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

[redleghunter]

Isn't that up to a government employee to decide?

LOL.

 

[whatbogsends]

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.

Fraud, for one.

"Laws against fraud vary from state to state, and can be criminal or civil in nature. Criminal fraud requires criminal intent on the part of the perpetrator, and is punishable by fines or imprisonment. "

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/fraud.html

 

[super animator]

It's not my job.

Excuses, that what I expect from you. All bark no bite.

 

[civilwarbuff]

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.

Still can't come up with anything?......neither can I.

 

[super animator]

Still can't come up with anything?

Someone did #142

 

[redleghunter]

So I wonder why didn't some reasonable prosecutor decide on a grand jury?

I hope you read between the lines on Comey's comments. This should clarify his statement a bit:

"No reasonable prosecutor would want the headache or career ending job of prosecuting a Clinton who just may be the first woman President of the United States."

You have to determine what these appointed Pols in charge of government agencies are really saying.

 

[redleghunter]

More times than not, grand juries come to the conclusion the prosecuter wants them to.

Yes just ask Scooter Libby. Oh that was an independent prosecutor too!

 

[redleghunter]

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

LOL Clinton was Obama's Sec State. A special prosecutor should have been assigned. There is no doubt why one was not assigned. They can't be controlled politically.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Fraud, for one.

"Laws against fraud vary from state to state, and can be criminal or civil in nature. Criminal fraud requires criminal intent on the part of the perpetrator, and is punishable by fines or imprisonment. "

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/fraud.html

Good one.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Someone did #142

But you haven't.....

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Correct...for this Admin's Justice Dept.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The FBI just announced that despite violating multiple federal laws that it recommends no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because they can't prove she intended to do things like delete 20,000 emails after they were under subpoena. This means that the politicians are no longer subject to the same laws that apply to others, including generals. The tyranny Jefferson warned about is here. Democrats who care nothing about the law will gleefully rush to the polls to elect the career criminal, and it will take another revolution to free the nation from the tyranny of the ruling oligarchy.

Lets be real, we all know 19,500 of those email were probably invites to play candy crush.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I hope you read between the lines on Comey's comments. This should clarify his statement a bit:

"No reasonable prosecutor would want the headache or career ending job of prosecuting a Clinton who just may be the first woman President of the United States."

You have to determine what these appointed Pols in charge of government agencies are really saying.

The career prosecutors in the FBI know what they need to do in order to stay career prosecutors.......

 

[TerranceL]

You mean that law that says innocent "until" proven guilty? How annoying is that.

What about it? The FBI it telling us theres not even a reason to hold a trial, despite also telling us that if someone else had done it there would have been consequences.

 

[redleghunter]

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

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

More at link. This should clear up some of the misunderstandings.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Indeed as indicated here:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Not all Democrats. I think Bernie Sanders had no part in this...

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Who said the FBI are a bunch of incompetent fools? They are very good at what they do. The Director is a political appointee and showed us that some laws don't apply to the power elite.

 

[KWCrazy]

Excuses, that what I expect from you. All bark no bite.

Your premise is stupid. I can't prosecute the criminal because I'm not a prosecutor; not because she isn't guilty.
Rudy Giuliani is a prosecutor. Would you support him giving it a shot, or are you simply a Clinton apologist?

 

[Veritas]