+OverSword Posted July 5, 2016 Author #26 Share Posted July 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Clair said: Meh, like it'll make a difference. They know the law. We know the law. But the FBI is now sucking and blowing. So what if Hillary and her minions did not intend to violate laws? They still did. And if Hillary gets away with it, why shouldn't everyone else? This whole situation reeks and if she becomes President after this, after Benghazi, and after everything else she has done, I will have a meltdown. I think I'm falling in love with you Clair 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted July 5, 2016 #27 Share Posted July 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, OverSword said: I think I'm falling in love with you Clair Enough to hitch across the Atlantic? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Dane Posted July 5, 2016 #28 Share Posted July 5, 2016 Hmmm... I figured "the fix" would be in somehow, even be it a Pardon issued by Obama. But I didn't expect them to be so open about it. First Slick Willy meets with Attorney Loretta Lynch last Monday on her plane at the airport in Phoenix. We're told that the both of them being there simultaneously was a coincidence. Then Slick Willy goes aboard her plane on the tarmac and has a meeting with her. We're told that they didn't discuss Hillary's email "review" and instead talked about family and grandchildren. Ya ok. Then later, Lynch says it was a mistake to meet with Bill Clinton and understands that it "looks bad" and called it a "mistake" and that she "certainly wouldn’t do it again"(like Hillary talking about using her private server). Lynch also says now that she will defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. on whether to issue charges in Hillary Clinton's emails scandal. Then we hear that Clinton, if she wins the Presidency, is considering keeping Lynch on as Attorney General... - "Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is considering keeping Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch in her current position..." http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-loretta-lynch-attorney-general-president/2016/07/04/id/736943/ Then today we have F.B.I. director James Comey recommending NO charges be brought up. And NOW(he didn't before), we have President Obama touring with Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail... on the same day as Comey's announcement. Wow, that was a close call for Obama... 50/50 ... if Comey had recommended charges today, Obama would have been campaigning with a recommended felon. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted July 5, 2016 Author #29 Share Posted July 5, 2016 1 hour ago, questionmark said: Wherein, you have to demonstrate that the removed property was stolen (not demonstrated), misused (not demonstrated) or delivered to a non-authorized third party. Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted July 5, 2016 #30 Share Posted July 5, 2016 she can not handle two phones, yet she can handle presidency??? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted July 5, 2016 #31 Share Posted July 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, OverSword said: Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. Not to mention that once real harm HAS been documented, she'll be in a position to pardon herself and anyone else involved. This stinks worse than 3 day old fish heads in the sun. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 5, 2016 #32 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I think the pertinent issue here is whether or not Sec. Clinton used an unauthorized computer server to store, create or otherwise facilitate State Dept. communications in violation of long-standing policy of secure communication protocol. It's obvious that she did. Regardless of whether or not a specific email was previously "classified", or "post-classified" the use of a private server outside of strict security controls should be illegal and subject to prosecution via violation of internal, written State Dept. policy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted July 5, 2016 #33 Share Posted July 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, OverSword said: Nowhere is it indicated that any of those things you list as not demonstrated need to be demonstrated. I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services. And according to the Espionage Act, it doesn't matter if it was done willfully or through gross negligence. Also, by revealing the names of undercover CIA agents, would that not have her in violation of the Intelligence Identities Act? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted July 5, 2016 Author #34 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Clair said: I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services. And according to the Espionage Act, it doesn't matter if it was done willfully or through gross negligence. Also, by revealing the names of undercover CIA agents, would that not have her in violation of the Intelligence Identities Act? You will never get QMark to admit that intent does not matter. He's been beating this dead horse for months without regard to the many posts that have proven his argument wrong. And yes I would hitch hike across the Atlantic but I doubt you're on the other side. Edited July 5, 2016 by OverSword 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted July 5, 2016 #35 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I'd be curious to know what Petraeus thinks about this statement today. Tire prints from that bus that ran him down are probably still fresh .... 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted July 5, 2016 #36 Share Posted July 5, 2016 51 minutes ago, Lemieux said: And NOW(he didn't before), we have President Obama touring with Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail... on the same day as Comey's announcement. I've always had a problem with a president campaigning for the next president. It should be a conflict of interest. At minimum it should be discouraged. I've felt this way with all presidents if they are still in office. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted July 5, 2016 #37 Share Posted July 5, 2016 26 minutes ago, and then said: I'd be curious to know what Petraeus thinks about this statement today. Tire prints from that bus that ran him down are probably still fresh .... I wish he could sue or something. I was wondering if the wiki-leaks guy will now start releasing what he claims to have. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 5, 2016 #38 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, OverSword said: I think I'm falling in love with you Clair Form an orderly queue I think I am as well. Edited July 5, 2016 by Sir Wearer of Hats 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted July 5, 2016 Author #39 Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, skliss said: I wish he could sue or something. I was wondering if the wiki-leaks guy will now start releasing what he claims to have. They have made it clear that regardless of evidence she will not be indicted. The result of a wikileak will be our outraged government demanding Julian Assange's head on a platter (where Hillary's head belongs) At this point even if Donald trump wins the election Hillary will still be declared president because the fix is in and I doubt the elections aren't rigged thanks to this outrageous announcement by the FBI director. Edited July 5, 2016 by OverSword 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted July 5, 2016 #40 Share Posted July 5, 2016 She could still be tried in the court of public opinion if the wiki-leaks stuff is good enough.....I don't care as long as it keeps her out of the white house. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 5, 2016 #41 Share Posted July 5, 2016 The court of public opinion would be the election coming up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted July 5, 2016 #42 Share Posted July 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Gromdor said: The court of public opinion would be the election coming up... I would agree, if it were for the massive voter fraud on the left ready to support her later this year. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted July 5, 2016 #43 Share Posted July 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gromdor said: The court of public opinion would be the election coming up... You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted July 5, 2016 #44 Share Posted July 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump? Yup. Pity that the public believes everything they are told. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 6, 2016 #45 Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: You mean where the public are told their options are her or Trump? I wonder (because I don't really know) if there is a possibility that BOTH presumptive candidates can be "thrown-out" before or during the convention. Edited July 6, 2016 by pallidin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranormal Panther Posted July 6, 2016 #46 Share Posted July 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Clair said: I agree. And what abut the Espionage Act? it would apply wouldn't it? After all, she did place classified information on an unclassified system within reach of hackers, not to mention foreign intelligence services. Maybe Putin will do us a solid and reveal the contents of her emails. Of course, *he's* the bad guy. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted July 6, 2016 #47 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Wow..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted July 6, 2016 #48 Share Posted July 6, 2016 No charges? I'm compelled to pull out that infamous igno line once again and say: "Nobody could have seen it coming!" We already have other parties! We've got the Libertarian Party on the ballot on all 50 states. Let's start taking action in the face of the Same Old S every election instead of complaining about it and then participating in it (again). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted July 6, 2016 #49 Share Posted July 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, Yamato said: No charges? I'm compelled to pull out that infamous igno line once again and say: "Nobody could have seen it coming!" We already have other parties! We've got the Libertarian Party on the ballot on all 50 states. Let's start taking action in the face of the Same Old S every election instead of complaining about it and then participating in it (again). Yeah, this one is a b****, as both presumptive nominees are clearly unsuitable to become President. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted July 6, 2016 #50 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Surprise, bloody surprise. >.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now