Hillary interviewed today for 3 and half hours by the FBI

[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.

It also proves she's guilty of contempt of Congress for lying to them. Compare her statements to what the FBI discovered to catch her lies. Oh wait you don't have to just watch Hannity's rerun he spelled them out.

 

[Brynmr]

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.

Exonerated by a fool and a coward. Of course those would be YOU'RE standards.

 

[Brynmr]

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

By golly, you're right. She wasn't.

ex·on·er·ate
iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated

1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

 

[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.

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

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated. Look, I understand that you wanted her indicted. I'm sorry that the agency responsible for investigating her disagreed with your assessment. Bit continuing to insist you we're right, when the investigating agency decided you we're wrong just make a you look pathetic, and irrational.

Give it up. Move on.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated. Look, I understand that you wanted her indicted. I'm sorry that the agency responsible for investigating her disagreed with your assessment. Bit continuing to insist you we're right, when the investigating agency decided you we're wrong just make a you look pathetic, and irrational.

Give it up. Move on.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No they did not say they determined that she did not commit any crime. He said they determined no prosecutor would prosecute. It's not the same thing.

 

[yiostheoy]

You can now let this thread finally die.

 

[Brynmr]

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated.

Oopies... no it isn't. See my definition, Mr Small-Man-Who-Insults.

 

[Brynmr]

Give it up. Move on.

Hey, that's what that Hillary bitch says all the time.

 

[Czernobog]

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated.

Oopies... no it isn't. See my definition, Mr Small-Man-Who-Insults.

You know what? You're right. I think Trump should hold onto this right up to November. I think this should be his main campaign issue - that Hillary broke the law, and the FBI conspired to let her off.

I can't wait to see how that works out for you guys.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Brynmr]

Oopies... no it isn't. See my definition, Mr Small-Man-Who-Insults.

You know what? You're right.

I know.

 

[Slyhunter]

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated.

Oopies... no it isn't. See my definition, Mr Small-Man-Who-Insults.

You know what? You're right. I think Trump should hold onto this right up to November. I think this should be his main campaign issue - that Hillary broke the law, and the FBI conspired to let her off.

I can't wait to see how that works out for you guys.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

FBI can still recommend taking her Security Clearance away.

 

[Slyhunter]

She made 141 million last year as Secretary of State. I didn't know they paid Government Employees that much.

 

[Czernobog]

She was determined not to have committed any crimes. That is the very definition of exonerated.

Oopies... no it isn't. See my definition, Mr Small-Man-Who-Insults.

You know what? You're right. I think Trump should hold onto this right up to November. I think this should be his main campaign issue - that Hillary broke the law, and the FBI conspired to let her off.

I can't wait to see how that works out for you guys.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

FBI can still recommend taking her Security Clearance away.

Yeah, like they were surely going to indict her, right? Like I said, you guys should hold onto this right up until election day. I'm sure this will be a real winner for you guys in the general. I'm sure it'll sway a lot of independents over to Trump...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Brynmr]

'Intent' could certainly have been shown but intent wasn't needed to prosecute. Just gross negligence and there was plenty of that. Clinton violated the Espionage Act over a hundred times. Comey clearly wanted to protect Clinton (a future position in her cabinet? who knows) because after giving every reason to prosecute, he does an about face and says he won't advise the DOJ to prosecute. What a putz. Comey the liar. Comey the coward. He folds like a cheap deck of cards before the might of the political elite. It fools no one but fools.

 

[Brynmr]

I look forward to all the reasonable prosecutors stepping forward to make the case why it is totally reasonable to prosecute this crooked bitch, Hillary Clinton.

 

[Brynmr]

Check the end of Comey's address. He clearly says that this letting Clinton off the hook does not constitute a precedent. If you're Joe Smith you may well be prosecuted. He is giving special treatment to Clinton. This guy is beneath contempt.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Because you say so? Sorry. Reality doesn't work that way. It wasn't a magic wand that says Hillary violated no laws. It was the official investigating agency that said so. And guess what? They actually do have the authority to make that determination. You don't. So, you can keep calling her a criminal, and keep insisting that she violated USC 793 to your beady little heart's desire, it doesn't matter. Because the agency who has the authority to make that determination has told you, and yours to piss up a rope, no law was violated.

But, you know what? I think you guys, and Trump should run on this point right up until election day. I'm sure it'll be, at least, as effective as Bill Ayers, and "Obama is a socialist", and "Obama is not an American citizen" in swaying independents, and swing voters. So, by all means. Stick to your guns. Talk about Hillary's violation of a law that the FBI said she didn't violate right up to election day. Hit her with that claim at every debate.

Then, after November, let us know how that worked out for ya.

 

[Sundance508]

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. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. GET FREE EXCLUSIVE NR CONTENT In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review