It's official; the rule of law does not apply to corrupt politicians.

[civilwarbuff]

And with the evidence against Hillary and $5, you could buy a ham sandwich.

Cept she would take it away from you and give 90% to everyone else....of course if you happen to be that 90% then it is understandable.......

 

[AirPo]

The State Department said Friday 18 emails exchanged between Hillary Clinton and President Obama – that were sent through Clinton’s private server and did not contain classified information – would not be made public because of the traditional practice of saving presidential communications for the future. source

Obama knew the law. He violated it as well. He knew that official communication on a private server was illegal.

So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.

 

[Vylo]

You mean like civilian government employees and contractors? They get fired at a minimum. Secondly, they have their security clearance revoked.

An example of 'no intent' is if for example you send me a classified document on an unclassified email account, and I forward the message without checking the attachment. That alone got an employee where I work fired. He also had his security clearance revoked and is currently (taking over 2 years) appealing to get it back. The company had recourse for the firing given all personnel (military, government and contractor) must sit through twice a year security and espionage training. Sign the roster that they received the training and given a certificate of completion. To think, I gave you an example of something 'innocent' enough anyone could fall victim to it.

yep. but they aren't Clintons

 

[redleghunter]

That's not what the FBI has said.

I agree. The FBI instead indicated there is sufficient evidence but we are not going to recommend to indict. That's quite worse I believe.

 

[redleghunter]

So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.

One way to avoid such 'appearances' is to do what every other President since Nixon has done...recommend an independent counselor (prosecutor) take up the case.

Why? Because all of the violations took place when Hillary was a cabinet member in the Obama administration.

 

[redleghunter]

yep. but they aren't Clintons

You sir are so right.

 

[bhsmte]

And with the evidence against Hillary and $5, you could buy a ham sandwich.

I havent seen or been privey to the evidence and or investigation so i wouldnt know.

Judging by listening to legal experts talk about the law, it was clear they were going to need more than just ignoring rules and using poor judgment, to have evidence for criminal charges.

 

[super animator]

There was plenty of evidence. They said they couldn't prove intent....

Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. The FBI instead indicated there is sufficient evidence but we are not going to recommend to indict. That's quite worse I believe.

The fbi indicated there was sufficient evidence to recommend criminal charges?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.

I can't think of a criminal law where proof of intent is primary to prosecutiion. Now intent can mitigate what you are charged with.....manslaughter instead of murder; reckless driving versus negligent vehicular homicide. Can you think of something where intent is primary to criminal charge?....there may be some but I can't think of any off-hand.

 

[super animator]

I can't think of a criminal law where proof of intent is primary to prosecutiion. Now intent can mitigate what you are charged with.....manslaughter instead of murder; reckless driving versus negligent vehicular homicide. Can you think of something where intent is primary to criminal charge?....there may be some but I can't think of any off-hand.

Here's an idea, why don't you prosecute her then?

 

[KWCrazy]

Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.

On your part, I'm afraid.
When you violate the law you don't need to prove intent, you need to prove violations of law.
Gross negligence regarding confidential information is a crime. Whether it's because you're a complete idiot or you're a crook is irrelevant. The fact is, Comey stated very clearly what the violations of law were. That facts were never in dispute, only whether or not to enforce the law. They chose to not.

 

[JustOneWay]

So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.

You understand that this non indictment against Clinton is an indictment against the Democrats, right?

Because they were all in on it....

We will be hearing this for 5 more years, when Hillary is running for the second term.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Here's an idea, why don't you prosecute her then?

So you can't think of anything either?.....

 

[redleghunter]

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges." << Like does the rule of law apply to the person in question.

See bolded. Note Ken Star is available. LOL.

 

[super animator]

On your part, I'm afraid.
When you violate the law you don't need to prove intent, you need to prove violations of law.
Gross negligence regarding confidential information is a crime. Whether it's because you're a complete idiot or you're a crook is irrelevant. The fact is, Comey stated very clearly what the violations of law were. That facts were never in dispute, only whether or not to enforce the law. They chose to not.

I repeat what I said to another user:
Why don't you prosecute her then?
If you think the FBI are bunch of incompetent fools at their work, then you should have no problem prosecuting her. Come on now, don't just bark.

 

[redleghunter]

Just the grand jury.....

Yep.

 

[redleghunter]

In other words he cut and ran.

Perhaps. However, he has my respect for not dragging the office of POTUS through an extended impeachment and removal from office.

 

[KWCrazy]

I repeat what I said to another user:
Why don't you prosecute her then?

It's not my job.
You're obviously okay with the fact that the director of the FBI admitted that classified information was obtained by our enemies.
This is your idea of a good president?
I'm sure you plan on voting for her. That tells me all I need to know.

 

[redleghunter]

Present the findings and let a grand jury decide. Problem with that?

I guess Clinton will have to be tried via the court of 'Leaks.'

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286444-wikileaks-publishes-clinton-war-emails