Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[P@triot]

No. It actually means there was no crime committed. What she did was not with any inten to commit a crime or violate the law.

Really? So Hitlery Clinton accidentally hired an IT tech to accidentally set up a private e-mail server for her which she then accidentally utilized thousands and thousands of times over several years?

Bwahahahahahaha!

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

 

[P@triot]

You have to salute José Canseco on this one. Freaking hilarious (because it's true)...

Just how dirty is Hillary? If José Canseco's to be believed, REALLY dirty

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14695797.

So first your position was "well there has to be intent for something to illegal" and after I proved how insanely stupid that was, your new desperate declaration is "but....but.....but.....someone speeding is caught in the act". Yeah.....? And.....? You do realize that Ted Bundy was never caught in the act either, but his rape and murder of women was still illegal.

Both of my arguments are true and correct - you are absolutely wrong. There were crimes committed in the Bundy murders. There were no crimes in the email server investigation.

Comey was investigating to see if crimes were committed and none were.

You have no argument to save your idiotic case? So you resort to insults. RWers are so predictable.


P@triot, post: 14695797.

In addition, stupid, Hillary Clinton was caught in the act. The server was still active when it was discovered in February of 2013. But again - being "caught in the act" is not a requirement for any law. I've heard some stupid desperate arguments from liberals here on USMB before, but this one is a special gem! Right up there with "there was no intent". Whatever you do, don't go into litigation. I've never seen anyone less aware of the law than you.

Having an active server was not a crime as Comey explained. Stupid applies to you.

There was no intent and there was no crime. It's an open and shut case.




P@triot, post: 14695797.

She should have her day in court. But liberals/Dubmocrats don't believe in the rule of law. They believe that the ends justifies the means. They will rape, murder, rob, and pillage to "progress" their absurd agenda. She violated every single part of the statute and you know it (and FBI Director James Comey acknowledged as much as well). But you're an immature asshat who values ideology over the law.

Now you repeat rightwingers hate talk radio propaganda. You have no argument.



P@triot, post: 14695797.

Now you're just rambling on like a lunatic. It appears that you are quite angry over the facts. And the facts are, Hitlery Clinton egregiously violated the every single part of the law but will not be charged because hubby is former President of the United States, she is a former Senator, and asshole liberals like you believe ideology before the law at all costs.

I have all the facts - you have nothing but RWer opinion. Baseless and factless opinion.

It is all nonsense coming from a desperate hater that didnt get his way from a Republican FBI Director.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14695815

Really? So Hitlery Clinton accidentally hired an IT tech to accidentally set up a private e-mail server for her which she then accidentally utilized thousands and thousands of times over several years?

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

Setting up a private email server was not a crime. When you are able to recognize that fact you will realize how tremendously moronic your rambling nonsense is.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14695815

Really? So Hitlery Clinton accidentally hired an IT tech to accidentally set up a private e-mail server for her which she then accidentally utilized thousands and thousands of times over several years?

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

Let's hope that P@triot has finally realized that setting up a private email server by Secretary Clinton was not a crime. He now sit out the election and keep his mouth shut about Clinton being a criminal.

 

[P@triot]

P@triot, post: 14695815

Really? So Hitlery Clinton accidentally hired an IT tech to accidentally set up a private e-mail server for her which she then accidentally utilized thousands and thousands of times over several years?

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

Let's hope that P@triot has finally realized that setting up a private email server by Secretary Clinton was not a crime. He now sit out the election and keep his mouth shut about Clinton being a criminal.

First of all, your grammar is almost as atrocious as your knowledge of the law. Second, Hitlery Clinton setting up an e-mail server was an egregious violation of the law and I've proved here in discussing it with you. First you claimed that she was innocent because there was no "intent". I not only proved that intent was not required to be in violation of the law (much like breaking the speed limit does not require intent), but I then proved that she in fact had intent. You keep backpedaling and moving the goalposts out of desperation.

Here is the indisputable proof once again. Even the Director of the F.B.I. himself is on record stating that she Hitlery Clinton committed a crime. No amount of desperate denial by Fooled here changes the facts.

According to FBI 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.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

Do you get that Fooled? EVERYTHING required to be in felony violation of the law. From the FBI Director himself.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[P@triot]

Liberals continue to set the absolute worst precedence possible - the destruction of the rule of law. Once we've lost that, all of society will break down. It started with them absolutely obliterating the U.S. Constitution. And once they saw they could get away with that, they moved on to other laws. And now the American people are starting to ask why they have to obey the law while thugs like Hitlery can violate dozens of majors laws without so much as a trial. This has the potential to send us down the path of a lawless nation like Somalia where everything is decided at the barrel of a gun. Is that really what you idiot liberals want? If not - then you damn well better start holding your to the law.

