconsistent with both. I'm not going to continue to argue with you in this "yes it is" / "no it isn't" back and forth. That isn't debate, but rather a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible for obviously ideological reasons rather than accepting the facts and the law.

An actual expert on the law who has investigate the facts has an opinion that is completely inconsistent with yours. All you've been able to do to support your argument that a law was broken is to insist that a law was broken while claiming that you're an expert

Meanwhile, the law you cite has only been prosecuted once in the last 99 years and that was a case of espionage. Yet you, with all of your expertise, insist that it is applicable here even though a real expert says it is not.

You were not being disrespectful or baiting, flaming, or trolling. That is not what I'm saying. You were respectful, just wrong, and I feel we have started going around in circles by repeating ourselves, so I'm pulling the ring and getting off the merry-go-round.

Thanks. You don't have to respond but that won't stop me from responding to your posts and pointing out the flaws in your arguments

 

[Beaudreaux]

The argument is specifically about "intent to expose classified data" and it is nonsense to argue that trying to protect data proves an intent to expose data.

It could be argued that it is incompetence, but that is not a crime.

I previously said I was getting off the merry-go-round, but out of respect for you I'm going to answer this one additional post for the purposes of clarification.

If she knew that classified data is required by law to be kept on a secure classified system, which she was trained on, and required to sign a document that stated she understood that fact - by the way, there are different systems for different levels of classification within different government agencies - and then, rather than following the law, she utilized an email server system that is outside the secure system infrastructure, and she additionally took steps to protect the classified data on the system, then it shows intent to subvert the law by NOT maintaining the data in the proper classified system/location by making the willful choice to NOT comply with the law and to INTENTIONALLY remove the classified data from its proper location and place it on an unsecured unclassified system, thereby causing harm by exposing the data when it is transmitted in the open.

Now, I'm not saying that there is any evidence that she intentionally did anything. I have only been showing that certain points brought into the conversation by you, could be used by any prosecutor to say that she did. I've been saying from the beginning that she was negligent. Grossly negligent. I've shown in numerous posts, the law, the facts, and the definitions, that prove she was in fact grossly negligent.

She had a duty, and she failed to perform that duty, there was a harm committed, and the harm was as a result of her failure to perform her duty - negligence. Given her position and the potential for severe harm should she not perform her duty, supported by the fact that she was aware of the potential harm given her experiences as an attorney for a Congressional Committee, as First Lady of the United States, as a US Senator from the State of New York where she was a member of the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009) and its Subcommittee on Airland, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support (all of which required she be given classified briefings), and as the United States Secretary of State where she dealt with classified information on a daily basis, rises this to the level of gross negligence.

Once again, I'm picking up the ring that I temporarily laid down and once again getting off the merry-go-round.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Perhaps, and I'll believe you, but it is an accurate response to the particular thread of conversation.

Sangha mentioned Clinton may have done things to safeguard her server. Cpwill said that providing protection to the server would be worse, since protection would indicate knowledge which proves intent. Sangha mentioned that protecting data is not the same as exposing data. You replied with saying that if she tried to protect data (because it was classified) that would indicate intent. However, that is not what was being discussed. An e-mail server should be protected because it has data, regardless of the type of data.

So I'm just pointing out that trying to attack the fact she tried to protect her server is not a good argument. I'm thinking you were saying if she did upgrade specifically to protect classified data, but that's not an argument that's ever going to have wings, because it then becomes a circular argument.

That's what I was saying.

Sangha said protect the data, not the server. A nuance with a profound difference when discussing classified data.

 

[ludin]

When you say, "cost young Marines stripes", does that mean they were charged with a crime and prosecuted by the American justice system?

yes they are. they are charged in a military court and prosecuted.
in fact there are a couple of trials going on right now more than likely these men will
be asked to leave the military and lose their security clearances.

I think this is the disconnect people are having with what Comey said and what they think he said. Comey said, many times, that what Hillary did wouldn't be above punishment. He said, over and over, that if any other person had done it in the FBI, they would be subject to a disciplinary review and a range of penalties could be imposed. He NEVER said someone who did what Clinton didn't shouldn't be disciplined. What he merely said is that what Clinton did does not rise to the level of being only the second person in 100 years to be charged with a violation of the particular US Code, that Hillary shouldn't be treated differently, just because she's the presumptive nominee.

