Hillary interviewed today for 3 and half hours by the FBI

[Slyhunter]

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

you don't decide what the rule of law is.

again, you heard the criterial. your delusions do not mean she committed any act for which she should have been indicted.... no matter how desperate you are

Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required to be in violation of the law.
It specifically states in 793 that negligence is enough to be guilty.

intent is always required unless the act is one of"strict liability". this falls under the category of no harm, no foul.

you sound silly.

Giving other countries access to our secrets is no harm no foul? Proof they had access is that wikileaks link I already posted.

she did not "give other countries access to our secrets". this is what makes you sound desperate and pathetic and this is why you keep getting lectured on the issue of intent.

but feel free to prove where she disseminated secrets. maintaining her emails like colin powell did, whether or not improvident, is not a crime.

again, you sound absurd.

ok, WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
Feel better now?

 

[Brynmr]

incorrect. You need to reread 793.

Not incorrect. The claim you made in post 793 is incorrect. When a law is violated a crime has been committed. In order to commit a crime, intent is necessary. No intent. No crime. no crime. No law violated. You can try to redefine how our justice system works if you like. But you will still be wrong.

It wasn't post 793. and intent isn't necessary to being guilty of committing the crime. Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required.

what crime?

no crime was committed.

you're confused and delusional.

again, it is not the job of the FBI to carry out your winger agenda.

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

It's written right in the law you dumbass:

Section b: "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason..."

Section d: "...willfully communicates..."

Now, the section you're interested in is section f, and it isn't negligence, it is GROSS negligence. Guess who get's to determine gross negligence? And it isn't you. That's right. It is the investigating agency. Guess what? That agency decided that while careless, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

So, again, we're back to No. Crime. No. law. Broken.

You conveniently edited out the word 'or' at the end of each section... dumbass.

 

[Brynmr]

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

[Czernobog]

Not incorrect. The claim you made in post 793 is incorrect. When a law is violated a crime has been committed. In order to commit a crime, intent is necessary. No intent. No crime. no crime. No law violated. You can try to redefine how our justice system works if you like. But you will still be wrong.

It wasn't post 793. and intent isn't necessary to being guilty of committing the crime. Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required.

what crime?

no crime was committed.

you're confused and delusional.

again, it is not the job of the FBI to carry out your winger agenda.

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

It's written right in the law you dumbass:

Section b: "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason..."

Section d: "...willfully communicates..."

Now, the section you're interested in is section f, and it isn't negligence, it is GROSS negligence. Guess who get's to determine gross negligence? And it isn't you. That's right. It is the investigating agency. Guess what? That agency decided that while careless, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

So, again, we're back to No. Crime. No. law. Broken.

You conveniently edited out the word 'or' at the end of each section... dumbass.

It was unnecessary, as her actions fit none of the criteria, as per the Fucking Director of the Fucking F. B. I.!!!!!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[jillian]

you don't decide what the rule of law is.

again, you heard the criterial. your delusions do not mean she committed any act for which she should have been indicted.... no matter how desperate you are

Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required to be in violation of the law.
It specifically states in 793 that negligence is enough to be guilty.

intent is always required unless the act is one of"strict liability". this falls under the category of no harm, no foul.

you sound silly.

Giving other countries access to our secrets is no harm no foul? Proof they had access is that wikileaks link I already posted.

she did not "give other countries access to our secrets". this is what makes you sound desperate and pathetic and this is why you keep getting lectured on the issue of intent.

but feel free to prove where she disseminated secrets. maintaining her emails like colin powell did, whether or not improvident, is not a crime.

again, you sound absurd.

ok, WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
Feel better now?

i didn't need to feel better. you do.

you still sound pathetic and hysterical. *shrug*

 

[Brynmr]

It was unnecessary, as her actions fit none of the criteria, as per the Fucking Director of the Fucking F. B. I.!!!!!

Ooohhh.... backpedaling now are we? LOL

 

[Czernobog]

Not incorrect. The claim you made in post 793 is incorrect. When a law is violated a crime has been committed. In order to commit a crime, intent is necessary. No intent. No crime. no crime. No law violated. You can try to redefine how our justice system works if you like. But you will still be wrong.

It wasn't post 793. and intent isn't necessary to being guilty of committing the crime. Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required.

what crime?

no crime was committed.

you're confused and delusional.

again, it is not the job of the FBI to carry out your winger agenda.

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

It's written right in the law you dumbass:

Section b: "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason..."

Section d: "...willfully communicates..."

Now, the section you're interested in is section f, and it isn't negligence, it is GROSS negligence. Guess who get's to determine gross negligence? And it isn't you. That's right. It is the investigating agency. Guess what? That agency decided that while careless, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

So, again, we're back to No. Crime. No. law. Broken.

It is GROSS negligence.

Not according to the only authority that matters, and that authority isn't you. So your opinion is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, No. Crime. Was. Committed.

 

[Czernobog]

It was unnecessary, as her actions fit none of the criteria, as per the Fucking Director of the Fucking F. B. I.!!!!!