Americans React With Fury: ‘If Hillary Doesn’t Follow the Law, Why Should I?’

 

[P@triot]

One of the best videos I have seen. Thank you for posting. When you think about it - she doesn't have a single thing she can point to as a qualification so she has to simply run on "being a woman" (which by itself is extremely sexist - can you imagine if I ran as president stating "I'm a man" - the feminists would be lynching men with pitch forks).

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14702770

According to FBI 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.

There was no harm to US National Security from those checked boxes. Therefore there is no crime. You have to have a crime, loser. You don't gave one.

If you can't read your own material no one can help you.


If you read Comey's statement it was rare and few emails transmitted by Sec Clinton that were marked 'secret'.

The subject of those emails, apparently based upon Comey's decision that there was no crime committed, did not harm national security by transmission to anyone that should not have seen them.

There is no crime. I guess you choose to remain stupid about it.

Enjoy your protest no vote for your idiot Trump.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14702986

Liberals continue to set the absolute worst precedence possible - the destruction of the rule of law. Once we've lost that, all of society will break down. It started with them absolutely obliterating the U.S. Constitution. And once they saw they could get away with that, they moved on to other laws. And now the American people are starting to ask why they have to obey the law while thugs like Hitlery can violate dozens of majors laws without so much as a trial. This has the potential to send us down the path of a lawless nation like Somalia where everything is decided at the barrel of a gun. Is that really what you idiot liberals want? If not - then you damn well better start holding your to the law.

Americans React With Fury: ‘If Hillary Doesn’t Follow the Law, Why Should I?’

Comey is not a liberal.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot, post: 14702770

Second, Hitlery Clinton setting up an e-mail server was an egregious violation of the law and I've proved here in discussing it with you.

That is a bold faced lie on two counts. First setting up a private email sever was not a violation of the law.

If it were, Comey would not have been asked to investigate whether a crime was committed. It would have been a crime right off the bat while she was Secretary of State. You have cited and proven nothing. Except that you are too stupid to understand what happened the past six years.




P@triot, post: 14702770

First you claimed that she was innocent because there was no "intent". I not only proved that intent was not required to be in violation of the law (much like breaking the speed limit does not require intent), but I then proved that she in fact had intent.

You 'proved' HRC had 'intent' to set up a private server which is moronic in that anyone interested in the case knows that she had intent to do that. Sorry even a brain dead moron could make that case.

'Intent to do harm' is required for a crime under the espionage act to be committed and prosecuted. Comey found no such intent to harm the country. Your ignorance on this is astounding.

Still stupid on your speed limit violation analogy. Oh well. Be stupid. HRC committed no crime.

She may have checked all the boxes for speeding (driving a AA fuel dragster down a 35 mph road) but she didn't speed. She committed no violation.

Why not have respect for law and respect a Republican FBI Director's decision that no crime was committed.





P@triot, post: 14702770

You keep backpedaling and moving the goalposts out of desperation.

I have not backpedaled. Everything I've written stands as factual and is backed by statements and facts that are now part of the public record. You lost. Deal with it.

You need to start defending Trump's record since you are so actively lying about HRC being criminal you must want that moron to win.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

None of the emails in Clinton's inbox was properly marked as classified; however, the FBI has found at least three messages with partial markings suggesting that some of the material was sensitive.

P@triot, post: 14695815

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

What leads you to believe that you - a complete and utter biased, hate filled, factless message board poster has more knowledge about the law and HRC's intent than the Republican FBI Director who gave testimony before Congress this week?

Comey told Congress "I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That, I could establish.. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

Furthermore, if you were interested in the facts, none of the emails forwarded to the server were properly marked as CLASSIFIED.

. None of the emails in Clinton's inbox was properly marked as classified; however, the FBI has found at least three messages with partial markings suggesting that some of the material was sensitive. But those markings were incomplete, and Clinton may not have been technically “sophisticated” enough to properly interpret them, Comey said Thursday.

Clinton rebuts FBI charge of recklessness

You want criminal charges brought for 3 out of 60,000 partially marked sensitive emails? That is not respect for the law - that is abuse of the law by political hacks.

That's like wanting police officers to write speeding tickets for going 0.000001 mph over the speed limit.

What kind of patriot are you? Is it a country of morons who don't vote you are beholden to?