Evidently she is since nothing is being done to her. at minimum she should lose her ability to obtain a security clearance at minimum.
given the fact that she lied to investigators she should face felony perjury charges.
yet Clinton is given a free pass where others are being punished.

in fact the state department as of right now looking into charging the people that were under her and they will probably lose their security clearances.
what is worse is that she shared confidential information with people that had 0 business reading. that alone is enough to charge her.

That's the part people don't seem to understand, including the lawmakers on the committee who questioned Comey. They keep thinking that because Hillary wasn't charged, she couldn't be punished. That's not what Comey said. However, as Comey said, how would you punish someone who is no longer employed by the department who would impose discipline? In other words, if Clinton was still part of the State Department, there's a very good chance she could/would have been punished. But she doesn't work with the State Department anymore, so how are you going to punish her?

she isn't being punished. They are letting her keep her security clearances where other people have lost theirs and are going to.
if she doesn't have her security clearance she is pretty much disqualified as president.
according to the state department you don't have to work for the government to have your security clearance yanked or be punished.
it can happen in retrospect of the situation.

Unless "cost...stripes" means being charged with a crime, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing discipline imposed by a group with being charged with crime. Comey never said what Hillary did was right, nor was it appropriate. He merely has said it did not raise to the level for her to be the second person tried in 100 years over this particular US Code.

it means anything from demotion to being asked to leave the military depending on the severity of the information leaked.
the law is the law it doesn't matter if it was 100 years ago or not.

No offense, but that's just downright false. Lying to the FBI is against the law. Whether she was "under oath" means nothing. If she lied to the FBI, she could/would be charged with obstruction of justice.

If you had watched the hearing, you'd know this.

she did lie multiple times in fact. yet nothing is being done.
don't you find that interesting.

yes you would have known that when asked if she lied the answer was yes she did.

She didn't send classified data -lie
She handed over all the emails - lie
she only used 1 device - lie
there were plenty more if you actually saw or read the interview.

 

[Moot]

Why do you think that there is a law that requires classified information to be contained within a classified environment? Why is it required that emails be kept within a secured email system?

SD employees follow the NARA guidelines for emails. 90% of Hillary's emails were stored in the SD server when she sent emails to and received emails from .gov servers.

How in the world do you feel that you know who has and who does not have the proper security clearance to receive the classified emails?

Because I read more than just the headlines.

Some of them were classified at TS/SCI, and only a few people are authorized to view classified information within each compartment. Also, just because a person has a TS/SCI clearance for one compartment (sometimes referred to as Code Word Classifications), doesn't mean that they are cleared for TS/SCI information that is classified under a different compartment or under a different code word.

Comey told congress that they only found three emails marked classified. The three emails were marked with a C for 'confidential' in the email but not in the header. The State Department said that two of those emails were erroneously marked classified and they never saw the third one. This was news to Comey.

That means your entire argument is based on one email that may have been erroneously marked 'confidential.'

Again, your argument is based on an inaccurate premise that destroys your entire argument. Your argument kills itself.

I don't know about yours but my argument is based on the known facts.

 

[sangha]

I previously said I was getting off the merry-go-round, but out of respect for you I'm going to answer this one additional post for the purposes of clarification.

If she knew that classified data is required by law to be kept on a secure classified system, which she was trained on, and required to sign a document that stated she understood that fact - by the way, there are different systems for different levels of classification within different government agencies - and then, rather than following the law, she utilized an email server system that is outside the secure system infrastructure, and she additionally took steps to protect the classified data on the system, then it shows intent to subvert the law by NOT maintaining the data in the proper classified system/location by making the willful choice to NOT comply with the law and to INTENTIONALLY remove the classified data from its proper location and place it on an unsecured unclassified system, thereby causing harm by exposing the data when it is transmitted in the open.

Subvert that law? Which law?

You were speaking about a law which makes it illegal to

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,

Clinton did not remove anything from it's proper place nor did she deliver it to anyone in violation of that trust. It was not lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.

So which law are you talking about? Is there a law that requires her to use "an email server system that is inside the secure system infrastructure" and if so, why haven't Gen Powell and Condi Rice been charged?