Ooohhh.... backpedaling now are we? LOL

Backpedaling what? Did the FBI determine that her actions fell under any of the criteria for calling her actions a crime? No. So, she committed no crime. No law was violated. Thank you cor playing. Feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[Slyhunter]

It wasn't post 793. and intent isn't necessary to being guilty of committing the crime. Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required.

what crime?

no crime was committed.

you're confused and delusional.

again, it is not the job of the FBI to carry out your winger agenda.

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

It's written right in the law you dumbass:

Section b: "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason..."

Section d: "...willfully communicates..."

Now, the section you're interested in is section f, and it isn't negligence, it is GROSS negligence. Guess who get's to determine gross negligence? And it isn't you. That's right. It is the investigating agency. Guess what? That agency decided that while careless, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

So, again, we're back to No. Crime. No. law. Broken.

You conveniently edited out the word 'or' at the end of each section... dumbass.

It was unnecessary, as her actions fit none of the criteria, as per the Fucking Director of the Fucking F. B. I.!!!!!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Fucking ex-director of the FBI once Trump wins the White House Presidency.

 

[Slyhunter]

Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required to be in violation of the law.
It specifically states in 793 that negligence is enough to be guilty.

intent is always required unless the act is one of"strict liability". this falls under the category of no harm, no foul.

you sound silly.

Giving other countries access to our secrets is no harm no foul? Proof they had access is that wikileaks link I already posted.

she did not "give other countries access to our secrets". this is what makes you sound desperate and pathetic and this is why you keep getting lectured on the issue of intent.

but feel free to prove where she disseminated secrets. maintaining her emails like colin powell did, whether or not improvident, is not a crime.

again, you sound absurd.

ok, WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
Feel better now?

i didn't need to feel better. you do.

you still sound pathetic and hysterical. *shrug*

You wanted proof somebody hacked Hillary's email. I provided proof. Now what do you say?

 

[Sundance508]

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

you don't decide what the rule of law is.

again, you heard the criterial. your delusions do not mean she committed any act for which she should have been indicted.... no matter how desperate you are

Show me where in 793 that it says intent is required to be in violation of the law.
It specifically states in 793 that negligence is enough to be guilty.

intent is always required unless the act is one of"strict liability". this falls under the category of no harm, no foul.

you sound silly.

Giving other countries access to our secrets is no harm no foul? Proof they had access is that wikileaks link I already posted.

she did not "give other countries access to our secrets". this is what makes you sound desperate and pathetic and this is why you keep getting lectured on the issue of intent.

but feel free to prove where she disseminated secrets. maintaining her emails like colin powell did, whether or not improvident, is not a crime.

again, you sound absurd.

 

[Slyhunter]

Yes she did. WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

 

[Czernobog]

what crime?

no crime was committed.

you're confused and delusional.

again, it is not the job of the FBI to carry out your winger agenda.

What part of Rule of Law do you not understand. She violated 793 which has already been posted. Intent is not necessary to be guilty. She is guilty. It's not my fault the FBI isn't doing their jobs.

The law itself says if found negligent you are guilty. Read 793.

It's written right in the law you dumbass:

Section b: "Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason..."

Section d: "...willfully communicates..."

Now, the section you're interested in is section f, and it isn't negligence, it is GROSS negligence. Guess who get's to determine gross negligence? And it isn't you. That's right. It is the investigating agency. Guess what? That agency decided that while careless, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence.

So, again, we're back to No. Crime. No. law. Broken.

You conveniently edited out the word 'or' at the end of each section... dumbass.

It was unnecessary, as her actions fit none of the criteria, as per the Fucking Director of the Fucking F. B. I.!!!!!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Fucking ex-director of the FBI once Trump wins the White House Presidency.

That's adorable. You say that like you actually believe that's going to happen.

You're too precious. Don't ever change.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Slyhunter]

Gross Negligence definition is someone who is careless in the extreme. Hillary us guilty as hell.

 

[Slyhunter]

Holy shit, she can still lose her security clearance along with everyone who knew she was violating security.

 

[Czernobog]

Gross Negligence definition is someone who is careless in the extreme. Hillary us guilty as hell.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. That, and a buck'll get you a cup of coffee. What it doesn't do is change the fact that she was exonerated of any crimes.

 

[Czernobog]

Holy shit, she can still lose her security clearance along with everyone who knew she was violating security.

Sure. You go with that, if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Brynmr]

No law was violated.

Waving the magic wand now are we? "NO LAW WAS VIOLATED". Thus Spake Zarathustra LOL

U.S. C 793 was violated, moron. As for Comey, he violated his own reputation.

 

[Brynmr]

Sure. You go with that, if it helps you sleep at night.

Nasty nasty nasty little Czernobog. Did your mommy not love you enough? Is this why you're so nasty, little man?

 

[Slyhunter]

Gross Negligence definition is someone who is careless in the extreme. Hillary us guilty as hell.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. That, and a buck'll get you a cup of coffee. What it doesn't do is change the fact that she was exonerated of any crimes.

She was not "exonerated". Show me the quote where that happened.