Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
they shouldThe staid National Review thinks she should be prosecuted:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441105/
You said there were 8 email chains that contained top secret information without headers
I said nothing of the sort. What I wrote was:
Click on the link in that sentence and see what you find there.
why don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Oh right, why did she set up the private system to begin with, do you think it was to avoid federal records keeping and FOIA laws? She had an obligation to CC a state dept archivist on every work relate email, she didn't do that, did she. The classified material was just part and parcel of an ongoing crime. Intent and foreknowledge is evident to anyone willing to see it.
Also you and your ilk thinking you're progressives just proves how delusional you really are. No one in the country is above the law, not even the hildabithch.
She had an obligation, but as I said, no mens reas, no case, case closed.
As I said, until Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz are brought to account of WMD, you neocon whackos don't have a leg to stand on. No one in the country is above the law, not even Dumbya.
agreed she had an obligation
But it's not the end of the world.
true thatagreed she had an obligation
But it's not the end of the world.
But it does go to intent.
real talkOh right, why did she set up the private system to begin with, do you think it was to avoid federal records keeping and FOIA laws? She had an obligation to CC a state dept archivist on every work relate email, she didn't do that, did she. The classified material was just part and parcel of an ongoing crime. Intent and foreknowledge is evident to anyone willing to see it.
Also you and your ilk thinking you're progressives just proves how delusional you really are. No one in the country is above the law, not even the hildabithch.
She had an obligation, but as I said, no mens reas, no case, case closed.
As I said, until Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz are brought to account of WMD, you neocon whackos don't have a leg to stand on. No one in the country is above the law, not even Dumbya.
Setting up the private server to avoid the law meets and exceeds your BS claim. And like I said before, keep your fucking deflections, you want to talk about Bush, start another thread.
understoodYes really. I stated that people lose their lives over classified information. That is an undeniable fact. Now that is not the same as saying THE classified information on Hillary's server caused people to lose their lives. Do you understand?
You said there were 8 email chains that contained top secret information without headers
I said nothing of the sort. What I wrote was:
Click on the link in that sentence and see what you find there.
Did they contain headers, yes or no?
why don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
why don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
why don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
why don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
real talkExcuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?
real talkNope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?
real talk means the things thats being talked about is realreal talkYou're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?
Are you so seriously incompetent you can't contribute meaningful dialog to your own thread? Why is it "real talk"?
yeah more evidence is requiredwhy don't you tell the police officers in Baltimore and cases are tried due to public opinion, they'll get a big kick out of that. Now run along to your fantasy land, you appear to be too stupid to learn anything or even accept facts.
Excuse me? Are you truly suggesting that whether one should be and is charged with a crime is a matter of whether the "court of public opinion" thinks so? If so, you're the one living in Fantasyland.
Nope, just saying that's exactly why the Baltimore 6 were indicted.
You're going to need to show some sort of credible proof of the veracity of your assertion -- the Baltimore 6 were charged because of public opinion and not because the DA's off ice felt there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the crimes with which they were charged. You thinking or saying that is the case will not make it so.
The outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
real talk means the things thats being talked about is realreal talkThe outcome speaks for itself.
Black bold:
No it does not. You can be too lazy to present evidence to support your assertion, but don't expect anyone to accept your assertions/conclusions merely because you say they are so.
Prosecutor said publicly she was going to get justice for the dead criminal and put the officers in jail, before any investigation was done, she pushed crap through the grand jury to get indictments, obtained ZERO convictions. So tell us hero, is she just totally incompetent or was she trying to appease the public, namely BLM?
Are you so seriously incompetent you can't contribute meaningful dialog to your own thread? Why is it "real talk"?
Its similar to saying Thats the truth