Now, I'm not saying that there is any evidence that she intentionally did anything. I have only been showing that certain points brought into the conversation by you, could be used by any prosecutor to say that she did. I've been saying from the beginning that she was negligent. Grossly negligent. I've shown in numerous posts, the law, the facts, and the definitions, that prove she was in fact grossly negligent.

I consider her actions to be incredibly negligent and incompetent, but they do not fit the legal definition of "gross negligence". You have not presented any evidence that they do fit the legal definition and a genuine expert on the matter (ie Comey) agrees that it was not gross negligence

She had a duty, and she failed to perform that duty,

Incompetence is not a crime

there was a harm committed, and the harm was as a result of her failure to perform her duty - negligence.

Criminal negligence requires a physical harm and there was none.

Given her position and the potential for severe harm should she not perform her duty, supported by the fact that she was aware of the potential harm given her experiences as an attorney for a Congressional Committee, as First Lady of the United States, as a US Senator from the State of New York where she was a member of the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009) and its Subcommittee on Airland, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support (all of which required she be given classified briefings), and as the United States Secretary of State where she dealt with classified information on a daily basis, rises this to the level of gross negligence.

No, her resume is not evidence of gross negligence. You have to show an actual and physical harm.

 

[Moot]

Subvert that law? Which law?

You were speaking about a law which makes it illegal to


Clinton did not remove anything from it's proper place nor did she deliver it to anyone in violation of that trust. It was not lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.

So which law are you talking about? Is there a law that requires her to use "an email server system that is inside the secure system infrastructure" and if so, why haven't Gen Powell and Condi Rice been charged?



I consider her actions to be incredibly negligent and incompetent, but they do not fit the legal definition of "gross negligence". You have not presented any evidence that they do fit the legal definition and a genuine expert on the matter (ie Comey) agrees that it was not gross negligence



Incompetence is not a crime



Criminal negligence requires a physical harm and there was none.



No, her resume is not evidence of gross negligence. You have to show an actual and physical harm.

He has to prove two things for it to be a crime. One, that she knew she was breaking a law (mens rea) and two, that she actually broke a law (actus rea).

Comey said she didn't do either of those.

 

[Slyfox696]

I am not saying she should be charged. However, how do you explain to the thousands of people who have lost or been denied a clearance for much less.

You explain just as I did...there's a difference between a violation of a rule at work and violation of law. Clinton, if she had still worked for the State Deparment, might have faced reprimands or more for her conduct. But since she doesn't work there anymore, the only option left is legal, but her actions did not rise to the level worth being charged.

Let's put it another way. Let's say every time you sell a washing machine, you're required by your boss to offer a protection plan. After you quit your job, it comes to light you didn't offer a protection plan for every washing machine sold. If your actions don't violate the law, what punishment can your former employer impose? None, right? That's the rough equivalent of this situation, once the FBI determined her actions did not meet the necessary criteria to recommend charges be brought.

That's how you explain it.

The job (POTUS) requires have the highest clearance in the country.

And if you feel as if her actions disqualify her from the POTUS, don't vote for her. That's a consequence to her action.

Sangha said protect the data, not the server. A nuance with a profound difference when discussing classified data.

You protect the data on the server by securing the server. It's not a profound difference, or any difference, at all.

 

[Slyfox696]

yes they are. they are charged in a military court and prosecuted.

I didn't say military court, now did I? I asked if it means they are brought before a judge on a criminal charge, with the threat of incarceration.

Please answer what I ask.

in fact there are a couple of trials going on right now more than likely these men will
be asked to leave the military and lose their security clearances.

Fine, then recommend Clinton be fired from State Department then. :roll:

Evidently she is since nothing is being done to her.

What can be done to her? Why should she face charges no one else has faced? You seem to want her to be treated differently than everyone else.

at minimum she should lose her ability to obtain a security clearance at minimum.

Irrelevant if she becomes President, as my understanding is the POTUS is not governed by those types of laws regarding clearance.

given the fact that she lied to investigators she should face felony perjury charges.

She did not lie to the FBI and the FBI was not asked to investigate if she lied before Congress. It's like you have not followed a single thing on this subject.

yet Clinton is given a free pass where others are being punished.

Who else was arrested and brought to trial for this? Please tell me.

in fact the state department as of right now looking into charging the people that were under her and they will probably lose their security clearances.