 

[P@triot]

According to FBI 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.

There was no harm to US National Security from those checked boxes. Therefore there is no crime. You have to have a crime, loser. You don't gave one.

There doesn't have to be "harm to National Security". You are completely ignorant of the law and you keep moving the goalposts out of desperation. Hell, it's illegal for an employee of the federal government to conduct official business through any personal email account because it prevents oversight. There were so many laws broken here it's hard to keep up with them all - but you're simply too stupid to know it and too much of a blind partisan hack to accept it when the facts are presented to you.

What did FBI Director James Comey say? felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). It must hurt to hear those words when one is so blind and so stupid!

 

[P@triot]

Second, Hitlery Clinton setting up an e-mail server was an egregious violation of the law and I've proved here in discussing it with you.

That is a bold faced lie on two counts. First setting up a private email sever was not a violation of the law.

Yes it is your ignorant dill-hole. Forgetting about national security for a moment - it is illegal for a government employee to conduct any government business through a personal email account because it prevents oversight, transparency, and the lawful requirement archiving of emails.

You don't know the law. You're just an ignorant partisan hack. You have no idea what you're talking about so stop speaking because you're just showing everyone what a fool you are.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals continue to set the absolute worst precedence possible - the destruction of the rule of law. Once we've lost that, all of society will break down. It started with them absolutely obliterating the U.S. Constitution. And once they saw they could get away with that, they moved on to other laws. And now the American people are starting to ask why they have to obey the law while thugs like Hitlery can violate dozens of majors laws without so much as a trial. This has the potential to send us down the path of a lawless nation like Somalia where everything is decided at the barrel of a gun. Is that really what you idiot liberals want? If not - then you damn well better start holding your to the law.

Americans React With Fury: ‘If Hillary Doesn’t Follow the Law, Why Should I?’

Comey is not a liberal.

I didn't mention Comey. Perhaps you should have an adult start reading my posts to you?

 

[P@triot]

Seriously junior - in the history of crime - there has never been a more obvious case of intent.

What leads you to believe that you - a complete and utter biased, hate filled, factless message board poster has more knowledge about the law and HRC's intent than the Republican FBI Director who gave testimony before Congress this week?

Well....as I previously pointed out....one cannot accidentally hire an IT tech to accidentally setup an email server which one then accidentally uses thousands and thousands of times.

The fact that the server exists overwhelmingly proves intent. Your problem is two fold. One is that your a partisan hack - so no matter what Hitlery Clinton does, it's perfectly legal, moral, and ethical in your eyes. Two is that your astoundingly ignorant of the law. You think this all boils down to national security secrets becaus you're not even aware that it's illegal for an employee of the federal government to use a personal email account for government business. Hitlery did that for one reason and one reason only - to hide what she was doing from the American people. That's part of the reason the law exists in the first place (oversight). But you're too dumb to know any of this and too partisan to care.

 

[Ame®icano]

There was no harm to US National Security from those checked boxes. Therefore there is no crime. You have to have a crime, loser. You don't gave one.

If you break the law, it's a crime. It doesn't matter is someone is hurt or not.

You speed five or ten over, and got pulled over by the cops. Why if nobody is harmed?

You grow marijuana in your back yard, for personal use, and get a SWAT team breaking in to arrest you. Where is the crime if nobody is harmed?

 

[P@triot]

There was no harm to US National Security from those checked boxes. Therefore there is no crime. You have to have a crime, loser. You don't gave one.

If you break the law, it's a crime. It doesn't matter is someone is hurt or not.

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to hurt someone!

You speed five or ten over, and got pulled over by the cops. Why if nobody is harmed?

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to speed!

You grow marijuana in your back yard, for personal use, and get a SWAT team breaking in to arrest you. Where is the crime if nobody is harmed?

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to grow marijuana!

 

[Ame®icano]

There was no harm to US National Security from those checked boxes. Therefore there is no crime. You have to have a crime, loser. You don't gave one.

If you break the law, it's a crime. It doesn't matter is someone is hurt or not.

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to hurt someone!

You speed five or ten over, and got pulled over by the cops. Why if nobody is harmed?

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to speed!

You grow marijuana in your back yard, for personal use, and get a SWAT team breaking in to arrest you. Where is the crime if nobody is harmed?

It is not a crime of Hitlery Clinton does it! She had no "intent" to grow marijuana!

I would put it differently.

First one is OK.
She had "intent" to speed, but no intent hurt anyone.
She had "intent" to grow marijuana, but no intent to sell it. Maybe only give it away for favors.