Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.......And with the evidence against Hillary and $5, you could buy a ham sandwich.
So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.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.
yep. but they aren't ClintonsYou 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.
That's not what the FBI has said.
So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.
yep. but they aren't Clintons
And with the evidence against Hillary and $5, you could buy a ham sandwich.
Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.There was plenty of evidence. They said they couldn't prove intent....
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.Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.
Here's an idea, why don't you prosecute her then?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.
On your part, I'm afraid.Yet you wanted them to press charges despite knowing this. That's got to be the definition of idiocy right there.
You understand that this non indictment against Clinton is an indictment against the Democrats, right?So now Obama is in on it. Things just keep getting crazier.
So you can't think of anything either?.....Here's an idea, why don't you prosecute her then?
“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.
I repeat what I said to another user: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.
Yep.Just the grand jury.....
In other words he cut and ran.
It's not my job.I repeat what I said to another user:
Why don't you prosecute her then?
Present the findings and let a grand jury decide. Problem with that?
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?