Will they be arrested and sent to jail for a future trial? If not, then you have no point here.

what is worse is that she shared confidential information with people that had 0 business reading. that alone is enough to charge her.

Go back and watch the testimony from Comey. He explains why they didn't.

she isn't being punished.

WHO IS SUPPOSED TO PUNISH HER?! SHE DOESN'T WORK FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT ANYMORE!

I said it in all caps so maybe you'll actually pay attention this time as to why this comment is so utterly stupid.

it means anything from demotion to being asked to leave the military depending on the severity of the information leaked.

So it doesn't mean being arrested and tried in an American court system, like you seem to want to happen to Clinton? So it's completely different than what you wanted the FBI to do to Clinton? Do you really not see how utterly stupid your position sounds right now?

the law is the law it doesn't matter if it was 100 years ago or not.

The law is never just the law. Even you are wise enough to know that. There are always elements which are factored in and for you to suggest the factors everyone else gets to factor no longer matter just because you are a partisan is asinine.

she did lie multiple times in fact.

According the head of the FBI, your statement here is false. Director Comey stated, unequivocally, she did not lie to the FBI. He used those exact words. Quit making provably false statements.

yet nothing is being done. don't you find that interesting.

Do I find it interesting that Clinton is not being punished for something she didn't do? No, I don't find that interesting at all and neither does anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Now, if you are trying to assert she lied before Congress, then, as I said, Comey addressed that as well. Again, if you bothered to take the time to know what you're talking about, you wouldn't say things like this. But considering you're the person who claimed to know more about Common Core than the official Common Core website, I'm guessing you're not interested in the facts, just blind partisanship.

yes you would have known that when asked if she lied the answer was yes she did.

Please show me where she lied to the FBI. Give me your evidence.

She didn't send classified data -lie
She handed over all the emails - lie
she only used 1 device - lie
there were plenty more if you actually saw or read the interview.

What interview? You've seen the transcript of the interview between Clinton and the FBI? Please share it.

 

[Beaudreaux]

SD employees follow the NARA guidelines for emails. 90% of Hillary's emails were stored in the SD server when she sent emails to and received emails from .gov servers.

Because I read more than just the headlines.



Comey told congress that they only found three emails marked classified. The three emails were marked with a C for 'confidential' in the email but not in the header. The State Department said that two of those emails were erroneously marked classified and they never saw the third one. This was news to Comey.

That means your entire argument is based on one email that may have been erroneously marked 'confidential.'

I don't know about yours but my argument is based on the known facts.

So many statements that are incorrect and have nothing to do with the actual problem. You still don't understand what I've been saying. Not even close. I hope that someone else may be able to tell you in a way that you will understand, however, that person will not be me.

 

[Moot]

So many statements that are incorrect and have nothing to do with the actual problem. You still don't understand what I've been saying. Not even close. I hope that someone else may be able to tell you in a way that you will understand, however, that person will not be me.

I do understand what you're saying. But unfortunately, what you fail to understand is that the factual evidence shows that you are wrong.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I do understand what you're saying. But unfortunately, what you fail to understand is that the factual evidence shows that you are wrong.

You really need to read this: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[shrubnose]

No one is questioning how corrupt our government is and the fact that certain people are above the law.

[/QUOTE



Lots of people on the right have been asking questions and posting BS ever since Obama moved into the White House.

I expect to see more of this after Hillary Clinton moves in.

 

[opendebate]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798


U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 798
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

i think this is the applicable law

The key part here is KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY....

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

[/QUOTE



Lots of people on the right have been asking questions and posting BS ever since Obama moved into the White House.

I expect to see more of this after Hillary Clinton moves in.

I guess the findings by the FBI that she is careless and negligent is BS as well. I suppose since she is just a bought and paid for puppet of the rich and powerful it doesn't really matter. They will be making the decisions anyway.

 

[shrubnose]

I guess

the findings by the FBI that she is careless and negligent is BS as well. I suppose since she is just a bought and paid for puppet of the rich and powerful it doesn't really matter. They will be making the decisions anyway.

Believe whatever you want to believe.

It will have no effect on reality.

Wait and see what happens in November.

:lol:

 

[shrubnose]

The key part here is KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY..

..

Not for the far right losers who will still be talking about this BS 8 years after Hillary Clinton first moves into the White House.

:lol:

Wait and see.